Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
The Examiner has found that Kikuchi discloses a process
corresponding to the process of representative claim 1 except for describing
that the spherical particles serving as an etch mask have a nanoparticle size
and that the etching step of the layer/substrate beneath the etch mask
involves directional etching using reactive ion etching. According to the
Examiner, Deckman discloses nanoparticle size masks and directional
etching, including the use of a reactive ion etching technique; that is,
chemical etching using reactive atoms or radicals (Answer 5 and 6).
The Examiner has essentially determined that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ such nanoparticles as
the etch mask in Kikuchi and to use reactive ion etching during the etching
of Kikuchi for forming a pillar underneath each particle etch mask as taught
by Deckman to be known techniques for masking using particle masks and
for etching using reactive ions to obtain the expected results associated
therewith (id).
Appellants contend that there is no suggestion for combining the
references and that, even if combined, the combined teachings of the applied
references do not teach or suggest a method for the formation of one or more
nanopores for aligning at least one molecule therein. Moreover, Appellants
contend that Deckman does not disclose the reactive ion etching, one of the
claim features on which Deckman is relied on for by the Examiner.
Thus, the principal issues in this appeal concerning the propriety of
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 are: Have Appellants
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1 by the assertion of (1) a lack of combinability of
Kikuchi and Deckman, or, even if combinable, (2) by alleging the failure of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013