Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
Examiner’s line of reasoning is sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, thereby shifting the burden to
Appellants to provide evidence and/or arguments to rebut the
Examiner’s position. In evaluating Appellants’ response, we note
that, in our view, the temperature control teachings of the test
circuitry of the Charlton and Yamada references are cumulative to
the disclosure of Kreiger, and, accordingly, we will limit our
discussion to the Krieger reference. Contrary to Appellants’
contention (Brief, pages 22-24) that Kreiger discloses no
temperature feedback control loop, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer, page 6) that feedback signals from the sensors 78 on the
heating element 16 in Kreiger provide feedback control to heater
elements 74 to control the temperature testing of the product
wafer 12. Further, we find Appellants’ argument that Krieger has
no temperature testing circuitry resident on a test wafer to be
without merit since no such requirement appears in the appealed
claims.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007