Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
challenged these findings (Br. and Reply Br. in their entirety), we determine
that the Examiner has correctly found that the prior art references show the
RF power coupling substantially parallel to the axis of the coil. 3
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Answer and above, we
affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting:
i) Claims 1 through 4, 16, 17, and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Ekstrand;
ii) Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 10, 12 through 17, and 19
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Okumura and Ekstrand;
iii) Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 10, 12 through 17, and 19
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Takagi and Ekstrand; and
iv) Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 10, 12 through 17, and 19
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Usui and Ekstrand.
As to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 based on the
disclosure of Ekstrand, the Examiner has correctly found that Ekstrand
teaches a RF power induction coil having a thickness of 0.7 mm (Answer 6
and Ekstrand, col. 3, ll. 60-63). We find that this thickness is less than about
12. 7 mm and about 6.3 mm as required by claims 8 and 9.
3 The Appellants’ arguments directed to the location of the process chamber
with respect to the coil location are noted. However, the Appellants’ claims
1, 17 and 19 do not recite such features. Moreover, Bailey at least teaches a
RF power induction coil adjacent a plasma processing chamber (Figures 2
and 3, together with cols. 9-11).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013