Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
Rejection over Kikuchi, Deckman, Hatakeyama, and Jun
Claims 9 and 14-20
Appellants argue these rejected claims as a group and make
substantially the same arguments made against the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 21, and 22 above (Br. 11). Thus, we select claim 9 as the
representative claim. We note that rejected representative claim 9 depends
directly from claim 1 and requires insulation material being formed by
chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or liquid-phase techniques. Thus,
Appellants’ reliance on their arguments against the Examiner’s use of
Hatakeyama for teaching small nanosize particles as masks as set forth in the
previously discussed rejection fails to establish reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 9 because claim 9 does not
require about 1-10 nm size particles (Br. 11). Moreover, Appellants do not
otherwise contest the Examiner’s reliance on Jun for teaching a CVD
insulation deposition feature in the rejection of representative claim 9. It
follows that, on this record, we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 9 and 14-20.
Claims 24-26, 28-46, and 48
Appellants argue claims 24-26 and 28-46, as a group (Br. 11-12). We
select claim 24 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this
appeal as to this claim grouping. We consider dependent claim 48
separately to the extent this claim has been separately argued (Br. 14).
Representative claim 24 is drawn to a method wherein at least one
nanopore is formed using at least one nanoparticle mask and directional
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013