Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 Monte US 5,062,468 Nov. 5, 1991
2
3 Monte US 5,062,469 Nov. 5, 1991
4
5 With respect to the first rejection, the Examiner’s position is that
6 although Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469 does not describe a grain selector
7 having the configuration (a helix, a three-dimensional bend, a staircase, or
8 zigzag) recited in the claims, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
9 have found it obvious to use a helical grain selector as shown in Burd in
10 either Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469 because such helical grain selectors have
11 conventionally been used in the art. (Answer 3.) Conversely, in the second
12 rejection, the Examiner determined that although Burd differs from the
13 claimed system in that it does not describe a seed crystal for initiating
14 epitaxial growth, the teachings of Monte ‘468 and Monte ‘469 would have
15 led one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Burd’s system with a seed
16 crystal “to ensure only single crystal is grown in the mold cavity and thereby
17 reduce the scrap rate.” (Answer 3-4.) In the third rejection, the Examiner
18 found that although Giamei does not describe a grain selector support, the
19 teachings of Monte ‘468, Monte ‘469, and, in particular, Burd would have
20 led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Giamei’s system to include a
21 grain selector support that would “assume the load imposed on the crystal
22 selector...” (Answer 4.)
23 Applicants, on the other hand, contend that Monte ‘468 and Monte
24 ‘469 limit the configuration of the crystal (grain) selector to “simple single
25 two-dimensional bends” and therefore teach away from “more complex
26 grain selector configurations” such as “a helix, a three-dimensional bend, a
27 staircase, and a zigzag.” (Appeal Br. 7-8 and 9-10.) Applicants further
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013