Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
81, and 82 and the current flow and voltage level limiting
circuitry set forth in claims 69 and 70. Accordingly, since all
of the claim limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art references, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 58, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, and
82 based on the combination of King '241 or King '405 in view of
Moriya is not sustained.
Lastly, we turn to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate
obviousness rejection of all of the appealed claims based on
King '405 or King '241 in view of Kreiger, Yamada, or Charlton,
further in view of Kwon or Tuckerman, and further in view of
Moriya. Initially, the Examiner proposes to modify the circuitry
of King '241 or King '405 by adding the temperature sensing and
control teachings of, in the alternative, Kreiger, Charlton, or
Yamada. To this combination, the Examiner further adds the
teachings of Kwon or Tuckerman, directing particular attention to
the disclosure of voltage and current control as related to chip
testing. Lastly, the Examiner adds Moriya to the resulting
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007