Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim
57, as well as dependent claims 58 and 60 which stand or fall
with claim 57, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of dependent claim 59, grouped and argued
separately by Appellants, we note that, while we found
Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 57, 58, and 60 discussed supra, we
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 59. The
language of claim 59, unlike that of claims 57, 58, and 60,
limits the application of the claimed antenna to “ . . . coupling
power into a plasma processing chamber.”
In addressing the language of claim 59, the Examiner chooses
to ignore the “plasma chamber” language, asserting that such
language is a mere statement of intended use. We find the
Examiner’s position to be unfounded. Although the Examiner has
cited (Answer, page 9) the Pearson and Minks decisions in support
of his position, these decisions, as pointed out by Appellants,
address the situation where “intended use” limitations appear
solely in the claim preamble. In contrast, the recitation of
power coupling to a plasma processing chamber in appealed claim
59 appears in the body of the claim. Our reviewing courts have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007