Appeal No. 1997-4442 Application 08/353,040 The Examiner admits that Drabkin does not disclose that the difference in the resistance values is maximally a factor of 10 and that the difference in the absolute value of TCT is maximally a factor of 10 (EA4). However, the Examiner concludes that "it is [sic, was] well within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to select resistance and absolute values of the TCR such that a desired result will be achieved, which could be a maximum factor of 10" (EA5). Appellants argue that the closer initial matching of the resistance and TCR values of the path portions, and the tandem trimming of both sections, allows the resistance value and TCR of the total resistance path to be adjusted more accurately resulting in far fewer rejected resistors and that the rejection does not show how this would have been obvious (RBr3). We conclude that the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has dismissed the differences (i.e., the difference between the resistance values being maximally a value of 10 and the difference between the absolute values of the TCRs as being maximally a factor of 10) - 11 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007