Appeal 2007-3417
Application 10/351,739
and small diameter of the neck, however, the dislocations
terminate at the exterior surface of the neck such that the main
body of the crystal is dislocation-free (DF).
(Aydelott, col. 1, ll. 30-54). This portion of Aydelott establishes that there
was a known problem with dislocation defects. Aydelott provides guidance
on how to solve the problem: Grow a neck according to the Dash method so
as to terminate the dislocations prior to the propagation of the dislocations
into the main body of the crystal. Aydelott exemplifies a Dash seed neck of
between 30 mm and 200 mm in length, a range that overlaps Appellants’
claimed range. That the length and diameter are recognized as having an
effect on dislocation termination is evident from Aydelott. Optimization of
a variable which is recognized in the prior art as a result effective variable
would ordinarily be within the skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, this claim requires the dash seed have a
diameter of at most 5 mm at its narrowest point. Aydelott exemplifies a
diameter of 2-4 mm, a range wholly within the claimed range. When the
claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion
is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. In re Peterson, 315
F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellants point to their statement in the Specification that “[a]
process for producing a <113> orientation silicon single crystal by using the
Czochralski method does not form part of the prior art.” (Br. 4 quoting
Specification 3:1-3 (emphasis added)). However, this conclusory assertion
amounts essentially to a mere pleading. A mere pleading unsupported by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013