Appeal No. 1999-2089 Page 8
Application No. 08/517,181
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
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In this case, we agree with the appellants' argument that
Ball does not suggest the invention as set forth in claim 1
(the only independent claim on appeal). Specifically, we
agree with the appellants' position (reply brief, p. 5) that
the elevator cage of Ball does not teach or suggest the
recited "wafer lifter basket" due to the definition of that
phrase set forth in the specification at page 5, lines 24-25.
That is, the elevator cage of Ball is not a mechanism that
holds, carries or otherwise transports a semiconductor wafer
during processing. Moreover, we agree with the appellants'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007