Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
the references to teach the claimed nanopore(s) and/or to suggest reactive
ion etching as an obvious etching option?
We answer these questions in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 23
grouped together therewith.
At the outset, we note that representative claim 1 is not drawn to a
molecular electronic device. Likewise, representative claim 1 is not limited
to a method for making a molecular electronic device. Rather, appealed
claim 1 is directed to a method for forming a nanopore using directional
etching with an etch mask made of at least one nanoparticle. Appellants
describe commercial particles available in sizes of from about 2 nm to 250
nm as being suitable for use as an etch mask in a best mode of their process
(Specification 4). Thus, the claimed method of forming nanopores would
have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being inclusive of
forming pores up to at least about 250 nm in cross-section.
The Examiner has correctly found that Kikuchi discloses a method for
forming micropores in an insulating layer (20/64) using microspheres as
masks for etching (Answer 3-5; Kikuchi; Fig. 1, Fig. 6A- Fig. 10B and col.
4, l. 57 – col. 5, l. 55). The Kikuchi method corresponds to the claim 1
method with the exception of explicitly requiring nanoparticle size
microspheres as masks such that the micropores formed are of a nanoscale
size and with the further exception of specifying directional etching using
reactive ions. However, Kikuchi teaches that small feature sizes are
desirable (col. 2, l. 1-6); hence, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use smaller size mask
particles to form smaller pores for the ultimate obtainment of the smaller
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013