Appeal No. 1999-1451
Application No. 08/481,593
With respect to claim 12, the examiner maintains that the use of Klass with wafers
would have been obvious once the electrofluid was removed (Office action at page 4),
while Klass merely discloses the use with a test object which is non-magnetic, stainless-
steel rectangular test object extending coextensive with the fluid film. (See Klass at col. 4.)
Again, we find that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case for the use of Klass
alone with wafers.
With respect to dependent claims 3,15, 5, 6, 17 and 18, the examiner has not relied
upon the teachings of Lewin and Briglia to modify the basic teachings of Klass with
respect to the removal of the electrofluid. Therefore, these combinations do not remedy
that which is lacking in Klass alone to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007