Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
orientation of nanostructure 20. First, Appellants contend that Shin is
“misleading” in that it assumes that nanotubes grow straight and in a desired
direction, yet the reference fails to explain how to achieve such growth.
According to Appellants, carbon nanotubes generally do not grow in a
predetermined direction or in a straight line, but rather in a random direction
and often curve during growth (Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3-4).
Second, Appellants contend that even if other factors (e.g., electric or
magnetic fields) are present in Shin to influence the direction of nanotube
growth, the aperture 16 (i.e., the “topological structure”) would not control
the orientation of the nanotubes. In fact, Appellant argues, without some
other force present, the nanotubes may grow in any orientation within the
aperture (Br. 10; Reply Br. 5).
Appellants also argue that not only does Shin’s aperture 16 fail to
control the nanostructures’ orientation, the aperture likewise fails to control
the nanostructures’ length as claimed. In this regard, Appellants emphasize
that a nanostructure’s length can vary greatly depending on the direction at
which it grows in the aperture (Id.). Appellants add that the length of a
nanotube is also dependent on its growth rate. Therefore, Appellants
contend, if one of the two nanotubes that meet each other within aperture 16
grew faster than the other nanotube, the faster-growing nanotube would be
longer (Br. 10; Reply Br. 6).
Appellants further contend that Shin is not enabling for the elements
in claim 1. According to Appellants, absent some “directed growth”
mechanism, Shin’s oriented growth ostensibly cannot be produced without
undue experimentation (Br. 11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013