Ex Parte Kudela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

12172029 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/172,029 07/11/2008 Jozef Kudela 012257/DISPLAY/AHRDWR/ES 4096
44257 7590 12/31/2013
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOZEF KUDELA,
CARL A. SORENSEN, and JOHN M. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
2
On December 19, 2011, the Examiner finally rejected claims 1-21 of
Application 12/172,029 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious and objected to
claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 for failure to further limit the
claims from which they depend. Appellants1 seek reversal of the rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Oral argument in this appeal was held on December 12, 2013.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The ’029 application describes a radio frequency choke and gas feed
tube for matching impedance in a plasma processing apparatus. Spec.
¶ 0002. Claim 1 is representative of the ’029 application’s claims and is
reproduced below:
1. An RF choke assembly, comprising:
a gas feed tube comprising a metal; and
a plurality of ferrite disks directly coupled to and at least
partially surrounding the gas feed tube, wherein adjacent ferrite
disks are spaced apart.
(App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).)

1 Applied Materials, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
2 Claims 8 and 15 were cancelled after entry of the Final Rejection, mooting
the rejections of those claims. Response After Final 6 (Feb. 21, 2012).
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
3
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sorensen3 and Hettiger.4
(Ans. 5.)
2. Claims 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sorensen, Hettiger, and facts
of which the Examiner has taken Official Notice. (Ans. 8.)
3. Claims 2, 4-6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sorensen, Hettiger, and
Paluev.5 (Ans. 10.)
4. Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorensen, Hettiger, Paluev, and facts of which
the Examiner has taken Official Notice. (Ans. 13.)
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Sorensen, Hettiger, Paluev and Johnson.6
(Ans. 15.)
6. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sorensen, Hettiger, and
Johnson. (Ans. 16.)

3 US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/00514388 A1, published Mar.
8, 2007.
4 US Patent No. 4,796,079, issued Jan. 3, 1989.
5 US Patent No. 2,912,658, issued Nov. 10, 1959.
6 US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0125223 A1, published Sept.
12, 2002.
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
4
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Sorensen, Hettiger, Johnson, and Paluev.
(Ans. 17.)
DISCUSSION
This appeal may be resolved by consideration of a single question:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sorensen and
Hettiger describe or suggest an RF choke comprising a plurality ferrite disks
in direct contact with a metal gas feed tube? Because we answer this
question in the affirmative, we reverse the rejections of the ’029
application’s claims.
We begin, as we must, with claim construction. Amazon.com, Inc. v.
Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only
when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made . . .
whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed
invention.”). During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their
broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in
a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
In this case, independent claim 1 requires that the claimed RF choke
include “a plurality of ferrite disks directly coupled to . . . the gas feed tube.”
(emphasis added). Similarly, independent claim 17 is directed to a gas
delivery method that requires, in relevant part, flowing a gas through a metal
tube that has “a plurality of ferrite disks . . . directly coupled to . . . the metal
tube.” (emphasis added). Finally, independent claim 9 requires that the
apparatus include “a plurality of ferrite disks coupled directly to . . .
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
5
surrounding the gas feed tube” (emphasis added). Thus, we begin by
construing the term “directly coupled.” 7
We begin by noting that the term “coupled” has two potentially
plausible meanings. At least two definitions of the verb “couple” are
plausible: (1) “to join; connect;” and (2) “to bring (two electric circuits or
circuit components) close enough to permit an exchange of electromagnetic
energy.” See Coupled, DICTIONARY.COM,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coupled (last visited Dec. 13, 2013).
Our review of the ’029 application’s Specification and claims
convinces us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
“coupled” to mean “joined” or “connected.” For example, the Specification
describes the first end of the gas feed tube as coupled to the gas source and
the second end of the gas feed tube as coupled with the RF power source.
Spec. ¶ 0007; see also id. at ¶¶ 0008, 0031, 0038. Furthermore, the ’029
application’s claims use the term “coupled” in places where it is clear that
the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to mean “joined”
or “connected.” Claim 9 requires, among other things, a metal gas feed tube
that has “a first end coupled with the gas source.” Because a claim term
should be construed consistently wherever it appears in a patent or
application’s claims, see, e.g., Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d
1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d
1146, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e are obliged to construe the term
‘elasticity’ consistently throughout the claims.”), we determine that the term

