Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Answer and above, we
affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Ekstrand; and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of Ekstrand.
As to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 based on the disclosure of
Ekstrand, the Examiner has found that “the configuration of the coil is a
matter of [design] choice . . .” (Answer 7). However, the Appellants have
not specifically challenged this finding (e.g., Br. 25-27). Indeed, the inside
diameter of the coil, which affects the claimed ratio, is dependent on the size
of the process chamber.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Answer and above, we
affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of Ekstrand.
As to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, we find that Ekstrand
teaches employing a material, such as copper, to form a RF power induction
coil (col. 3, ll. 52-68). Although Ekstrand does not mention that its copper
coil can be coated, Bailey teaches forming a RF power induction coil with
copper or copper coated with silver (Bailey, col. 12, ll. 3-8). Thus, the
Examiner has correctly identified an appropriate reason for employing
copper coated with silver (sheet comprises a deposited layer) to form a RF
power induction coil. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1742,
82 USPQ2d at 1397 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp.”) .
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013