Appeal No. 1998-0526
Application 08/395,335
the activity monitor because the heat dissipation calculations
are unrelated to the temperature. In the claimed invention,
however, the actual temperature of the CPU is measured and
used to determine the modification to be made to the clock
signal. Although it appears tempting to relate the heat
measurements of Georgiou to temperature measurements, the fact
remains that the estimate of heat buildup in Georgiou requires
no measurement of the actual temperature of the CPU and no
such temperature measurement is disclosed by Georgiou.
Since we agree with appellant that every limitation of
claims 24-45 is not fully disclosed by Georgiou, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 24-45 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
We now consider the rejection of claims 46-69 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Georgiou in
view of the common knowledge in the art. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007