Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
8).3 With respect to claims 11 and 12, the Examiner contends “[s]ince
unmolding (separating) agent helps to separate the mold from the first body
it could obviously [sic] applied to any of the separating surfaces” (id.).
Appellant replies “while [claim 6] may not require ‘larger depth for larger
aperture,’ it does require making a replica having ‘structures of different
sizes,’ to which the Examiner has not presented any corresponding
evidence” (Reply Br. 5). Appellant contends, with respect to claims 11 and
12, Biebuyck applies the separating agent only to master or mold substrate
20 and thus, ‘this teaching cannot correspond to the limitations of both
claims 11 and 12” (id. 6).
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in concluding it would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at
the claimed method encompassed by claims 6, 11, 12, and 14 from the
combined teachings of Whitesides and Biebuyck.4
The plain language of independent claim 6 encompasses a method of
manufacturing a stamp comprising at least the steps of anisotropically
etching a mold to form a pattern therein having first and second recesses
with different apertures, disposing an unmolded agent between the mold and
3 The Examiner’s reliance on Hawkins with respect to these grounds of
rejection is misplaced as this reference is not included in the statement of
these grounds of rejections. Thus, we will not consider Hawkins here. See
In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA
1970); cf. Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1304-05 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993).
4 Appellant does not specifically contest the combination of Whitesides,
Biebuyck, and Choquette to claim 14 (see above p. 14), and accordingly, we
do not further consider claim 14 and the applied combination.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013