Appeal No. 2006-1949
Application 10/193,823
We do not agree with the examiner’s views that the claimed trenches, post and
capping layer, for example, are the result of produce-by-process limitations. There are
no process limitations recited in independent claim 1 on appeal which is clearly an
apparatus or article of manufacture claim. To the extent the examiner has effectively
read out limitations relating to these noted features, the examiner’s approach to allege
anticipation is misplaced.
Likewise, to the extent that there is any merit to the examiner’s inherency
arguments, the reference plainly teaches and therefore the disputed features would
have been necessarily inherent to the artisan. The claimed post capping layer and
trench, for example, are structural elements as recited that may be derived by any
process.
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to processes of forming gallium nitride
(GaN) layers on silicon carbide (SiC) substrates. The brief description of the drawings
at page 5 of the specification as filed indicates that figures 1 through 6 are cross-
sectional views of these structures during intermediate fabrication steps. In fact the
nature of the subject matter actually recited in independent claim 1 on appeal appears
to be an intermediary product such as shown in any of figures 2 through 4 before the
lateral growth from the sidewalls of the posts has continued to the point of coalescing
to thereby form a continuous gallium nitride semiconductive layer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007