Appeal 2007-0619
Application 10/178,008
Given the above teachings, we concur with the Examiner that Kumar
and Shepard as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ master stamps formed by various known techniques, including
those formed by injection molding, in Kumar’s method with a reasonable
expectation of successfully providing nanometer to micron features in
microelectronic devices. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 827, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA
1968). This is especially true in this case since the injection molding
technique is taught to be more economical than the lithography technique for
forming a pattern, such as the lithography technique for forming the mold
surface exemplified in Kumar (see Shepard, col. 1, ll. 15-40). In re
Thompson, 549 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976); In re
Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976).
Accordingly, for the fact findings set forth in the Answer and above,
we determine that the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner,
on balance, outweighs the evidence of unobviousness proffered by the
Appellants. Hence, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
VIII. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013