Appeal No. 1999-0282 Page 7
Application No. 08/716,995
disclose the claimed "substrate support" as recited in claim
17.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17,
as well as claims 2 through 4, 6 through 9, 11 through 16, 18
and 19 dependent thereon, are not disclosed in Muka, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, 6
through 9 and 11 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 10 and 20
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007