Appeal No. 1999-1745
Application No. 08/657,619
are reproduced in Appendix A of appellant's brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 5,519,215 May 21,
1996
Collins et al. (Collins) 5,556,501 Sep. 17,
1996
(filed Apr. 1,
1993)
Claims 1 and 2 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Collins in view of Anderson.2
The basis of the rejection, as set forth in the first
Office
action (Paper No. 4, June 24, 1997) is:
Collins et al teach the claimed subject matter
except for showing use of capacitors connected
to the coil terminal ends. However, as set forth
in Anderson et al it is conventional to connect
capacitors to the coil ends in a plasma generation
system to provide a more efficient and controllable
power supply and plasma generation. In view of this
teaching it would have been obvious to modify
Collins
et al to use this type of power supply connection to
provide a more efficient coupling of the plasma to the
device.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant's brief and in the examiner's
2The examiner's statement in section (9) of the answer
that "[n]o prior art is relied upon by the examiner in the
rejection of the claims under appeal" is obviously incorrect.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007