www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/714,231
`
`09/25/2017
`
`Tetsuhiro IWAI
`
`PIPMM-55095U51
`
`4424
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`05/02/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`KENDALL BENJAMIN R
`
`1718
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/02/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/714,231
`
`09/25/2017
`
`Tetsuhiro IWAI
`
`PIPMM-55095U51
`
`4424
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`05/02/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`KENDALL BENJAMIN R
`
`1718
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/02/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www,uspfo,gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 15/714,231
`
`Filing Date: 25 Sep 2017
`
`Appellant(s): IWAI et al.
`
`Nobuhiko Sukenaga
`
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed 03/25/2019.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 3
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 12/04/2018 from
`
`which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of
`
`rejection (if any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New
`
`grounds of rejection (if any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF
`
`REJECTION.”
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not
`be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 4
`
`Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Yoshida (US 5,735,993) in view of Chen et al (US 5,226,967),
`
`Yoshida et al (US 5,690,781), and Ghanbari (US 5,982,100).
`
`Regarding claim 1:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing
`
`apparatus) [fig 7 & col 5, lines 59-61], comprising: a vessel which comprises a reaction
`
`chamber (vacuum reaction vessel, 10), wherein atmosphere within the reaction
`
`chamber (10) is capable of being depressurized (via vacuum) [fig 7 & col 4, lines 12-27];
`
`a lower electrode (lower electrode, 11) which supports an object to be processed
`
`(sample, 27) within the reaction chamber (vacuum reaction vessel, 10) [fig 7 & col 4,
`
`lines 3-11]; a dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2) which comprises a first surface
`
`(top surface of 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of 2) opposite to the first
`
`surface (top surface of 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4], and which closes an opening of
`
`the vessel (dielectric plate 2 which constitutes part of a vacuum reaction vessel 10)
`
`such that the first surface (top surface of 2) opposes an outside of the reaction chamber
`
`(area above 10) and the second surface (bottom surface of 2) opposes the object to be
`
`processed (sample, 27) [fig 7 & col 3, lines 52-63]; and a coil (spiral coil, 1) which
`
`opposes the first surface of the dielectric member (top surface of 2), and which
`
`generates plasma (causes generation of a plasma) within the reaction chamber (10) [fig
`
`7 & col 4, lines 12-27].
`
`Yoshida’993 does not teach the dielectric member has a groove having an
`
`annular shape and formed on the surface of the dielectric member, and wherein a depth
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 5
`
`of the groove increases stepwise from an inner circumference of the groove toward an
`
`outer circumference of the groove.
`
`Chen teaches a dielectric member (window, 18) has a groove having an annular
`
`shape (surface around thickened central portion) and formed on the surface of the
`
`dielectric member (bottom surface of 18), and wherein a depth of the groove (surface
`
`around thickened central portion) increases stepwise (series of steps) from an inner
`
`circumference of the groove (window portion, 183) toward an outer circumference of the
`
`groove (window portion, 181) [fig 7 & col 6, lines 23-62].
`
`Yoshida’993 and Chen are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to modify the dielectric member of Yoshida’993 with a groove, as in
`
`Chen, to achieve substantially uniform ion current density across the diameter of the
`
`substrate [Chen — col 5-6, lines 67-8].
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen does not teach the dielectric member has a
`
`groove formed in the first surface of the dielectric member, and wherein at least a part
`
`of the coil is disposed in the groove, and the part of the coil disposed in the groove is a
`
`peripheral part of the coil and a remaining part of the coil disposed outside of the
`
`groove.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a dielectric member (dielectric plate, 4) has a groove
`
`(surface around upwardly convex shape) formed in the first surface of the dielectric
`
`member (top surface of 4), and wherein at least a part of the coil (spiral coil, 2) is
`
`disposed in the groove (provided to conform along the surface around convex shape),
`
`and the part of the coil disposed in the groove is a peripheral part of the coil (periphery
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 6
`
`of 2 provided along the surface around convex shape) provided and a remaining part of
`
`the coil disposed outside of the groove (remainder of 2 provided above convex shape)
`
`[fig SB & col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the groove of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`formed in the top surface of the dielectric member, as in Yoshida’781, to make
`
`maintenance of the reaction chamber easier while achieving the same effect of a
`
`uniform processing rate across the diameter of the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 4-5,
`
`lines 61 -6].
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen and Yoshida’781 does not teach a distance
`
`between the peripheral part of the coil and the dielectric member is shorter than a
`
`distance between a remaining part of the coil and the dielectric member.
`
`Ghanbari teaches a distance between the peripheral part of the coil and the
`
`dielectric member is shorter than a distance between a remaining part of the coil and
`
`the dielectric member (segments of lesser radii are arranged to reside further away from
`
`the dielectric plate than segments of greater radii) [fig 1 & col 2, lines 44-63 and col 3,
`
`lines 39-50].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Ghanbari are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the coil of modified Yoshida’993 with the coil
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 7
`
`configuration of Ghanbari to vary the field configuration within the chamber to
`
`accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari - col 2, lines 44-63].
