Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
frequencies greater than 13.56 MHz and/or the provision for a large
substrate in the plasma reactor of Hanada based on the combined teachings
of the applied references as utilized in either of the stated rejections is not
persuasive for reasons stated by the Examiner in the Answer. To begin with,
representative claim 1 is not drawn to a method but rather an apparatus.
Thus, the lack of suggestion/motivation argument before us is more properly
focused on whether or not it would have been obvious to furnish the reactor
of Hanada with the capability of handling substrate work pieces with a
dimension of 0.7m or larger and with an RF generator with the capability of
generating frequencies as claimed.
With regard to these matters, it is instructive to note that Hanada does
not strictly limit the radio frequency generation capacity of the RF generator
employed therein to one that can only generate frequencies of 13.56 MHz or
less. Rather, Hanada presents several frequencies that the RF generator can
be designed to produce as examples rather than by way of furnishing an
upper limit for the frequency that the RF generator can produce (Hanada,
¶¶ 0005 and 0019). Thus, Hanada alone, or in combination with either
Collins or Sato, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art upon routine
experimentation to select and employ an RF generator with the capacity to
generate frequencies higher than the exemplified 13.56 MHz frequency; that
is, an RF generator which would correspond to the RF generator required by
representative claim 1.
Furthermore, and while not required for the propriety of the
Examiner’s first stated rejection for reasons stated above, we note that the
teachings of Collins respecting higher than 13.56 MHz RF generator
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013