Appeal No. 2001-1512 7
Application No. 09/273,541
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish
a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). However, “the Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
A review of Tezuka reveals that the reference relates to a
vacuum processing apparatus in which a heat transfer gas is
introduced in the gap between an electrostatic chuck and a
substrate placed on the chuck (col. 2, lines 35-44). We find
that Tezuka provides the cooling gas to the gap at a desired flow
rate. The specific passage in Tezuka that relates to controlling
of the pressure of the cooling gas (col. 4, lines 44-47), as
relied upon by the Examiner and argued by Appellant, states that:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007