Ex Parte Verschuuren et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2012

11478305 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARCUS ANTONIUS VERSCHUUREN,
and SANDER FREDERIK WUISTER
____________

Appeal 2011-002742
Application 11/478,305
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-9, 12-16, and 19 as
unpatentable over Heidari (US 2006/0279025 A1, pub. Dec. 14, 2006) in
view of Simon (US 2006/0137555 A1, pub. Jun. 29, 2006) and further in
view of Chou (US 2003/0080472 A1, pub. May 1, 2003) and of claims 10,
11, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over these references and further in view of
Appeal 2011-002742
Application 11/478,305

2
DiPietro (US 2007/0051697 A1, pub. Mar. 8, 2007). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a method of making an imprint lithography template
comprising the steps of applying inorganic sol-gel to a substrate, imprinting
the inorganic sol-gel with an imprint template, and allowing the inorganic
sol-gel to cure such that the inorganic sol-gel forms an imprint template
having the desired patterned surface (independent claims 1 and 13).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of making an imprint lithography template, the
method comprising:

applying a curable material to a patterned surface of a master imprint
template;

curing the curable material and thereby forming a second imprint
template having a patterned surface which is the inverse of the patterned
surface of the master imprint template;

removing the second imprint template from the master imprint
template;

applying inorganic sol-gel to a substrate;

imprinting the inorganic sol-gel with the second imprint template;

allowing the inorganic sol-gel to cure; and

removing the second imprint template from the cured inorganic sol-
gel, such that the inorganic sol-gel forms a third imprint template having a
patterned surface which corresponds with the patterned surface of the master
imprint template.

Appeal 2011-002742
Application 11/478,305

3
The Examiner's pivotal obviousness position concerning the
independent claims is expressed as follows:
Heidari et al. fail to teach that the second template was
used to imprint a pattern on a sol-gel coated substrate.
Chou teaches an imprint lithography method ([0002] and
Fig. 1A-1D) wherein the template can be patterned with
inorganic sols such as zinc oxide and germanium oxide can be
used as the moldable material which is cured onto a substrate
([0046]). In addition, Chou discloses a specific example of the
lithographic process in which perfluorododecyltrichlorosilane
(97% solids solution) is used in the formation of the moldable
material ([0070]). This indicates that the incorporation of metal
oxides in sol form would result in a sol-gel (a wet-chemical
technique that forms metal oxides starting from a chemical
solution which acts as a precursor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use the method of imprinting a substrate as taught by
Heidari/Simon to imprint a sol-gel coated substrate as taught by
Chou. One would have been motivated to do so because this is
applying a known method of imprinting a pattern on a substrate
(Heidari/Simon) to a known substrate that is used in imprint
lithography (taught by Chou) to yield predictable and
reasonably successful results.

Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the portions of Chou cited by the Examiner refer
to a sol of various materials but contain no teaching or suggestion of a sol-
gel as required by the independent claims (App. Br. 8-10, 14-17; Reply Br.
2-4). We agree. As indicated above, the Examiner believes paragraph
[0070] of Chou "indicates that the incorporation of metal oxides in sol form
would result in a sol-gel" (Ans. 5). This belief is inappropriately based on
speculation rather than evidence. Moreover, the Examiner has not explained
Appeal 2011-002742
Application 11/478,305

4
how a sol-gel resulting from an incorporated sol satisfies the independent
claim step of applying inorganic sol-gel.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejections of the appealed claims.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl