NISSAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021000684 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/917,853 03/09/2016 Takafumi ENDO 170275 9818 25944 7590 01/14/2022 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 EXAMINER SASTRI, SATYA B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com jarmstrong@oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKAFUMI ENDO, YASUNOBU SOMEYA, HIROYUKI WAKAYAMA, and RIKIMARU SAKAMOTO ____________ Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No. 14/917,853 filed Mar. 9, 2016; the Final Office Action dated Dec. 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 3, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 2 I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 20 of Application 14/917,853.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. The subject matter of the invention relates to a composition for forming an underlayer film of a thermosetting self-assembled film to be formed by thermal baking. Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification, the composition is to be used for a liquid crystal display, a recording material for a hard disk, a solid-state imaging element, a solar cell panel, a light- emitting diode, an organic light-emitting device, a luminescent film, a fluorescent film, MEMS, an actuator, an anti-reflective material, a resist, a resist underlayer film, a resist upper layer film, or a template (mold) for nanoimprint. Id. The Specification further states that “[t]he present invention also relates to a method for forming the thermosetting self-assembled film and a self-assembled film using the underlayer film, and a method for forming a processing pattern.” Id. Claim 1-the only independent claim on appeal-represents the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies NISSAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 3 The Examiner objects to claims 17 and 19 as being dependent on a rejected base claims, but finds they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 6. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn. Id. at 2. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 3 1. A composition for forming an underlayer film of a self- assembled film, where the self-assembled film is a block polymer containing an organic polymer chain (A) having an organic monomer (a) as a unit structure and a polymer chain (B) that forms a bond with the organic polymer chain (A) and contains a monomer (b) different from the organic monomer (a) as a unit structure; the composition for forming an underlayer film comprising a polymer having a unit structure containing an aliphatic polycyclic structure in a main chain; wherein the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure; and the polymer contained in the underlayer film has a unit structure of Formula (1): -(-X-Y-)- Formula (1) where X is a divalent group having an aromatic ring-containing structure from a heterocyclic compound or a homocyclic compound, wherein the heterocyclic compound is a phenothiazine moiety that is optionally substituted, and the homocyclic compound comprises: a benzene moiety that is optionally substituted, or a naphthalene moiety that is optionally substituted; and Y is a divalent group having an aliphatic polycyclic structure. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 4 II. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Name Reference Date De et al. (“De”) US 2008/0206676 A1 Aug. 28, 2008 Hatakeyama US 7,427,464 B2 Sept. 23, 2008 Hatakeyama et al. (“JP ’653)4 JP 2012 063653 A Mar. 29, 2012 III. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 20 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or, alternatively, obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by De or JP ’653. Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 20 as anticipated by or, alternatively, obvious over Hatakeyama. Id. at 5-6. IV. DISCUSSION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the 4 Appellant does not object to the Examiner’s reliance on a machine translation of JP ’653. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 5 Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues for reversal of the rejections on the bases of (1) incorrect claim construction, (2) the cited prior art not disclosing or rendering obvious all limitations, and (3) unexpected results overcoming obviousness. See Appeal Br. 6-26. We address each of these arguments in turn. A. Claim construction First, regarding construction of claim 1, Appellant argues that the preamble (“A composition for forming an underlayer film of a self- assembled film”) and the other claim language related to a self-assembled film “further define the self-assembled film and should be treated as limiting the structure of the claimed invention.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues [T]he invention defined by the claims [is] not just any composition, but rather a composition for forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film, where the self-assembled film is a block polymer containing an organic polymer chain (A) having an organic monomer (a) as a unit structure and a polymer chain (B) that forms a bond with the organic polymer chain (A) and contains a monomer (b) different from the organic monomer (a) as a unit structure (where the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure). A composition for forming an underlayer film of such a self- assembled film (i.e., (where the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure) has certain structural aspects that result in this material having properties and characteristics that allow it to function as a composition for forming an underlayer film of such a self- assembled film. Id. at 6-7. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 6 The Examiner finds that claim 1 is drawn to a composition. Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, claim 1’s recitation of “for forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film” in the preamble describes an intended use of the composition. Id.; see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that the language “where the self-assembled film is a block polymer containing . . . a unit structure” and “the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure” further limit the self-assembled film (intended use), but do not further limit the claimed composition. Ans. 8-9; see also Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner. During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. The “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard does not prejudice the applicant, who has the ability to correct errors in claim language and to adjust the scope of claim protection as needed during prosecution by amending the claims. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). Structural claims, such as claims directed to an article or apparatus, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See In re Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 7 Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein; see also In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) (“Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) (“It is trite to state that the patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof.”). “Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[A]s a general rule, preamble language is not treated as limiting.” Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.”). If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The preamble of claim 1 reads as follows: A composition for forming an underlayer film of a self- assembled film, where the self-assembled film is a block polymer containing an organic polymer chain (A) having an organic Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 8 monomer (a) as a unit structure and a polymer chain (B) that forms a bond with the organic polymer chain (A) and contains a monomer (b) different from the organic monomer (a) as a unit structure; the composition for forming an underlayer film comprising Claims App. A-1. The body of claim 1 describes a structurally complete invention, such that the preamble does not affect the structure. The composition comprises a polymer having a unit structure containing an aliphatic polycyclic structure in a main chain, and a unit structure of Formula (1). See id. The Specification states, “the underlayer film formed from the composition of the present invention is a novolac resin having an aliphatic polycyclic structure.” Spec. ¶ 10. “In Formula (1), when X is a divalent group having an aromatic ring-containing structure derived from an aromatic ring-containing compound as a polymer chain and Y is a divalent group having an aliphatic polycyclic structure derived from an aliphatic polycyclic compound as a polymer chain, the polymer represents a novolac resin.” Id., ¶ 17. The composition may contain one or more other polymers, such that the amount of polymer claimed in claim 1 may be 0.1 to 100% by mass of the combined polymers. See id., ¶¶ 32-33. According to the Specification, “when the novolac resin of the present invention is added to a composition for forming an underlayer film that cannot form a vertical pattern in a self-assembled film, a vertical pattern can be formed in a self-assembled film.” Id., ¶ 32. Examples of the novolac resin include polymers having Formulas (3-1) through (3-12), which includes Formula (3-7). See id., ¶ 31. Example 12 in the Specification comprises 0.22 g of the resin of Formula (5-1) and 0.03 g of the resin of Formula (3-7). Id., ¶ 113. Comparative Example 5 comprises 0.25 g of Formula (5-1), but no Formula (3-7). Id., ¶ 118. Formula (5-1) comprises neither X nor Y of claim Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 9 1. Compare id., ¶ 113, with Claims App. A-1. Example 12 allows the self- assembled film to form in vertical lamella, but Comparative Example 5 does not. See id., ¶ 123 (Table 2). The Specification thus confirms that the composition is structurally complete without the preamble and other claim language relating to the self- assembled film. None of the language relating to a self-assembled film is required in order for the composition containing an aliphatic polycyclic structure in a main chain, and a unit structure of Formula (1) to allow a self- assembled film to form in vertical lamella. Neither the composition of the self-assembled film nor its presence in the claim add any structure to the claimed composition comprising a polymer having a unit structure containing an aliphatic polycyclic structure in a main chain, and a unit structure of Formula (1). We turn next to construction of “a unit structure of Formula (1): -(-X-Y-)- Formula (1),” a term that requires construction in order to determine whether claim 1 reads on the prior art. The Examiner finds that “a unit structure of Formula (1)” reads on a polymer having repeating units of an aliphatic polycyclic unit (element Y of claim 1) and repeat units of an aromatic ring-containing structure/benzene moiety that is substituted with at least one hydroxyl group (element X of claim 1). See Final Act.2. The Examiner finds that “claim 1 only requires X group to be adjacent to Y group, and does not mandate a plurality of ‘-(-X- Y-)-’ units connected in a sequence.” Ans. 15. According to the Examiner, a repeating unit is typically represented as -(-X-Y-)n- where n is an integer representing the number of repeating units that are linked together in a Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 10 repetitive sequence. Id. The Examiner points out that claim 1 requires “a unit structure ‘-(-X-Y-)-‘, not a ‘repeating unit’.” Id. Appellant argues that the X and Y of Formula (1) are combined into a single unit structure, and are not a separate individual repeating unit X and a separate individual repeating unit Y. Appeal Br. 14-15. Appellant argues “one skilled in the art would recognize that the polymer contained in the underlayer film of the claimed invention has a repeating structure in which ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are combined into a single repeating unit.” Reply Br. 5. What a reference-here, the Specification-teaches, i.e., what it would have meant to a person having ordinary skill in the art, is a question of fact. