Appeal No. 2001-1512 11
Application No. 09/273,541
the chuck. White, in fact, assesses the state of the placement
of the wafer or separation of the wafer from the chuck by
measuring a reduction in the electric current flow not by the
difference between the flow rate of the cooling gas and a
predetermined value.
Assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine White’s method of assessing the wafer-chuck contact by
measuring the current with the apparatus of Tezuka, as held by
the examiner, Tezuka would still not disclose the claimed steps
of closing the exhaust valve so that all of the cooling gas
passing through valve 16 is delivered to the gap between the
wafer and the chuck. In that regard, Tezuka only supplies what
appears to be a constant flow of cooling gas controlled by
manipulating two valves while White monitors changes in the gap
between the wafer and the chuck by measuring the current flow to
the electrostatic chuck. Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection of
claim 4, as well as claim 5 which depends therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Tezuka and White is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007