Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
We find in the combined teachings of Whitesides and Biebuyck
evidence supporting the Examiner’s position. We determine the stamp or
replica 74 prepared by the methods of Whitesides can have “structures of
different sizes” as required by claim 6 as seen from the image in FIG. 10.
We further determine that Biebuyck shows the application of the
perfluorinated silane to the surface of the mold which satisfies the limitation
of claim 11. We are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have applied the unmolding agent to the surface of moldable material
applied to the surface of the mold as this step constitutes the only other
option for inserting the unmolding agent between the mold and the moldable
material.
Therefore, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Whitesides and Biebuyck and of Whitesides,
Biebuyck, and Choquette with Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness, and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 6 and 11 through 14 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claim 7, dependent on claim 6, and the fourth ground
of rejection, the Examiner contends Whitesides does not disclose a replica is
made of the patterned surface of the first body or stamp in a second body as
claimed (Answer 6). The Examiner contends Xia shows at “page 562-4.1A”
the “method of making [sic] replica of a rigid mold” (id.). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to make “a replica of stamp body of
claim 6 . . . so as to be able to pattern with the same polarity as the original
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013