Appeal 2007-2501
Application 10/026,917
1 Applicants argue that Hwang discloses a permanent external voltage supply,
2 but in the claimed invention there is no additional external power supply (Br.
3 6). In response, the Examiner failed to specifically address Applicants’
4 argument that Hwang describes the opposite of what is claimed.
5 In Hwang, one of the leads 32 is connected with contacting member
6 34 and the other lead is connected to plate member 38 (FF 11). During the
7 steps of moving the arm (and wafer on top of plate 38), the power supply
8 remains connected and on through leads 32 to maintain the charge to plate
9 38 (FF 12).
10 Based on the record, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently
11 demonstrate that Hwang describes the limitation “without any additional
12 external power supply to recharge the transportable electrostatic chuck
13 during long or several process steps or operation steps.”
14 Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of the claims 1, 6, 7, 9 11
15 and 15. As applied by the Examiner, none of Morita, Brown, Wytman, or
16 O’Mara makes up for the deficiencies of Hwang.
17 E. Decision
18 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
19 Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
20 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 under 35
21 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hwang is reversed.
22 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
23 being unpatentable over Hwang in view of O’Mara is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013