Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
a first body, and making a replica of the patterned mold surface in the first
body with a patterned surface, wherein the replica contains structures of
different sizes.” We interpret this language to encompass any difference in
the size of the structures of the replica. The plain language of dependent
claim 11 specifies the unmolding agent is applied to the surface of the mold,
and of dependent claim 12 specifies the unmolding agent is applied to the
surface of the first body.
We have considered Whitesides’ disclosure of the process of forming
stamp 74 by anisotropically etching mold 60 and forming the stamp thereon
as illustrated in FIGs. 9a-f, and of an atomic force microscope image of
stamp 74 in FIG. 10 (see above pp. 9-10). We find here that Whitesides
discloses the “pattern etched into article 60 . . . corresponds approximately to
a pattern of gaps between closely-spaced regions of self-assembled
monolayer 27 (FIG. 9a)” (Whitesides col. 14, ll. 50-56, and col. 15,
ll. 3-19). Whitesides discloses a hardenable fluid is applied to surface 62 of
article or mold 60 is hardened into article or stamp 74 (id. col. 14, ll. 56-66).
The image in FIG. 10 shows that the projections 77 on stamping surface 81
of stamp 71 are not precisely of equal dimensions.
We find Biebuyck would have disclosed the surface of master or mold
substrate prepared by conventional lithography methods is treated with
separating agent perfluorinated silane to which is applied a layer of, for
example, a pre-polymer of poly(dimethylsiloxane) which is cured to form
the features of the stamp (Biebuyck, e.g., col. 2, ll. 3-14, col. 3, ll. 44-47, col.
4, ll. 2-12, FIGS, 1A-E and 2A-D).
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013