Appeal No. 2001-2039
Application No. 09/110,207
the Examiner’s conclusion that a top layer of aluminum nitride
has a lower resistivity than an alumina base body (answer, page
4) is inconclusive because Nagasaki suggests neither such choice
of materials nor the use of the ceramic base body as the
insulating layer over the surface of the first electrode in the
recess. Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been
obvious to combine Nagasaki and Harada with Logan, as held by the
Examiner, the combination would still fall short of teaching or
suggesting the claimed first and second electrodes separated by
an insulating layer having a higher resistivity than that of the
electrostatic attraction layer.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 3 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions related to the claimed higher resistivity of the
insulating layer in the recess with respect to that of the
electrostatic attraction layer, as recited in independent claims
3, 9 and 11, are not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007