Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719 Page 7
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) since Gesche does not
designate whether capacitor (14), (11), or (8) is the decoupling
capacitor, it is plausible that Gesche might have intended either
of Gesche’s capacitors (11) or (8) as a decoupling capacitor.
Therefore, appellant argues, Gesche does not meet the claim 1
limitation requiring “a minimum of two adjustment capacitors . . .
[where] one terminal of each of the adjustment capacitors being
electrically connected with one terminal of the decoupling
capacitor” if capacitors (11) or (8) are considered as the
decoupling capacitor. We disagree with that argument. As stated
supra, Gesche clearly teaches in Figure 1 that the adjustment
capacitors (9, 13) are electrically connected to the decoupling
capacitor (14).1 Moreover, claim 1 uses open “comprising” language
and does not exclude additional capacitors (11) and/or (8) of
Gesche.
With respect to claim 11, appellant argues (brief, page 8)
that Gesche does not teach the claim limitation “wherein the
decoupling capacitor is a single decoupling capacitor.” While we
1
1 We note that each of capacitors (14), (11) and (8) of Gesche are fixed
capacitors located in series with the RF power source and electrode. thus,
those capacitors of Gesche represent decoupling capacitors as claimed by
appellant. See brief, page 6, item (d) for appellant’s definition of a
decoupling capacitor. Appellant has not offered any evidence or persuasive
argument to dispute the examiner’s finding that capacitor (14) of Gesche
represents a decoupling capacitor as claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007