Appeal 2007-2045
Application 10/204,670
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Hiura US 5,698,175 Dec. 16, 1997
Shih US 6,346,303 B1 Feb. 12, 2002
A. G. Rinzler, Unraveling Nanotubes: Field Emission from an Atomic Wire,
269 Science 1550-155 (1995)
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-5, 40-48, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shih in view of Rinzler with or without Hiura.
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that nanotubes produced by Shih’s process
would inherently possess the features recited in Appellants’ independent
claims with the exception of modified end faces. The Examiner further
contends that it would have been obvious to have modified the end faces of
Shih’s nanotubes in view of Rinzler, with or without Hiura to achieve the
claimed features. Appellants contend that the Examiner has not provided a
sufficient factual basis to support a prima facie showing of obviousness.
The issue for us to decide is: Are the Examiner’s findings sufficient to
establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the applied prior art in the manner claimed within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative as to claims 1-4 and 40-45 and in the negative as to claims 5, 46-
48, and 54.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013