Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 Arguments Regarding Dependent Claims (6, 7), (30, 38), and (39,41).
2 The Appellants have argued the remaining claims in pairs as indicated
3 by the parentheses.
4 (IB) Claims 6 and 7
5 The Appellants urge that Claim 6, which recites a resistivity of “less
6 than 0.025 ohm-cm,” and Claim 7, which recite an electrical resistivity “less
7 than 0.05 ohm-cm,” are patentable because Degner and Murai do not
8 recognize the unexpected advantages provided by the electrode. (Br., p. 18,
9 ll. 13-18).
10 As this argument is also premised on the Appellants’ evidence of
11 unexpected results, we are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
12 indicated above.
13 (IC) Claims 30 and 38
14 The Appellants urge that the combination of Degner and Murai does
15 not suggest replacing Degner’s electrode with Murai’s doped electrode, or
16 one with a thickness of about 0.375 inch to 0.5 inch and an electrical
17 resistivity of less than about 0.1 ohm-cm as required by claim 30. (Br., p. 19,
18 ll. 12-15). No specific argument is directed to claim 38.
19 We disagree. As discussed above, Degner’s plate can be from 0.1 to 2
20 cm thick (0.039 inch to 0.787 inch) (col. 4, ll. 32-33) which substantially
21 overlaps the claimed range of about 0.375 to about 0.5 inches. Further, the
22 Examiner relied upon Murai as teaching a suitably resistive electrode
23 (Answer, p. 5, ll. 1-3) in that Murai teaches that the “specific resistance of
24 the silicon single crystal, in order to be used as electrode (2) [i]s, normally
25 0.1Ω-cm or less” (Translation, p. 5, ll. 8-10). The two references describe
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013