7 Based upon our review of the ’029 application’s Specification, we
conclude that the terms “directly coupled” and “coupled directly” should be
interpreted identically.
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
6
“coupled” as used in the ’029 application’s claims means “joined” or
“connected.”
The ’029 application’s independent claims use the phrase “directly
coupled.” Based on our review of the ’029 application’s Specification, we
conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
adverb “directly” as having been used in its normal sense of meaning “in
immediate physical contact.” See Directly, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly (last visited Dec. 17,
2013).
Accordingly, we construe the phrase “directly coupled” as meaning
“joined by immediate physical contact.” Each of the ’029 application’s
independent claims, therefore, requires that the RF choke have a plurality of
ferrite disks joined or connected to a metallic gas feed tube by immediate
physical contact. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Sorensen and Hettiger describes
or suggests an RF choke with such as structure is incorrect.
The Examiner found that the combination of Sorensen and Hettiger
suggested such a structure. (Ans. 5, 7, 18-19.) In rejecting the ’029
application’s independent claims, the Examiner relied upon two different RF
choke assemblies described in Sorensen in combination with Hettiger’s
description of the use of ferrite beads.
As Appellants point out, neither of the RF choke assemblies described
in Sorensen is comprised of ferrite disks directly coupled to a metal gas feed
tube. (Reply Br. 2.) Both of the embodiments relied upon by the Examiner
are comprised of an RF choke assembly disposed around a gas feed tube. In
the first embodiment, the RF choke comprises a wire coil, optionally
wrapped around a plastic core. Sorensen ¶¶ 0016-0017, 0021-0022, Figs. 1,
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
7
2. Sorensen expressly states that the gas feed tube in this embodiment is
made from “ceramic, quartz, and/or the like.” Id. at ¶ 0016. The second
embodiment relied upon by the Examiner comprises an RF choke disposed
around a metal gas feed tube (Ans. 5, 7, 18). In this embodiment, however,
the RF choke is comprised of a wire coil wrapped around a form that is
located between the coil and the metal feed tube. Sorensen ¶ 0038. The
form is described as being made of a polyamide plastic. Id. at ¶ 0039.
Sorensen does not describe the use of ferrite material in an RF choke.
The Examiner, therefore, turned to Hettiger for its description of the use of
ferrite beads located on a conductor to attenuate the transmission of RF
energy. (Ans. 5-6.)
The combination of Sorensen and Hettiger, therefore, suggests the
disposition of ferrite beads or disks around the wire in the wire coils of
Sorensen’s RF chokes. When ferrite disks are so located, there is no reason
to believe that they would be joined by immediate contact to a metal gas
feed tube. In the first embodiment, the gas feed tube is non-metallic. In the
second embodiment, a plastic sleeve is located between the metal gas feed
tube and the ferrite beads. The Examiner has not provided any reason why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced the non-metallic gas
feed tube in the first embodiment with the second embodiment’s metal gas
feed tube.
We therefore determine that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Sorensen and Hettiger describes or suggests an RF choke
comprising a plurality of ferrite disks joined by immediate contact with a
metal gas feed tube. Because each of the ’029 application’s independent
claims require this structure and the Examiner has not found that any of the
Appeal 2012-011897
Application 12/172,029
8
other cited references remedies this error, we reverse the rejection of the
’029 application’s pending claims as obvious.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21 of the ’029 application
as obvious over the combination of Sorensen and Hettiger, whether alone or
in combination with one or more of the additional references cited by the
Examiner, are reversed.
REVERSED

bar