Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
explain how patentee’s grounded filter could become charged to
any extent much less to such an extent as to become “an
electrostatic collimator grid positioned between said secondary
ionization zone and said substrate, said electrostatic collimator
grid directing said target particles toward said substrate” as
recited in claim 34.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the section 102
rejection of claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22 and 32 but not the
section 102 rejection of claim 34 as being anticipated by Mosely.
The section 103 rejection based on Mosely, Barnes,4 Hoshino,
Ito and Bowen
We are mindful that the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of unpatentability rests upon the Patent and
Trademark Office. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, our assessment
of whether this burden has been carried in the rejection under
4
4 The examiner appears to have relied upon Barnes for the
magnetic field feature required, for example, by appealed
independent claim 1. However, consistent with the section 102
rejection of this claim, Mosely expressly discloses such a
magnetic field feature (e.g., see lines 24-31 in column 6).
Under these circumstances and in light of the arguments advanced
in the brief, we need not and therefore will not consider the
Barnes reference in our disposition of this appeal as indicated
previously in footnote 3, supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007