Appeal No. 2001-1512 5
Application No. 09/273,541
heat transfer gas flow rate with a standard valve (final
rejection, pages 3 & 4). The Examiner supports this conclusion
by further stating (id.) that:
Although White et al. teaches monitoring a different effect
of the separation, one of ordinary skill would have realized
that any of the effects taught by White et al. could be
monitored and the apparatus of Tezuka already has a pressure
gauge and automatic control valve. [Emphasis added.]
Appellant argues that the mere fact that Tezuka may possibly
be operative with a closed exhaust valve and that the reference
inherently discloses the closing of the exhaust valve is based on
speculations unsupported by the disclosure of Tezuka or the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art (brief, pages 12 &
13 and reply brief, pages 2-4). Additionally, Appellant argues
that controlling the cooling gas pressure of Tezuka would not
lead one of ordinary skill in the art to close the variable valve
17 (brief, page 14 and oral hearing). Appellant further
characterizes the Examiner’s reasoning that in the absence of
teaching away from closing the exhaust valve, Tezuka must teach
the closing of the exhaust valve, as improper shifting the burden
to Appellant to prove the contrary (brief, page 15).
Additionally, Appellant asserts that White does not disclose
or suggest automatically controlling gas flow rate for assessing
the gap between the wafer and the chuck (brief, page 17).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007