Appeal No. 1999-1451
Application No. 08/481,593
throughout the prosecution history, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness in the written record.
The examiner maintains that the structure of Klass will function as a wafer chuck without
the presence of the electrofluid material which changes viscosity due to the application of
the electric field because the remaining structure is a conventional chuck. (Office action at
pages 2-3 and 6.) Appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection is based upon
speculation and hindsight. (Brief at pages 10-11.) We agree with appellant. Appellant
argues that the system of Klass could not be used in a vacuum as claimed. (See brief at
page 10.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that the rejection is based
“upon sound principles.” (See Office action at page 6.) The examiner maintains that Klass
discloses a conventional chuck and it will work in a vacuum to attract wafers. Furthermore,
the examiner maintains that the examiner has set forth reasons that Klass will work and it is
up to applicant to prove that such will not perform as reasonablely set forth by the
examiner. (See answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner. The initial burden is
upon the examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the
examiner must establish a motivation or convincing line of reasoning why the skilled artisan
would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Klass to remove the electrofluid and
to use the apparatus in a vacuum. The examiner maintains that the structure is the same
as a conventional electrostatic chuck, yet the examiner does not set forth a convincing line
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007