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“What a reference teaches is a question of fact.”). In the absence of evidence, we accord little probative value to Appellant’s assertion of what would be understood by those skilled in the art. Cf. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Even were it obvious to a practitioner of the art, applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing that such is the case.”) We interpret “a unit structure of Formula (1): -(-X-Y-)-” to require at least one group represented by “X” is bonded (adjacent) to at least one group represented by “Y” in the claimed polymer. Formula (1) does not include “n” (as in -(-X-Y-)n-) or similar signal indicating that the polymer must contain “n” alternating X groups and Y groups, e.g., (-X-Y-)-(-X-Y- )-(-X-Y-)-(X-Y-)-(-X-Y-) where n = 5, although the meaning of the term would encompass such a polymer. An applicant seeking a narrower construction must either show why the broader construction is unreasonable or amend the claim to state Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 11 expressly the scope intended. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997). B. Rejection of claims as anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over cited art All pending claims stand rejected as anticipated by or, alternatively, obvious over De or JP ’653. Final Act. 2. All pending claims except claim 18 stand rejected as anticipated by or, alternatively, obvious over Hatakeyama. Id. at 5. Appellant argues the claims in each rejection as a group. See Appeal Br. 6-26. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 1. Rejection over De The Examiner finds that De teaches, inter alia, a composition comprising a polymer having repeating units of (1) structure I (mapped to aliphatic polycyclic unit, Y), (2) structure II (mapped to a divalent group having an aromatic ring-containing structure/benzene moiety that is substituted with at least one hydroxyl group, X), and (3) structure III. Final Act. 2. An annotated illustration of De’s structures I, II, and III is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 12 De, ¶ 26. Structures I, II, and III represent three different molecular moieties, each a repeating unit. Arrows have been added to the illustration to point out the parentheses that identify the repeating unit of each of structure I, II, and III. The Examiner finds that the parentheses in each structure implies a plurality of each of structure I, structure II, and structure III in the polymer disclosed by De, but not to a block of structure I (i.e., -I-I-I-I-), a block of structure II, or a block of structure III. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that De teaches polymers are formed by radical addition polymerization, which would yield a random copolymer. Id. (citing De ¶¶ 190-202). The Examiner finds that the Examples in De’s Table 1 include a divalent aliphatic polycyclic unit in the main chain and a divalent group having a phenolic group. Id. at 16. According to the Examiner, these polymers, prepared by free radical addition polymerization, would result in random copolymers Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 13 where an aliphatic polycyclic unit is adjacent to a unit having a divalent group having an aromatic ring. Id. at 17. Appellant argues that each of structure I, structure II, and structure II is a separate individual repeating unit, and the repeating units “are somehow arranged in the polymer of De.” Appeal Br. 14-15. Appellant argues that nothing in De discloses or suggests that the structure I repeating unit and the structure II repeating unit could or should be combined into a single repeating unit. Id. at 15. Appellant also argues that De’s general description of separate individual repeating units that read on either X or Y necessarily describe[s] a composition for forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film (the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure), where the polymer contained in the underlayer film has a unit structure (or repeating unit) of Formula (1) and corresponds to the requirements of claim 1. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds that De teaches polymers having the claimed structure of Formula (1). Id. at 17. The Examiner finds that the disclosed polymers are inherently capable of forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film having structural features as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error. Appellant does not (and cannot) refute the Examiner’s finding that random addition polymerization of the monomers in the Examples of De Table I would result in polymers having multiple instances of structure I adjacent to structure II (i.e., -I-II- . . . -I-II-. . . -I-II- . . .). Based on our claim construction, supra, such polymers fall within the scope of claim 1. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 14 We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by De. We likewise sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 20, which stand or fall with claim 1, having not been argued separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2. Rejection over JP ’653 The Examiner finds that JP ’653 teaches, inter alia, a resist lower layer film material containing a polymer that contains a styrene derivative (repeat unit “a”), an acenaphthalene derivative (repeat unit “b1”) and/or a norbornadiene derivative (repeat unit “b2”). Final Act. 4; Ans. 19. The Examiner finds that element X of claim 1 reads on repeat units “a” and “b1.” Ans. 19-20. The Examiner finds that element Y of claim 1 reads on “b2.” Id. at 20. Referring specifically to Synthesis Example 13 of JP ’653, the Examiner finds that the polymer produced is prepared by a free radical addition polymerization method, resulting in a random copolymer that would necessarily have -(-a-b2-)- as a unit structure. Id. The Examiner finds that JP ’653 anticipates claim 1. Final Act. 4. Very similar to the arguments in relation to De, Appellant argues that “a,” “b1,” and “b2” are each individual repeat units that are “somehow arranged in the polymer of JP ’653.