Appeal No. 2006-1545
Application 10/254,326
rejection, and to the brief (pages referred to as "Br__") and
reply brief (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
DISCUSSION
The rejection and arguments based on the rejection of Zhang
and Shimogaki are almost identical to those in the previous Board
decision in Ex parte Lee, Appeal No. 2005-0723, Application
10/254,123, entered August 30, 2005. We incorporate the
reasoning of that decision by reference. We found in that
opinion that Shimogaki discloses a diamond lone particle grown in
contact with an N-type silicon substrate to form a heterojunction
diode, which teaches that the diode is formed of two single-
crystal materials. We agreed with appellant that one skilled in
the art would not have been motivated to substitute the diode
formed of single crystals in Shimogaki for the diode formed of
polycrystalline or amorphous semiconductors in Zhang because the
differences in behavior, properties, compatibility, and
manufacturing techniques argue against the successful
combination. That is, the examiner has picked a diode
implementation in Shimogaki that is not capable of being
physically combined with or substituted into Zhang, based on the
fact that it is a heterojunction diode as needed in the claims.
This evidences a lack of motivation to combine. The claims do
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007