Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
capacity is not limited to transmission line structures and such teaching is
not inapplicable to capacitively coupled generators, as argued (Br. 8 and 9).
In this regard, Collins expressly teaches that prior art semi-conductor plasma
apparatus, which apparatus one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood to include capacitively-coupled systems, employs RF generators
that produce frequencies as required by representative claim 1 (Collins,
col. l, ll. 31-36). Moreover, Appellant’s argument with respect to the limited
degree of commercial success using RF generators producing higher than 50
MHz in semi-conductor processes prior to the Collins invention, as reported
in the Background of Invention section of the U.S. Patent, is off base for
several reasons. Representative claim 1 does not require higher than 50
MHz generation capacity. Also, Appellant acknowledges the prior art use of
RF frequency values higher than 13.56 MHz Specification 2).2
Furthermore, Appellant’s argument is premised on the state of the art
without the contribution of Collins and the other applied references thereto.
As such, these arguments are not indicative, much less convincing, of the
presence of reversible error in the Examiner’s first stated rejection.
Appellant’s additional arguments against a modification to the
apparatus of Hanada for processing wafers of a 0.7m or larger dimension
treats the teachings of Shang as if applied alone (Br. 10-11). However, it is
2 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art, including prior art found in an
applicant’s Specification, may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention, and that consideration of the prior art cited by the
Examiner may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in the
Specification. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571, 184 USPQ 607, 611-
612 (CCPA 1975); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258
(CCPA 1962).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013