Appeal 2007-0030
Application 10/359,557
coupling is present. We find no evidence forthcoming from Appellants,
however, that supports the conclusion based on the discussion of electrode
aspect ratio (id. 2) that the rungs of the ladder in the ladder shaped electrode
in Murata are inductors or that inductive coupling, not capacitive coupling,
is taking place. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence
in the record. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Murata, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 4, as well as dependent claims 2, 6, 7,
27, and 28 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 10; Reply Br. 3-4) in response to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, and 11 based on
the combination of Murata and Denholm contend that the Examiner has not
established proper motivation for the proposed combination of references.
For all of the reasons articulated by the Examiner (Answer 5-6), however,
we find that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and
appreciated that the plasma system computer control with database access
teachings of Denholm would have been an obvious enhancement to the
system of Murata.
To whatever extent Appellants are suggesting that the Examiner’s
proposed addition of Denholm to Murata must fail since, in Appellants’
view, Denholm does not provide a disclosure of controlling a RF
multiplexer, we find such contention to be without merit since the Examiner
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013