Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455
178, and 179 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Nebashi. Claims 157, 158, 163, 164, 172, 173, 180, and 181 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Donges. Claims 163, 164, 175,
180, and 181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Nebashi.
I. The Rejections over Donges
The Examiner finds that Donges describes a method for forming a
pattern on a substrate that comprises disposing a pattern of liquid on a
substrate through the use of a template (Answer 3-6).
Appellants contend that the claimed invention is directed to forming a
patterned layer of material on a substrate that requires the superimposition of
a template on a precursor liquid. Appellants contend that Donges is
unrelated to the present invention and that Donges fails to teach or suggest a
template of any kind (Br. 8).
The issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 150-156, 159-162, 165-171, 174, 175,
178, and 179 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether the
Examiner has established a reasonable belief that the method described by
Donges produces a patterned layer of material on a substrate that requires
the superimposition of a template on a precursor liquid, and whether the
Appellant has adequately rebutted the Examiner’s position by showing that
the patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the process of
Donges does not comprise a device that functions as a template which is
superimposed on a precursor liquid. Specifically, the issue is: Does the
patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the process of Donges
comprise a material that is capable of functioning as a template which is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013