Ex Parte Guittienne

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2018

13148536 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/148,536 08/09/2011
2746 7590 10/19/2018
WILLIAM H. EILBERG
316 CALIFORNIA AVE. #785
RENO, NV 89509
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philippe Guittienne
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
190-150 2804
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2018 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):
whe@eilberg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIPPE GUITTIENNE
Appeal2017-008401
Application 13/148,536
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a plasma processing apparatus. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus (50) for plasma processing comprising:
a. at least one plane antenna (A),
b. at least one radiofrequency generator (20) exciting said
antenna (A),
c. a gas injection system (55) and diffuser,
Appeal2017-008401
Application 13/148,536
d. a process chamber ( 51) in a proximity to said
antenna (A),
e. wherein said plane antenna (A) comprises a plurality
of interconnected elementary resonant meshes (Ml, M2, M3),
each mesh (Ml, M2, M3) comprising a resonant L-C loop
having at least two conductive legs (1, 2) and at least two
capacitors (5, 6), wherein the elementary resonant meshes are
interconnected by common legs of the at least two conductive
legs for forming a ladder shaped resonant circuit, the antenna
being resonant, wherein the antenna has an impedance having a
strong real part, of an order of several hundreds of ohms, and a
very small imaginary part, close to zero, wherein said
antenna (A) has a plurality of resonant frequencies, wherein
said at least two conductive legs (1, 2) are straight and parallel
to each other,
f. and wherein said radiofrequency generator (20) excites
said antenna (A) to at least one of its resonant frequencies.
Ishii
Moslehi
Satoyoshi
Byun
Iwasaki
Gondai
Chevalier
The References
us 5,685,942
US 6,209,480 B 1
US 6,331,754 Bl
US 2002/0007794 Al
US 6,522,302 B 1
US 2005/0115676 Al
US 2007/0056515 Al
The Rejections
Nov. 11, 1997
Apr. 3, 2001
Dec.18,2001
Jan.24,2002
Feb. 18,2003
June 2, 2005
Mar. 15, 2007
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, and 13 over Chevalier in view of Satoyoshi, Moslehi,
Iwasaki, and Byun, claim 10 over Chevalier in view of Satoyoshi, Moslehi,
Iwasaki, Byun, and Gondai, and claim 12 over Chevalier in view of
Satoyoshi, Moslehi, Iwasaki, Byun, and Ishii.
2
Appeal2017-008401
Application 13/148,536
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires a plane antenna comprising
interconnected elementary resonant meshes each having a resonant L-C loop
with at least two conductive legs and at least two capacitors. To meet that
claim requirement the Examiner relies upon the combined disclosures of
Chevalier and Satoyoshi (Ans. 5-8).
Chevalier discloses a plasma source comprising a plasma generation
chamber ( 6) surrounded by magnetic field generators (8) on a pipe (i-f 34;
Fig. 3).
The Examiner finds that item 7 in Chevalier's Figures 3, 5, and 7 is a
plane antenna (Ans. 5).
Those figures and Chevalier's specification do not identify item 7.
Because item 7 is inside magnetic field generators (8) on a pipe, item 7
appears to be cylindrical rather than planar.
The Examiner finds that Chevalier's Figure 7 "discloses a planar
antenna an [sic] a similar embodiment" ( Ans. 5).
Chevalier provides no description of Figure 7. Hence, one cannot
determine whether the structure is planar or is a top view of a cylindrical
structure such as those in Figures 6 and 8.
Satoyoshi discloses an antenna (13) having long straight portions
parallel to each other ( col. 12, 11. 40-42; Fig. 18C) and discloses a plane coil
antenna having capacitors along its length to reduce the impedance and
potential of the entire antenna, thereby preventing current reduction ( col. 14,
1. 57 - col. 15, 1. 7; Fig. 27).
3
Appeal2017-008401
Application 13/148,536
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Satoyoshi to
optimize embodiments and configurations in Chevalier's apparatus "to
further reduce the impedance of the entire antenna thereby reducing the
potential of the antenna, and preventing reduction of the current" (Ans. 7).
The Examiner merely points out antenna structures in Chevalier's
Figures 3, 5, and 7 and Satoyoshi's Figures 18C and 27 and finds that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined them to obtain the benefit of
Satoyoshi's Figure 27's structure (Ans. 5-7). The Examiner does not
specifically explain how those structures would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to an antenna having the features required by the Appellant's
claim 1.
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejections are based
upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant's disclosure. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11,
and 13 over Chevalier in view of Satoyoshi, Moslehi, Iwasaki and Byun,
claim 10 over Chevalier in view of Satoyoshi, Moslehi, Iwasaki, Byun, and
Gondai, and claim 12 over Chevalier in view of Satoyoshi, Moslehi,
Iwasaki, Byun, and Ishii are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4