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues that nothing discloses or suggests that any of the disclosed repeating units could or should be combined to make a single repeating structure.5 Id. at 20. Appellant also argues that JP ’653’s general description of separate 5 Appellant argues that “[n]othing in ‘X’ or ‘Y’ discloses or suggests that the [sic] any of the disclosed repeating units could or should be combined to make a single repeating structure.” Appeal Br. 20. Because this argument so closely parallels that made by Appellant with respect to De, we consider that Appellant intended to make the argument in relation to JP ’653 and not in relation to “X” and “Y” of claim 1. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 15 individual repeating units that read on either X or Y “necessarily describe[s] a composition for forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film (the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure), where the polymer contained in the underlayer film has a unit structure (or repeating unit) of Formula (1) and corresponds to the requirements of claim 1.” Id. Appellant argues [T]he Examiner has not furnished a reasonable basis to conclude that JP ’653 provides a composition for forming an underlayer film of a self-assembled film that reads on and/or operates on the recited polymer contained in the underlayer film that has a unit structure of Formula (1) with sufficient specificity, much less furnished a reasonable basis to conclude that JP ’653 provides a composition for forming an underlayer film of a self- assembled film that is configured such that the self-assembled film containing the block copolymer is formed in a vertical lamella structure. Id. at 21. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the rejection for the same basic reasons discussed in relation to De. Appellant does not (and cannot) refute the Examiner’s finding that random addition polymerization of the monomers in Synthesis Example 13 of JP ’653 would result in polymers having multiple instances of “a” adjacent to “b2” (i.e., -a-b2- . . . -a-b2-. . . -a-b2-. . .). Based on our claim construction, supra, such polymers fall within the scope of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by JP ’653. We likewise sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 20, which stand or fall with claim 1, having not been argued separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 16 3. Rejection over Hatakeyama Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 20 (i.e., all pending claims except claim 18) stand rejected as anticipated by or, alternatively, obvious over Hatakeyama. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Hatakeyama teaches an undercoat forming material comprising a copolycondensate of a naphthol derivative (mapped to a divalent group having an aromatic ring-containing structure/naphthalene moiety that is substituted with at least one hydroxyl group, “X” of claim 1) with dicyclopentadiene (mapped to an aliphatic polycyclic structure, “Y” of claim 1). Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Hatakeyama’s copolycondensate structures meet the claimed unit structure -(-X-Y-)- as well as a polymer repeating unit structure, i.e., -(-X-Y-)n-. Id. The Examiner thus finds that Hatakeyama anticipates claim 1. Id. Appellant argues “Hatakeyama does not place the public in possession of the claimed combination of features,” specifically identifying the features related to the self-assembled film. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive in view of our claim construction. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Hatakeyama. We also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 20 for the same reasons. C. Unexpected results Appellant contends that unexpected results support patentability of the claims. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant relies on Examples 1 to 12 and Comparative Examples 1 to 5 in the Specification. Id.; see also Spec. ¶ 123 (Table 2). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible error. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 17 First, although unexpected results may be probative of non- obviousness, they are not a consideration in anticipation rejections. Therefore, unexpected results, even if shown, would not result in reversal of the rejections based on anticipation. Second, Appellant must at least establish: (1) that there actually is a difference between the results obtained through the claimed invention and those of the prior art, In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077 (1972); and (2) that the difference actually obtained would not have been expected by one skilled in the art at the time of invention, Id.; In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244 (1971). In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Appellant establishes neither condition. Appellant shows a difference in the shape of self-assembled film layer between the Examples and Comparative Examples in the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 123 (Table 2). However, Appellant does not compare the claimed compositions with the closest prior art-here, De, JP ’653, and Hatakeyama. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”). Moreover, no evidence support that any difference actually obtained would not have been expected by one skilled in the art at the time of invention. See Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324. For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 20 as anticipated by each of De, JP ’653, and Hatakeyama. Appeal 2021-000684 Application 14/917,853 18 V. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20 102(a)(1) 103 De 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20 102(a)(1) 103 JP ’653 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 20 102(a)(1) 103 Hatakeyama 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED