Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
grouped all of the claims together in making this rejection, the
above-mentioned claims contain no temperature control or voltage
and current limiting recitations, features for which several of
the secondary references were applied. We sustain the rejection
of claims 57, 68, 71, 75, 78, 79, and 83, based solely on the
combination of King '241 or King '405 in view of Moriya, for all
of the reasons discussed supra.2
Turning to a consideration of claims 58, 72, 76, 77, and 80
which include limitations directed to temperature control of the
product wafer, we sustain the obviousness rejection of these
claims as well. In addressing the claim limitations, the
Examiner applied the Kreiger, Charlton, and Yamada references, in
the alternative, as providing a disclosure of such temperature
control features. In the Examiner’s line of reasoning (final
Office action, Paper No. 12), the quest for increased accuracy in
testing would lead the skilled artisan to employ temperature
testing as part of the wafer testing procedure.
Our review of the applied prior art references in light of
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007