Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
Claim 9
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. As shown in
Fig. 3D and described in ¶ 0051, Shin forms a number of apertures
(topological structures) in the substrate – a formation process that fully
meets “patterning” the substrate’s surface giving the term “patterning” its
broadest reasonable interpretation. Although Appellants argue that layer 14
appears to be deposited on substrate 10 rather than patterned (Br. 13; Reply
Br. 8), nothing in the claim precludes “patterning” the substrate’s surface by
forming apertures therein.
In addition, we find nothing in the claim that precludes the
Examiner’s interpretation of multiple topological structures such as those
shown in Fig. 5B comprising (1) the vertical sidewalls of an aperture, and
(2) the “bottom” substrate layer 10. These distinct structures, at least
generally, define a “growth path” for the nanostructures (i.e., at least the
aperture sidewalls, the area between the aperture sidewalls, and above the
bottom substrate layer). For this reason alone, Shin anticipates claim 9.
Furthermore, claim 9 is anticipated under an alternative interpretation
of Shin. Since each of Shin’s multiple apertures can be considered a
“topological structure,” two such apertures each define a “grow path” at
least within each respective aperture. In short, the claim does not preclude
independent and distinct grow paths within two respective apertures. Claim
9 is therefore fully met by Shin for this additional reason. The Examiner’s
rejection is therefore sustained.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013