`
`Regarding claim 2:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a center of the groove (surface around thick part
`
`at the center) is substantially overlapped with a center of the coil (coil to be axially
`
`symmetrical about the center of the reaction chamber) as viewed from a direction
`
`perpendicular to the first surface of the dielectric member (direction depicted in fig BA-
`
`BB) [Yoshida’781 - fig 3A-BB & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4, lines 22-41].
`
`Regarding claim 3:
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen does not teach the coil comprises a conductor
`
`having a length L and extending from a first end on a center side to a second end on an
`
`outer peripheral side, wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion having a
`
`length 0.5L extending from the first end and a remaining outer peripheral side portion,
`
`and wherein a ratio of the center side portion disposed within the groove is smaller than
`
`a ratio of the remaining outer peripheral side portion disposed within the groove.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a coil (spiral coil, 2) comprises a conductor having a length
`
`L (length of coil from center to outer peripheral side — the radius of 2) and extending
`
`from a first end on a center side (center of reaction chamber) to a second end on an
`
`outer peripheral side (outer right side of 2) [fig 5B & & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines
`
`56-6], wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion (center portion of radius of
`
`2) having a length 0.5L (length of coil from center to 0.5 the distance to outer peripheral
`
`side) extending from the first end and a remaining outer peripheral side portion (halfway
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 8
`
`between center and outer right side of 2) [fig SB & & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines
`
`56-6].
`
`Yoshida’781 does not specifically disclose “a ratio of the center side portion
`
`disposed within the groove is smaller than a ratio of the remaining outer peripheral side
`
`portion disposed within the groove” but teaches a ratio of the center side portion to the
`
`remaining outer side portion (d/D) is a result-effective variable [fig 3A-3D & col 4, lines
`
`22-41].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the ratio of the center side portion
`
`to the remaining outer side portion through routine experimentation in order to discover
`
`the optimum ratio for reducing the induction field at the center to achieve a uniform ion
`
`current density {fig 3A-3D & col 4, lines 22-41]. Absent a showing of criticality with
`
`respect to the ratio of the center side portion to the remaining outer side portion, it has
`
`been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
`
`routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the groove of modified Yoshida’993 with the
`
`dimensions of Yoshida’781 to achieve a uniform processing rate across the diameter of
`
`the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 2, lines 6-38].
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Regarding claim 4:
`
`Page 9
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen and Yoshida’781 does not specifically disclose a
`
`winding density of the coil in the center side portion is smaller than that of the remaining
`
`outer peripheral side portion.
`
`Ghanbari does not specifically disclose “a winding density of the coil in the center
`
`side portion is smaller than that of the remaining outer peripheral side portion” but
`
`teaches the winding density is a result-effective variable [fig 2 & col 3, lines 51 -65].
`
`It
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to discover the optimum range for the winding density through routine
`
`experimentation in order to modify the field configuration within the plasma chamber [fig
`
`2 & col 3, lines 51 -65]. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the winding
`
`density, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable
`
`involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Ghanbari are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the coil of modified Yoshida’993 with the
`
`winding density of Ghanbari to adjust the coil to produce a more uniform plasma
`
`[Ghanbari — col 3, lines 51 -65].
`
`Regarding claims 5-6:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches an electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) and an insulation film (portion
`
`of 2 surrounding 1a/1 b) which covers the electrode pattern (1a/1 b), which are formed on
`
`the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom surface of 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 10
`
`59-4]; wherein the electrode pattern (1a/1 b) comprises an electric heater (heater, 1b)
`
`which heats the dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the insulation film and dielectric
`
`member are separate structures.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art before the effective filing date to separate the dielectric member into two
`
`structures (dielectric member and insulation film), since it has been held that making a
`
`formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP
`
`2144.04].
`
`Regarding claim 10:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches the part of the coil (spiral coil, 2) disposed in the
`
`groove (surface around upwardly convex shape) follows a bottom shape of the groove
`
`(provided to conform along the surface around convex shape) [Yoshida’781 - fig 5B &
`
`col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`Regarding claim 11:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a maximum depth of the groove (surface around
`
`thickened central portion) is in a range from 0.25T to 0.45T, where T is a thickness of
`
`the dielectric member before forming the groove (1 :6 to 1 :1.5 = 0.17T to 0.67T) [Chen -
`
`fig 7 & col 6, lines 9-22].
