Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to appealed claims 61-68, the Examiner, as the
basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify the
plasma processing system of Keeble. According to the Examiner
(Answer, page 6), Keeble discloses the claimed invention except
for the inclusion of two variable capacitance elements connected
to the ends of an antenna. To address this deficiency, the
Examiner initially turns to Barnes and Müller, each of which
discloses plasma systems with a variable capacitance at the end
of an antenna for tuning. Fessenden is added to the combination
to provide a teaching of variable tuning capacitances at both
ends of an antenna. In the Examiner’s line of reasoning, the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007