Appeal No. 1998-0526 Application 08/395,335 the activity monitor because the heat dissipation calculations are unrelated to the temperature. In the claimed invention, however, the actual temperature of the CPU is measured and used to determine the modification to be made to the clock signal. Although it appears tempting to relate the heat measurements of Georgiou to temperature measurements, the fact remains that the estimate of heat buildup in Georgiou requires no measurement of the actual temperature of the CPU and no such temperature measurement is disclosed by Georgiou. Since we agree with appellant that every limitation of claims 24-45 is not fully disclosed by Georgiou, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 24-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We now consider the rejection of claims 46-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Georgiou in view of the common knowledge in the art. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007