`
`In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
`
`prior art a prima facie base of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
`
`191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
`
`Regarding claim 12:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches an area of the dielectric member in which the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 11
`
`groove (surface around thickened central portion) is formed is in a range from 0.028 to
`
`0.58, where 8 is an area of the first surface of the dielectric member (diameter of 3 to 4
`
`inches of a total diameter of 9 to 10 inches = Tr*(3/2)2: Tr*(1O/2)2 to Tr*(4/2)2: 1'r*(9/2)2 =
`
`7.1 :78.5 to 12.6:63.6 = 0.098 to 0.28) [Chen - fig 7 & col 6, lines 43-55].
`
`In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
`
`prior art a prima facie base of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
`
`191 U8PQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
`
`Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yoshida (US 5,735,993) in view of Chen et al (US 5,226,967), Yoshida et al (US
`
`5,690,781), and Ghanbari (US 5,982,100) as applied to claims 1-6 and 10-12 above,
`
`and further in view of Collins et al (US 6,361,644).
`
`The limitations of claims 1-6 and 10-12 have been set forth above.
`
`Regarding claim 7:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches the electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) comprises a plate
`
`electrode (metallic plate, 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 does not teach the plate electrode is capacitively coupled
`
`to the plasma when the plate electrode is supplied with radio frequency power.
`
`Collins teaches a plate electrode (conductive backplane, 400) is capacitively
`
`coupled (parallel plates) to the plasma when the plate electrode (400) is supplied with
`
`radio frequency power (via RF generator) [fig 25A & col 1, lines 12-16 and col 20-21,
`
`lines 66-19].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Collins are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 12
`
`effective filing date to modify the plate electrode of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma, as in Collins, to combine the advantages of
`
`inductive and capacitive coupling in a single reactor [Collins — col 5, lines 33-44].
`
`Regarding claim 8:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a first electrode pattern (metallic plate, 1a) and a
`
`first insulation film (portion of 2 surrounding 1a) which covers the first electrode pattern
`
`(1 a), which are formed on the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom surface
`
`of 2) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4], a second electrode pattern (heater, 1b)
`
`and a second insulation film (portion of 2 surrounding 1b) which covers the second
`
`electrode pattern (1 b), which are formed on a surface of the first insulation film opposite
`
`to the dielectric member (portion of 2 surrounding 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6,
`
`lines 59-4], wherein one of the first and second electrode patterns (1 a/1 b) comprises an
`
`electric heater (heater, 1b) which heats the dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2), and
`
`wherein the other of the first and second electrode patterns (1a/1 b) comprises a plate
`
`electrode (metallic plate, 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the first insulation film,
`
`second insulation film, and dielectric member are separate structures.
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
`
`separate the dielectric member into three structures (dielectric member and first/second
`
`insulation films), since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure
`
`separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
`
`Additionally, modified Yoshida’993 does not teach the plate electrode is
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma within the reaction chamber when the other of the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 13
`
`first and second electrode patterns is supplied with radio frequency power.
`
`Collins teaches a plate electrode (conductive backplane, 400) is capacitively
`
`coupled (parallel plates) to the plasma within the reaction chamber when the other of
`
`the first and second electrode patterns (400) is supplied with radio frequency power (via
`
`RF generator) [fig 25A & col 1, lines 12-16 and col 20-21, lines 66-19].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Collins are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to modify the plate electrode of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma, as in Collins, to combine the advantages of
`
`inductive and capacitive coupling in a single reactor [Collins — col 5, lines 33-44].
`
`Regarding claim 9:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches the electric heater (heater, 1b) as a whole is
`
`disposed within the plate electrode (metallic plate, 1a) as viewed from a direction
`
`perpendicular to the second surface of the dielectric member (same geometry)
`
`[Yoshida’993 - fig 2, 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-10].
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Page 14
`
`(A) Applicant argues that the references, alone or in combination, do not
`
`disclose, teach, or render obvious the limitation “wherein a distance between the part of
`
`the coil disposed in the groove and the dielectric member is shorter than a distance
`
`between a remaining part of the coil disposed outside of the groove and the dielectric
`
`member”. Specifically, Ghanbari only teaches that a distance between the peripheral
`
`part of the coil and the dielectric member is shorter than a distance between the central
`
`part of the coil and the dielectric member. Since Ghanbari does not show any groove,
`
`Ghanbari fails to teach the limitation above. The distance comparison in this limitation
`
`depends upon how deep the groove is and where the groove is located. Since Ghanbari
`
`fails to show how deep the groove is and where the groove would be located if the
`
`groove was created on the dielectric member of Ghanbari, Ghanbari in combination with
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen and Yoshida’781 would not make the claimed invention
`
`obvious.
`
`In response, examiner maintains that the combination of references render this
`
`limitation obvious. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention must
`
`be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
`
`combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As set forth in the
`
`advisory action dated 12/04/2018:
`
`Yoshida'993 modified by Chen and Yoshida'781 teaches the part of the coil
`
`disposed in the groove is a peripheral part of the coil and a remaining part of the coil
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 15
`
`disposed outside the groove is a central part of the coil [Yoshida'781 - fig SB & col 4-
`
`5, lines 56-6].
