Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
Claim 10
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. As we
indicated previously, the aperture structure, including the sidewalls, forms
part of the growth path that influences, at least in part, the orientation of the
nanotubes. We add that, contrary to Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 9),
defining the location of the exposed catalyst likewise influences, at least in
part, the relative position of the resulting nanostructures and therefore their
orientation. The claim is fully met by Shin and the Examiner’s rejection is
therefore sustained.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is also fully met by Shin. Nothing in the claim precludes the
“multiple group paths” to be defined by different apertures respectively.
That is, a first group path would be defined in an aperture in a first substrate
region, and a second group path would be defined in another aperture in a
second substrate region. Moreover, the claim does not preclude the multiple
diverse arrays of nanostructures which extend in multiple directions as
shown in Figures 7A-9. Even if each aperture contained nanostructures
extending only in two directions (e.g., Fig. 7A, 7B, etc.), the respective
group paths would extend in different directions as claimed. The claim is
fully met and the rejection therefore sustained.
Claims 12-14, 25-29, 39, and 40
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-14, 25-29,
39, and 40. Our previous discussion regarding the topological structure in
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013