Ex Parte VERSCHUUREN

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2018

14697687 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/697,687 04/28/2015 MARCUS ANTONIUS VERSCHUUREN 24737 7590 08/29/2018 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2008P00885US 9456 EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2854 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCUS ANTONIUS VERSCHUUREN Appeal2017-010631 Application 14/697 ,687 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appellant's invention is directed to a silicone rubber like material and a stamp layer comprising such a material for use in soft lithography (Spec. 1:2-3; claim 1 ). Appeal2017-010631 Application 14/697,687 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A printing device comprising: a first patterned stamp layer; and a second, deformable layer, wherein the first patterned stamp layer having a patterned external contact surface and an internal surface in direct contact with the second layer, the first layer comprises a silicone rubber like material comprising at least one Q branched and/ or T branched (poly)siloxane crosslinked by at least one linear polysiloxane, wherein the silicone rubber like material has a Young's modulus in a range of 7 MPa to 80 MP a, wherein the silicone rubber like material is crosslinked at a temperature below 50Â°C and the second layer comprises a deformable material having a low Young's modulus as compared to that of the silicone rubber like material. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Odom (Teri W. Odom, J. et al., Improved Pattern Transfer in Soft Lithography Using Composite Stamps, American Chemical Society, Langmuir, Vol. 18, No. 13, 2002) ("Odom") in view of Zhu et al. (US 2010/0200146 Al; Aug. 2010) ("Zhu") and Hougham et al. (US 2003/0197312 Al; Oct. 23, 2003) ("Hougham"). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Appellant argues that Odom, as found by the Examiner, does not teach the silicone rubber used to form the first layer comprises at least one Q-branched or T-branched polysiloxane as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9). 2 Appeal2017-010631 Application 14/697,687 Appellant contends that Odom's disclosure of 9 N/mm2 (e.g., 1 N/mm2 equals 1 MPa) modulus is directed to the h-polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) in Odom's stamp not the Q-branched or T-branched polysiloxane material recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Appellant argues that neither Zhu nor Hougham provides an actual value for either the lower or the upper limit for the Young's modulus for the Q-branched or T-branched siloxane rubber and cannot cure the deficiencies of Odom (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends that Hougham's teaching with regard to curing at ambient temperature for PDMS would not have suggested using such a curing temperature for Zhu's Q- branched or T-branched siloxane rubber (App. Br. 11-12). Appellant contends that Odom teaches that h-PDMS has a high coefficient of thermal expansion, whereas Zhu teaches that the silicone rubber has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion (App. Br. 13). Appellant argues that there would have been no motivation to substitute Zhu's Q-branched or T- branched silicone rubber with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion relative to Sylgard 184 for Odom's h-PDMS material which has a higher thermal expansion coefficient relative to Sylgard 184 (App. Br. 13). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant's arguments of non-obviousness. The Examiner finds that Odom teaches using a first layer made of h-PDMS with a modulus within the range recited in claim 1 (i.e., 9 N/mm2) (Final Act. 2). The Examiner makes no findings regarding the Young's modulus of Zhu's Q-branched or T-branched siloxane (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Zhu teaches the Q-branched and T-branched siloxane is an improvement over conventional siloxanes in that it has a lower thermal expansion coefficient (Final Act. 3). We find that Odom teaches that the h-PDMS material has a high thermal expansion coefficient (Odom, 3 Appeal2017-010631 Application 14/697,687 5318). Although the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a material with a modulus of 9 MP a as taught by Odom, the Examiner does not find that Zhu's material would have had a modulus of 9 MP a. As argued by Appellant, Zhu' s siloxane materials have a thermal expansion coefficient lower than Sylgard 184 which militates against its substitution for Odom's h-PDMS that has a thermal expansion coefficient greater than Sylgard 184. The Examiner's reason for the modification is based upon using an art-recognized material for its purpose as a higher modulus material in stamps (Final Act. 3). Although Zhu teaches the materials have a higher modulus, the Examiner does not address the teachings of the references as a whole, which includes teachings of different thermal expansion coefficients for the materials. Therefore, the Examiner has not dispensed with the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Zhu's Q-branched or T-branched siloxane as a substitute for Odom's h-PDMS. On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection over Odom in view of Zhu and Hougham. DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 4