Appeal No. 1997-4038
Application 08/337,550
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Id. at 1269, 20
USPQ2d at 1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
Upon a close inspection of Young, we find that Young teaches determining the temperature of a
semiconductor device junction shown as a diode 11 in figure 1. We further find that Young does not
teach or even contemplate that the analog circuits shown in figure 1 would be copackaged with the
semiconductor device, diode 11. Therefore, we fail to find that the Examiner established inherency
because from the teachings of Young the missing descriptive matter is not necessarily present in
theYoung temperature monitoring apparatus. Therefore, we find that Young does not inherently teach
determining the temperature of the analog integrated circuit as recited in Appellant's claims, nor does
Young inherently teach using the heat sink temperature, the power dissipated in the power
semiconductor device, the temperature of the analog integrated circuit and the thermal resistances
between the power semiconductor device and the analog integrated circuit, between the power
semiconductor device and the heat sink, and between the analog integrated circuit and the heat sink to
determine the temperature of the discrete power semiconductor device as recited in Appellant's claims.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when the proposition at issue is not
supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007