Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
the topological structure’s ability to control the nanostructures’ length would
still be fully met. The claim language simply does not preclude controlling
the length of the united nanostructures (i.e., the resulting union of
oppositely-extending nanostructures that meet within the aperture). That is,
even if one nanostructure is longer than the other, the length of the united
nanostructures is nonetheless dictated by the size of the aperture as shown in
Figures 6A-7D. Therefore, Shin fully meets claim 1 for this additional
reason.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1. Likewise, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 which fall with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
3. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the individual nanotubes that
comprise a united nanotube do not extend the entire distance across the
aperture, the claim does not preclude the length of the united nanostructures
is nonetheless dictated by the size of the aperture as noted above.
Furthermore, at least the exposed catalyst surface from which the nanotubes
originate physically contacts the aperture sidewall – an aperture structure
which likewise influences, at least in part, the orientation of the nanotubes as
indicated previously.
Since claim 3 is fully met by Shin, we will therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of that claim and claim 4 which falls with claim 3.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013