Appeal No. 2000-1103
Application No. 08/576,367
material. Applying a layer of conductive material to and covering the exposed surface of the
mold and filled cavity. Separating the conductive layer and solidified flowable material in
the cavity from the mold to provide a first microstructure which has a shape complementary
to the mold. A metal layer is electrodeposited on the first microstructure and subsequently
separated therefrom. The result is a metallic microstructured element which has a shape
complementary to the first microstructure.
The Examiner states “the recited metal microstructural element is not seen as
differing from the metal microstructured mold insert of Wuensch.” (Answer, p. 13).
The Examiner’s conclusory statement fails to provide a factual basis to support a
legal conclusion of obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1
(1966). The Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
unpatentability under section 103. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 32
is reversed.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 18 to 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed and the rejections of claims 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007