Appeal No. 2000-1103
Application No. 08/576,367
which the mold is formed. (Answer, pp. 5-6). The Examiner has found that Wuensch
discloses a patterned polymer layer that corresponds to Appellants’ solid body. (Answer, p.
5). The polymer layer is applied to the metal microstructured mold and irradiation to such
an extent that the irradiated polymer can be removed, giving a relief-like polymer structure
on the electroconductive substrate. (Col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 5). Accordingly, we determine
that the Examiner has met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
unpatentability under sections 102/103. Therefore, the burden has been shifted to
Appellants to show that the claimed product differs substantially from the product disclosed
by Wuensch. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Appellants
have not submitted any evidence that the product of Wuensch is substantially different than
the claimed product. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 31 is affirmed.
Claim 32 is also is written in product-by-process format. The resultant product of
claim 32 is a metallic microstructured element which has a structure that is complementary
to the first microstructure. The claimed invention is produced by the solidification of a
polymer layer on the microstructured mold. Removing a portion of the solid layer to expose
the surface of the microstructured mold and the cavity filled with solidified flowable
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007