Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
The following rejections are before us for review in this
appeal:
(1) claims 1-11, 25-27, 29-31 and 39-40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa
(Answer, page 3);
(2) claims 12-16 and 18-22 stand rejected under section
103(a) as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa and
Ogasawara (Answer, page 5);
(3) claims 17 and 23-24 stand rejected under section 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa, Ogasawara, and
Grunthaner (Answer, page 7); and
(4) claims 32-33 stand rejected under section 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa, Ogasawara,
Grunthaner, and Kubiak (Answer, page 8).
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief and the
examiner’s Answer, we reverse all of the rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and
for those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Pessa discloses a method of
depositing a GaAs film on the surface of a Si or GaAs substrate,
where an effusion cell 3 contains Ga atoms and an effusion cell 4
contains As4 molecules (Answer, page 3). The examiner further
finds that Pessa teaches opening a shutter 6 in front of the As
cell allowing a vapor beam of As4 molecules to act on the surface
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007