`
`Ghanbari teaches a distance between the peripheral part of the coil and the
`
`dielectric member is shorter than a distance between the central part of the coil and the
`
`dielectric member (segments of lesser radii are arranged to reside further away from the
`
`dielectric plate than segments of greater radii) [fig 1 & col 2, lines 44-63 and col 3, lines
`
`39-50].
`
`Therefore, the modified structure clearly teaches all of the limitations of the claim.
`
`Specifically, the underlined and bolded segments of the rejection indicate how the
`
`modified structure teaches the limitations of the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would place the coil of Ghanbari on the dielectric member of Yoshida'993 modified by
`
`Chen and Yoshida'781 (see fig SB of Yoshida'781) to vary the field configuration within
`
`the chamber to accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari - col 2,
`
`lines 44-63].
`
`Furthermore, it is noted that Yoshida'993 modified by Chen and Yoshida'781
`
`teaches various coil configurations may be used with a dielectric member having a
`
`groove [see Yoshida'781 - fig 5A-SC] and the configuration of the coil is not limited in
`
`any way to experience the benefit of the groove (to achieve substantially uniform ion
`
`current density across the diameter of the substrate [Chen — col 5-6, lines 67-8] and
`
`[Yoshida'781 — abstract]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would further utilize
`
`the coil of Ghanbari to achieve the benefit of said coil (to vary the field configuration
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 16
`
`within the chamber to accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari -
`
`col 2, lines 44-63]).
`
`Regarding the argument that the limitation depends upon how deep the groove is
`
`and where the groove is located, it is noted that no particular depth is claimed in the
`
`independent claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the groove is located at the outer
`
`periphery of the coil [see Yoshida’781 — fig 5B]. The outer periphery of the coil of
`
`Ghanbari is located closest to the dielectric window [see Ghanbari — fig 1]. Additionally,
`
`examiner notes that the height of the central part of the coil of Ghanbari is clearly a
`
`result-effective variable and is raised regardless of the shape of the dielectric window
`
`[col 3, lines 51 -65]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to discover the optimum height of the central part of the coil
`
`through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired configuration of the
`
`induced field in order to accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari ~
`
`col 3, lines 51 -65]. Discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves
`
`only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Simply put, one of ordinary skill in the art would raise the central part of the coil in
`
`Yoshida'993 modified by Chen and Yoshida'781 (i.e. raise the central part of the coil in
`
`fig 5B of Yoshida'781) in order to achieve the desired configuration of the induced field
`
`in order to accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari _ col 3, lines
`
`51 -65]. To assert that one would simply utilize the embodiment depicted in fig 5B of
`
`Yoshida'781 ignores the teachings of Ghanbari.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 17
`
`(B) In addition, applicant argues that fig SB of Yoshida’781 shows a distance
`
`between the part of the coil disposed in the groove (the peripheral part of the coil) and
`
`the dielectric member is substantially the same as a distance between a remaining part
`
`of the coil disposed outside of the groove (the central part of the coil) and the dielectric
`
`member. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have arranged each part
`
`of the coil 40 of Ghanbari to conform to the shape of the dielectric window, as in fig SB
`
`of Yoshida’781.
`
`As set forth above, one of ordinary skill in the art would raise the central part of
`
`the coil in Yoshida'993 modified by Chen and Yoshida'781 (i.e. raise the central part of
`
`the coil in fig SB of Yoshida'781) in order to achieve the desired configuration of the
`
`induced field in order to accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari —
`
`col 3, lines 51 -65]. To assert that one would simply utilize the embodiment depicted in
`
`fig SB of Yoshida'781 ignores the teachings of Ghanbari.
`
`Ghanbari is clearly a result-effective variable and is raised regardless of the
`
`shape of the dielectric window [col 3, lines 51-65]. It would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to discover the optimum
`
`height of the central part of the coil through routine experimentation in order to achieve
`
`the desired configuration of the induced field in order to accommodate different size and
`
`shape workpieces [Ghanbari — col 3, lines 51-65]. Discovering an optimum value of a
`
`result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 18
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Benjamin Kendall/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
`
`Conferees:
`
`/GORDON BALDWIN/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
`
`/Jennifer McNeil/
`
`Primary Examiner, TC 1700
`
`Requirement to pay appeal forwarding fee.
`
`In order to avoid dismissal of the instant
`
`appeal in any application or ex parte reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 41.45 requires
`
`payment of an appeal forwarding fee within the time permitted by 37 CFR 41 .45(a),
`
`unless appellant had timely paid the fee for filing a brief required by 37 CFR 41 .20(b) in
`
`effect on March 18, 2013.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
