Appeal No. 1999-1451
Application No. 08/481,593
unsupported speculation on the part of the examiner that the skilled artisan would have
been motivated with the teachings of Klass alone to remove the electrofluid which Klass
discusses solely with respect to the holding force. The examiner has made no showing of
any motivation to remove the electrostatic material from the chuck. Klass discloses the
material as providing the clamping force and not the field. Klass does not disclose that the
electrofluid is an enhancing medium. The Examiner has not provided a line of reasoning
to remove the fluid. Furthermore, appellant submitted a declaration by Mr. Reuel B.
Liebert, where Mr. Liebert states that the fact that Klass employs an electrofluid would
prevent its use in a vacuum. (Declaration at page 3.) We agree with appellant.
The examiner maintains at page 5 of the answer that the declaration by
Mr. Liebert has simply provided no proof that the structure of Klass minus the electrofluid
will not function as an electrostatic chuck. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive since
we find that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to Klass alone. The examiner cites various prior art references at pages 5 and 6 of the
answer in a discussion of the level of skill in the art, but the examiner has not applied/relied
upon any other teaching besides Klass in the rejection of the claims. Here, the examiner
appears to find that the relevant prior art is electrostatic chucks, as claimed, rather than
electrofluid chucks as disclosed by Klass. Here, the skilled artisan would be starting from
the teaching of Klass to modify the teachings, rather than using the electrostatic chuck as a
beginning point of the analysis. Therefore, the examiner’s argument is not persuasive.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007