Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
large surface area.2 Compare Answer 5-30 with Br. 14-40 and Reply Br. 2-
6. Nor have the Appellants challenged the Examiner’s finding that the RF
power induction coil taught by the above prior art references is disposed
such that its large surface area is oriented substantially perpendicularly to
magnetic field lines caused by RF current flow through the coil. Compare
Answer 5-30 with Br. 14-40 and Reply Br. 2-6. The Appellants’ main
contention is that none of the applied prior art references teach or would
have suggested the claimed limitation “the process chamber and the coil
being disposed so that the direction of RF power coupling is substantially
parallel to the axis of the coil” in claims 1, 17 and 19.
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Ekstrand, Okumura,
Takagi or Usui teaches or would have suggested the disposal of the process
chamber and the 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. On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
As pointed out by the Appellants (Br. 16), “the axis of the coil” is “a
line at the center of the coil along the length of the coil.” Following this
definition, the Examiner has found that the RF power coils described in
Ekstrand, Okumura, Takagi and Usui all have the same “axis of the coil”
(Answer 16-29). The Examiner has also found that “the RF power coupling
of the coil of the instant invention [like the RF power coupling of the coil of
the prior art references] is … distributed along the length of the coil”
(Answer 17, 23, 26, and 28). As the Appellants have not specifically
2 Okumura is cumulative with respect to Ekstrand, Takagi and Usui.
Contrary to the Appellants’ argument, Okumura teaches a RF power
induction coil having coplanar or non-coplanar coil turns.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013