Appeal No. 1999-1745
Application No. 08/657,619
axial component of the electromagnetic field, would not be a
consideration with the Collins system, Anderson's circuit 7 is
nevertheless also disclosed as a circuit which performs the
function of matching the impedance between the power supply
and coil of a plasma chamber. Since Collins discloses, as
noted above, that an impedance matching means should be
provided in such a coil circuit, we agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to use the Anderson circuit 7
as that means, this being simply the selection of a particular
impedance matching circuit taught by the prior art. One of
ordinary skill would have been particularly motivated to use
the Anderson circuit by the fact that it permits matching the
impedance automatically in response to changes in load, as
disclosed by Anderson at col. 4, lines 16 to 26.
Although Anderson may not be concerned with the problems
addressed by appellant's invention, that does not affect the
propriety of combining Collins and Anderson. "As long as some
motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided
by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require
that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated
by the inventor." In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007