Appeal 2007-0030
Application 10/359,557
has relied upon Murata for a teaching of power distribution using RF
multiplexing. It is apparent from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the
Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is the combination of
Murata and Denholm. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, since the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness
has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellants, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 5, and 11
based on the combination of Murata and Denholm.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 8-10 based on the combination of Murata and Ishii, we
sustain this rejection as well. Appellants’ arguments (Br. 10-11; Reply Br.
4) contend that Ishii does not make up for the deficiencies of Murata since
Ishii, like Murata, discloses a plasma reactor system with inductive, not
capacitive, power coupling. We find these arguments to be without merit
since, for all of the reasons discussed supra, we find that Murata discloses a
plasma reactor system with capacitive coupling, at least in the manner
broadly set forth by Appellants’ claims on appeal.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013