Ex Parte Rabolt et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-0619                                                                                
                Application 10/178,008                                                                          

                I.   APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER                                                                    
                       The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method of forming an                       
                elastomeric printing stamp using injection-molded plastic stamp masters.                        
                This method is said to be useful for printing high resolution structures in                     
                many modern devices, including electronic circuits.  (See the Specification                     
                4-5).  Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative                     
                claim 1, which is reproduced below:                                                             
                       1. A method to form an elastomeric printing stamp comprising:                            
                       (a) providing an injection-molding plastic stamp master, wherein the                     
                stamp master has a pattern and said pattern has at least one feature below                      
                100 [μ]m in size;                                                                               
                       (b) casting an elastomeric printing stamp using the stamp master by                      
                contacting an elastomer to the stamp master; and                                                
                       (c) curing the elastomeric printing stamp.                                               
                II.  PRIOR ART                                                                                  
                       As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the                        
                Examiner has relied upon the following references:                                              
                Kumar   US 5,512,131   Apr. 30, 1996                                                            
                Hawker   US 6,413,587 B1   Jul. 2, 2002                                                         
                Shepard   US 6,586,327 B2   Jul. 1, 2003                                                        

                III.  REJECTIONS                                                                                
                       The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:                               
                1)  Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the                            
                combined disclosures of Kumar and Shepard; and                                                  
                2) Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the                             
                combined disclosures of Kumar, Shepard, and Hawker.                                             


                                                       2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013