Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719 Page 8
agree with the appellant that Gesche teaches three decoupling
capacitors (Figure 1, items 8, 11, and 14 and col. 3, ll. 1-15),
we disagree with the appellant in that Gesche does teach the
claimed limitation. Claim 1 requires “a minimum of two adjustment
capacitors interposed between the decoupling capacitor and the
radio frequency powered electrode.” While Gesche teaches in
Figure 1 three decoupling capacitors (8, 11, and 14), only one
decoupling capacitor (14) is positioned so that a minimum of two
adjustment capacitors (13 and 19) are interposed between the
decoupling capacitor (14) and radio frequency powered electrode
(7).
II. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 over Gesche in view of Singh.
With respect to claim 4, appellant does not dispute the
examiner’s finding (brief, page 6) of obviousness over Gesche in
view of Singh other than arguing that Gesche does not teach the
claim 1 limitation “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.” For the reasons stated supra, we affirm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007