Appeal No. 2001-2039
Application No. 09/110,207
the electrostatic attraction layer (brief, pages 14-16 and reply
brief, pages 4-7).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
characterizes Nagasaki’s reference to “single pole” and “twin
pole” configurations as an indication that the claimed first and
second electrodes are disclosed by Nagasaki (answer, pages 7 &
8). The Examiner further asserts that Logan teaches a recess
configuration with alumina coatings on the first electrode in the
recess and on the top surface of the second electrode (answer,
pages 8 & 9). Furthermore, the Examiner concludes that the
combination of Logan and Nagasaki would have been obvious since
both teach “two pole chucks” (answer, page 9).
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). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007