Appeal No. 1999-1871 Page 3
Application No. 08/688,337
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Holmen et al. (Holmen)4,784,721Nov. 15, 1988
Higashi et al. (Higashi) 4,895,616 Jan. 23, 1990
Fan et al. (Fan) 5,364,742 Nov. 15, 1994
Carlos Horacio Mastrangelo, Dissertation, Thermal Applications of Microbridges, Univ. of Cal.
at Berkeley 274 (1991) (Mastrangelo).
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). To reject claims 1, 3-
5, 7 and 8, the Examiner relies upon the Prior Art Statement on page 1 of the specification in
view of Higashi as evidence of obviousness. With respect to claim 2, the Examiner additionally
relies upon either Mastrangelo or Fan. To reject claim 6, the Examiner relies upon the Prior Art
Statement, Higashi and, additionally, Holmen. See the Answer at pages 3-4 for the Examiner’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness, we affirm. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Appellant divides the claims into four groups (Brief at 3) and argues these groups
separately (Brief at 3-6). The first group consists of claims 1 and 5-7. The second group consists
of claim 2. The third group consists of claims 3-4. The fourth group consists of claim 8. In
accordance with 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7)(1998), we select one claim from each group to decide the
issues on appeal with regard to the rejections that Appellant contests.
Claims 1 and 5-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007