Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
particle masks and further discloses that the particles may be of a nanoscale
size. Furthermore, Kikuchi shows how the use of small particle masks and
etching can be combined to form small pore sizes in a layer. “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim 47
Regarding separately argued dependent claim 47, Appellants
additionally argue that claim 47 requires that the method for forming the
nanopore includes the further provision of furnishing a molecule therein (Br.
14). Regarding this argued claim limitation, we note that Kikuchi teaches
that the pore formation process is ultimately used to form a hole in an
insulator layer (20, Fig.1A) that has an emitter (34, Fig. 1A) furnished
therein. The emitter emits electrons. Appellants have not fairly explained
how the provision of such an emitter is not the provision of at least one
molecule in the pore opening. In this regard, claim 47 does not require that
each nanopore includes only one molecule. See In re Pangrossi, 277 F.2d
181, 184-85, 125 USPQ 410, 413 (CCPA 1960).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 23, and 47 over Kikuchi
and Deckman.
Rejection over Kikuchi, Deckman, and Hatakeyama
Appellants argue claims 3, 21, and 22 as a group (Br. 8-10). Thus, we
select claim 3 as the representative claim.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013