Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a discussion of
the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the
examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
We will not sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 34 or
the section 103 rejections of claims 9-11, 14, 19, 23-31 and 34.
However, each of the other rejections advanced on this appeal
will be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The section 102 rejection
The only claim distinction argued by the appellants with any
reasonable specificity concerns the here claimed requirements for
a secondary ionization zone or a plurality of secondary
ionization zones which ionize target particles. In this regard,
the appellants argue that Mosely’s upper and lower antennas 50,
60 perform functions such as plasma enhancement rather than
target-particle ionization and therefore do not correspond to the
here claimed secondary ionization zone(s). We cannot agree.
While other functions may be performed, the function of
target-particle ionization clearly is performed by patentee’s
upper and lower ring antennas 50, 60 as well as by upper and
lower cylindrical plates or rings 80, 82. This finding is based
on Mosely’s express disclosures that “the upper antenna tends to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007