Appeal 2007-0030
Application 10/359,557
Examiner offers Murata in view of Denholm with respect to claims 3, 5, and
11, and Murata in view of Ishii with respect to claims 8-10.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Final Office action, Briefs, and Answer for the
respective details.
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), does Murata have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 27, and 28?
Specifically, does Murata disclose a plasma processing apparatus including
an RF multiplexer, an RF power supply, and the capacitive coupling of
power to the plasma within a plasma chamber?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 5, and 8-
11, has the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness based on
Murata taken in separate combinations with the secondary references to
Denholm and Ishii?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
1 As indicated at page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-11, 27, and 28.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013