Appeal No. 2003-0014 Page 5
Application No. 08/858,022
pages 2 and 3). We assume, from this statement of the rejection, that the examiner
intends to modify the Iwamoto system by cleaning the first surface of the flexible
substrate instead of cleaning the surface of the processing carrier. We do not agree
with this reasoning.
We first point out that the examiner has failed to provide evidence in support of
this proposition, and so it stands merely as the examiner’s unsubstantiated opinion.
Second, Iwamoto intends to re-use the processing carrier a number of times, and for
this reason teaches that it must be cleaned after each use. To eliminate cleaning the
processing carrier would adversely impact the operation of the Iwamoto system.
Further in this regard, it is significant that Iwamoto never mentions cleaning the surface
of the substrate in the specification, although cleaning the surface of the processing
carrier is recited several times. There is no basis to assume, as the examiner has
done, that cleaning the surface of the substrate “would provide the same advantage” as
cleaning the surface of the processing carrier for, in fact, it clearly would not. Thus,
suggestion to modify Iwamoto in the manner proposed by the examiner is not present.
We further observe that there is no support in the reference for cleaning the surface of
the substrate in addition to cleaning the surface of the processing carrier.
It therefore is our opinion that the teachings of Iwamoto fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 66, and we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007