Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
contentions respecting differences between molecular electronic devices and
semiconductors as presented in the Reply Brief.
Claim 48
Concerning separately argued claim 48, the recited transitional term
“contains” leaves the pore open to the containment of other material besides
the recited one molecule for the same reasons we expressed above with
respect to separately rejected claim 47.
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 9, 14-20, 24-26, 28-46, and 48 over Kikuchi in view of Deckman,
Hatakeyama, and Jun on this record.
Rejection over Kikuchi in view of Deckman, Hatakeyama, Jun, and Brandes
Rejected claim 4 depends from claim 1 and rejected claim 27 depends
from claim 24. Each of claims 4 and 27 requires that the at least one
nanoparticle used as a mask in the claimed method is “an inorganic
crystalline core covered with an organic layer” (claim 4 and claim 27).
Appellants acknowledge that these types of nanoparticles were
commercially available at the time of filing of this application (Specification
¶0021). In this regard, Kikuchi discloses that the particulate spherical masks
can be made from a variety of different materials (Kikuchi; col. 4, ll. 24-26).
Consequently, even if we could agree with Appellants that Brandes does not
teach or suggest their claimed organic coated inorganic crystalline core
particles, such arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection in that Appellants have acknowledged the commercial
availability of organic coated - inorganic crystalline core particles and one of
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013