Ex Parte Peeters et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310575797 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte EMIEL PEETERS, DIRK J. BROER, FREDERICUS C. VAN DEN HEUVEL, and DIRK BURDINSKI ____________________ Appeal 2010-007503 Application 10/575,797 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007503 Application 10/575,797 2 STATEMENT OF CASE 1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 7, 22 and 23. 2 Claims 2-5 and 8-20 are withdrawn and claims 6 and 21 are cancelled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction The claims are directed to elastomeric stamp, patterning method using such a stamp and method for producing such a stamp (Spec. 1:6-7). Claims 1 and 22, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An elastomeric stamp for printing a pattern on a substrate with an ink the stamp being at least partially formed from a first material, the stamp comprising: a first surface in a first plane for contacting the substrate, a second surface in a second plane, a third surface extending from the first surface to the second surface, the third surface being permeable to the ink, and a barrier layer substantially impermeable to the ink, wherein the barrier layer is on the first surface and not on the second surface. 1 Throughout the Decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 9, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 2, 2010). 2 The Real Party in Interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2010-007503 Application 10/575,797 3 22. The elastomeric stamp of claim 1, wherein a diffusion coefficient of the ink in a material of the barrier layer is at least a decade smaller than a diffusion coefficient of the ink in the first material. Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 7 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2004/0121568 A1, Jun. 24, 2004). Ans. 3-4. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being obvious over Kim. Ans. 4. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7 and 23 – 35 U.S.C § 102(e) With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that, in Kim, the stamp does not disclose applying ink nor does it disclose that the soft elastic material of the third surface should be selected so that it is “permeable to the ink,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. The Examiner contends that “the entire stamp [in Kim] is made from Polydimethylsiloxane, PDMS, which is a material which is not absorbent to water based aqueous solutions, but is known for being able to absorb organic compounds.” Ans. 5. The Examiner notes that the “ink which is used in elastomeric stamp printing is typically an organic and oily solution.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite ink, but only requires that the stamp is for printing a pattern on a substrate with an ink. Id. Appeal 2010-007503 Application 10/575,797 4 We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3, 5) that the identified surface in Kim is noted as being made of PDMS, the same material identified in Appellants’ Specification as being “suitable for stamp material” and ink permeable. Spec. Abstract, 3:21-28; Kim ¶¶ [0015], [0038], [0099]. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kim does not disclose applying an ink because this does not appear in claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Based on the foregoing, we find that Kim discloses that the soft elastic material of the third surface should be selected that is “permeable to the ink” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 that stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim. Since Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of claims 7 and 23, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim. Claim 22 – 35 U.S.C § 103(a) With respect to claim 22, Appellants contend that Kim does not teach or suggest and that “[t]here is no evidence that those skilled in the art would know that they should experiment to determine the optimum relationship between the diffusion coefficient of ink in the barrier layer and the diffusion coefficient of ink in the first material.” App Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner that Kim teaches the use of Teflon to reduce the adhesiveness of the surface. Ans. 6. Since Teflon does not absorb water or oil based inks, and has a lower absorptiveness than the permeable material, we agree with the Examiner that an inventor would Appeal 2010-007503 Application 10/575,797 5 ensure the absorptiveness of the Teflon was at least ten times less than that of the stamp in order to reduce adhesion. Ans. 6. In sum, we agree with the Examiner that the Teflon disclosed in Kim, teaches or suggests a difference in diffusion that encompasses the claimed limitation of “a barrier layer is at least a decade smaller than a diffusion coefficient of the ink in the first material,” recited in claim 22. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 22 and 23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation