Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
Does the prior art relied upon by the Examiner teach or suggest
disposing a process chamber and an RF power induction coil “so that the
direction of RF power coupling is substantially parallel to the axis of the
coil” as required by the claims on appeal?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During prosecution of the application, the Examiner “applies to the
verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. ANTICIPATION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, to establish anticipation, a single prior art
reference must describe, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See, e.g., In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., unexpected
results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013