Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Ikeda 4,841,775 Jun. 27, 1989
Landau 6,261,433 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
Wang 6,610,189 B2 Aug. 26, 2003
All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Landau or Wang in view of Ikeda.1
The Examiner finds that each of Landau and Wang discloses an
electro-chemical deposition apparatus which includes a vibrating device for
enhancing deposition (Landau, Fig. 2, col. 9, l. 47 - col. 10, l. 18; Wang,
Figs. 1 and 3B, col. 13, l. 59 - col. 16, l. 54)(Answer 3-7). The Examiner
also finds that the vibrating device of Landau and Wang is not disclosed as
including an induction coil with a high-frequency power source as required
by the rejected claims but concludes that it would have been obvious for one
with ordinary skill in the art to provide the Landau or Wang vibrating device
in the form of an induction coil with high-frequency power source in view
of Ikeda's disclosure of a vibrating device which comprises an induction coil
with a high-frequency power source (Fig. 15, col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l.
7)(Answer 3-7).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner's findings but argues that the
Examiner's obviousness conclusion is incorrect because the applied prior art
1 Appellant has separately argued certain groups of claims (Appeal Br. 16-
18). We select claims 8, 9, 10, and 12 as representative of these respective
groups since they are the broadest claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013