Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
contends Whitesides does “not expressly disclose recesses of different
apertures” but concludes “the method of manufacturing a stamp of different
apertures would be to use masking of different apertures” (id.). The
Examiner contends Whitesides does not disclose using an unmolding agent”
and Biebuyck discloses the unmolding agent perfluorinated silane (id. 5-6,
citing Biebuyck FIGs. 2A-2D and col. 4, ll. 7-9). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have a
stamp with varying recesses to micro print features of varying dimensions”
(id. 6).
Appellant contends that Whitesides does not disclose “making a
replica of the patterned mold surface in the first body with a patterned
surface, wherein the replica contains structures of different sizes” as
specified in claim 6 (Br. 5). In this respect, Appellant contends the
Examiner has not presented evidence “that different sized apertures may be
achieved merely by masking” (id.). Appellant contends as Biebuyck only
indicates “the separating agent is applied to master[, that is, mold,] substrate
20, this teaching cannot correspond to the limitations of both” claim 11,
wherein the unmolding agent is applied to the surface of the mold, and claim
12, wherein the unmolding agent is applied to the surface of the first body in
which the mold surface is replicated (id. 6). Appellant extends these
arguments to claim 14 (id. 8).
The Examiner responds the rejection of these claims “relies on the fact
that different sized apertures could be obtained by using mask with different
apertures” and “does not require larger depth for larger aperture” (Answer
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013