Appeal 2007-2202
Application 10/608,169
contains a microprocessor, (item 15, figure 1) we find that it necessarily includes
some form of storage or memory. As the processor receives a control signal
indicating a desired setting (frequency to be tuned to), and controls the heater to
maintain the appropriate temperature, these values must be stored in some form of
storage. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that the skilled artisan
would recognize that Eggleton’s device includes logic that stores the frequency
selected by the photonic device and a temperature, where the temperature is
associated with the frequency. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection based upon Eggleton. Accordingly, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Eggleton.
Rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue on, page 11 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 5, 9, and 12, are in error as Huber does not teach the logic limitation
discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. Further, on page 3 of the
Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Koizumi is non-analogous art.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 5,
however, we are persuaded with respect to claims 9 and 12.
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1, and does not further limit the “logic”
limitation of claim 1. As discussed above we find that Huber teaches the logic as
claimed in claim 1. Further, in rejecting claim 5, the Examiner relied upon
Koizumi’s teaching that aluminum temperature sensors were known and concluded
that using such a sensor for the temperature sensor in Huber’s device would be
obvious. The Supreme Court has recently stated that “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013