Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
We find Maracas would have disclosed in FIG. 2 a stamp with support
structure 102 and flexible layer 104. The flexible layer 104 includes
stamping face 105 having contact surfaces 108 separated by recessed
surfaces 107 which define depressions 106, the contact surfaces and recesses
of uniform width and depth as seen from the patterned surface 113 formed
by etched plate 112 in FIG. 3 (Maracas col. 3, ll. 5-28, and col. 3, l. 53, to
col. 4, l. 20). “[T]he stamping pattern has micron features and/or sub-micron
features” which can be less than one micrometer (id. col. 3, ll. 21-25).
Maracas discloses that the stamp with uniform features illustrated in FIG. 2
achieves “[u]niform pattern transfer . . . when . . . surfaces 108 makes [sic]
undistorted physical contact with the surface of the substrate” resulting in
the transfer of an “undistorted pattern” (id. col. 3, ll. 29-35).
On this record, we agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not
adduced either scientific explanation or evidence establishing that, prima
facie, one of ordinary skilled in this art would have been led by Whitesides
alone or by this reference combined with Biebuyck, Hawkins, and Maracas
as applied to modify the stamps used in the microprinting method disclosed
by Whitesides to arrive at the claimed stamps encompassed by claims 1 and
3. As Appellant contends, the evidence in Whitesides points to a uniform
pattern of features in the stamping surfaces in order to control the formation
of uniform regions of self-assembled monolayer of molecular species by
contacting the stamp or controlled deformation of the stamp in the disclosed
methods. There is no evidence in Whitesides that the features reflected in
stamping surfaces and indentations of the stamps illustrated in the figures
thereof do or can differ and that a stamp with non-uniform width and depth
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013