Ex Parte Truskett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2008

10375817 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VAN N. TRUSKETT,
CHRISTOPHER J. MACKAY
and B. JIN CHOI
____________

Appeal 2008-0918
Application 10/375,817
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 10, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 21.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method to reduce adhesion between a polymerizable imprinting
layer and an imprint device substrate surface in an imprint lithography
process; the imprint device substrate surface having a plurality of bonding
regions, said method comprising:
Appeal 2008-0918
Application 10/375,817

disposing a coating upon said imprint device substrate surface from a
composition having a di-functional perfluoro silane containing molecule to
provide for attachment to a pair of said plurality of bonding regions, with a
fluorinated chain of molecules extending therebetween

wherein the coating provides for reduced adhesion between the
polymerizable imprint layer and the imprint device substrate surface during
an imprint lithography process.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Yoneda JP 02-248,480 (JP '480) Oct. 4 1990
Woo 5,723,242 Mar. 3, 1998
Wilson 6,334,960 B1 Jan. 1, 2002

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for reducing
adhesion between a polymerizable imprinting layer and an imprint device,
such as a mold, during an imprinting/molding lithography process. The
method involves disposing a coating on the surface of the imprint
device/mold which provides reduced adhesion between the polymerizable
imprinting layer and the imprint device/mold. The coating comprises a
di-functional perfluoro silane containing molecule.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of JP ‘480. Claims 1, 3,
5-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wilson in view of Woo.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
2
Appeal 2008-0918
Application 10/375,817

of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Wilson, like Appellants, discloses a method of reducing adhesion
between a polymerizable imprinting layer and a mold device by coating the
surface of the mold with surface modifying agents, such a fluorocarbon
silylating agent (col. 3, ll. 59 et seq.). As recognized by the Examiner,
Wilson does not disclose the presently claimed surface modifying agent,
namely, one having a di-functional perfuoro silane containing molecule. To
remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relies upon JP ‘480 and Woo in
separate § 103 rejections.
JP ‘480, as urged by Appellants, provides no teaching that its
disclosure is pertinent to molds which contact a polymerizable material. The
materials of the reference having a di-functional perfluoro silane containing
molecule are disclosed as increasing the water-repellency, soil resistance and
anti-staining properties of a transparent substrate. The Examiner states that
one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the fluorinated silane
mixture of JP ‘480 would inherently have release properties when
employed in the Wilson process. However, the Examiner’s statement lacks
any factual support that it was known in the art that the fluorinated silane
mixtures of the reference were known to have anti-adhesion properties in
general, let alone for polymerizable materials.
Woo, likewise, provides no teaching or suggestion that the fluorinated
silanes that serve as a release layer on a photoconductive layer would also
serve as an anti-adhesion coating between a mold surface and a poly-
merizable material.
3
Appeal 2008-0918
Application 10/375,817

The flaw in both rejections is that the Examiner has failed to set forth
the requisite nexus between the surface materials treated in the references
and those presently claimed. In particular, the Examiner has not established
the necessary correspondence between the materials contacting the water-
repellent silane mixture of JP ‘480, the surfaces contacting the toner release
layer of Woo and the surfaces contacting the mold and polymerizable
materials of Wilson, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a reasonable expectation that the relevant coatings of JP ‘480 and Woo
would be suitable as the surface modifying agent of Wilson. In the absence
of such material analysis, the Examiner’s rejections are nothing more than
an excursion in speculation that the materials of JP ‘480 and Woo might
work in the method of Wilson.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED

ls/cam

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS
PO BOX 81536
AUSTIN, TX 78708-1536
4