Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
claim is obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co.
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d
1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the
references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in the
art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”).
FACTS AND ANALYSES
The Appellants have not specifically challenged the Examiner’s
finding that Ekstrand, Takagi and Usui teach an apparatus for inductively
coupled RF power process operations, comprising a process chamber, a RF
power source, and a RF power induction coil connected to the RF power
source, wherein the RF power induction coil having substantially non-
coplanar coil turns comprising an electrically conductive sheet having a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013