Appeal 2007-0030
Application 10/359,557
ladder inductance electrode. We find, however that the cited passage from
Murata merely indicates that an example of a plasma system which uses a
ladder electrode includes a ladder antenna electrode and a ladder inductance
electrode. We find it particularly noteworthy that the description of the
power distribution feature in the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE
INVENTION” section of the Murata reference never mentions inductive
coupling, never identifies the ladder-shaped electrode 32 as an antenna or
inductance electrode, and never illustrates (e.g., Figure 8) the plasma device
structure as anything other than a parallel electrode arrangement.
With the above discussion in mind, we find no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion (Answer 3-5) that Murata discloses a plasma processing system
which includes the sectioned unitary electrode (adjacent a chamber upper
wall with a workpiece support adjacent a chamber lower wall), RF
multiplexer, and capacitive coupling as claimed. Our review of the language
of appealed independent claims 1 and 4 supports the Examiner’s position
since we simply find no language which defines any capacitive coupling
structure which would distinguish over that disclosed by Murata. In our
view, it is particularly relevant that the only portion of Appellants’
disclosure (Specification 4) which describes any capacitive coupling
arrangement discloses that such capacitive coupling structure includes two
electrodes, i.e., a plasma electrode and a bias electrode. The structure set
forth in independent claims 1 and 4, however, recites only a single electrode.
Further, we do not necessarily disagree with Appellants’ contention
(Reply Br. 2-3) that the mere presence of capacitors in the Figures 4 and 5
illustrations in Murata indicates that capacitive coupling is present, just as
the presence of coils in these same figures does not indicate that inductive
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013