Appeal No. 1999-1745
Application No. 08/657,619
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to modify Collins in view of
Anderson as proposed by the examiner because although the
Collins and Anderson systems both use plasmas, they perform
entirely different functions (fabricating devices vs. mass
spectrometry). In particular, Anderson discloses that
impedance matching circuit 7 provides a means for altering the
axial component of the electromagnetic field, which, appellant
asserts, has no relevance to the plasma reactor of Collins
(brief, page 9). Also, appellant argues that Anderson has3
nothing to do with the wormholing and arcing problems which
the present invention addresses and the examiner "has provided
no valid or legitimate motivation to combine the capacitor
arrangement of Anderson et al. with the plasma reactor of
Collins et al." (brief, page 10).
These arguments are not persuasive. Even assuming
arguendo that a function of Anderson's circuit 7, altering the
3At page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that
altering the axial component of the electromagnetic field is
also used in reactors such as appellant's. Appellant has not
controverted this statement by filing a reply brief, or
otherwise.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007