Appeal No. 2001-2039
Application No. 09/110,207
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Logan et al. (Logan) 5,055,964 Oct. 8, 1991
Nagasaki et al. (Nagasaki) 5,886,863 Mar. 23, 1999
(filed Jul. 25, 1996)
Harada et al. (Harada) 5,909,354 Jun. 1, 1999
(filed Aug. 12, 1996)
Claims 3, 4 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nagasaki in view of Logan and Harada.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed January 2, 2001) for the
Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No. 11, filed
November 8, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed March
1, 2001) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Nagasaki for teaching a chuck having
an electrode layer for feeding power to plural electrostatic
electrodes and resistance heating elements except for the claimed
recessed configuration (answer, page 4). The Examiner further
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007