Appeal No. 1999-2052
Application No. 08/572,202
Regarding item 7 (claim 21, rehearing request at page 18),
we still are of the view that Appellant at page 27 of the brief
makes a mere conclusory statement regarding claim 21, which is
not in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(8)(iv)(1998). However,
for the rationale we gave regarding the combination of Smith and
Kikinis with respect to claim 1, and further considering the
teaching of Kenny the concept of having power on and off depending
upon the temperature condition of the integrated chip (for example,
column 1 lines 50-64), we hold the recited limitations to be taught
by their combination. Therefore, claim 21 is obvious in view of
Smith, Kikinis and Kenny.
Regarding item 8 (claims 21, 70-72, and through claim
dependency, claims 22-27, 55, 56, 58-60, 62, 67, 73 and 74,
rehearing request at page 19), Appellant raises the issue of
failure of a prima facie case of obviousness. In this regard, we
direct Appellant’s attention to our decision at pages 13-16. We
explained our position in holding that the combination of Smith,
Kikinis and Kenny did present a prima facie case of obviousness
with a justifiable reason for the combination. We reemphasize our
position that Kenny does teach the prediction of the temperature at
column 2, lines 37-47 where Kenny teaches that the temperature is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007