Appeal No. 2001-1512 6
Application No. 09/273,541
Appellant argues that White merely detects separation between a
wafer and the chuck by monitoring the current flow into the
electrostatic clamp (id.). In particular, Appellant points to
the constant cooling gas flow rate of White and indicates that
there would be no reason to assess the state of the gap based on
comparing the measured gas flow rate with a standard value
(brief, page 18 and reply brief, pages 5-8).
In response, the Examiner indicates that absent contrary
teachings in Tezuka, one having average skill in the art would
have understood the term “manipulating” to include “setting the
valve to any and all positions available to the valve, including
open, closed, and all positions in between” (answer, page 3).
With respect to the teachings of White, the Examiner further
asserts that White provides reasons for monitoring incorrect
alignment that includes “prevention of excessive outgassing into
the chamber and accurate positioning of the substrate wafer”
(answer, page 5).
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). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007