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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007