Appeal No. 2003-0018
Application No. 09/035,431
We will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness by providing the
requisite motivation for combining the references and, moreover,
even if the skilled artisan was led to combine the references,
the instant claimed subject matter would not result.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a temperature
sensor that provides a “digitized temperature” and is arranged on
one of the supporting plates. While it is true that Nash
discloses a temperature sensor arranged on a supporting plate,
neither Nash nor Endo discloses a temperature sensor that
provides a “digitized temperature value.” It is clear from the
disclosures of the references that each provides for an analog
signal from the temperature sensor. Each reference teaches that
the analog temperature signal is provided to an analog-digital
converter so that a digitized signal is eventually produced.
Normally, it would appear obvious to convert an analog signal to
digital form and vice-versa, depending on the particular
circumstances. However, in this case, appellant explains, very
emphatically, that the analog nature of the temperature
measurement in the prior art caused problems because of the
inaccuracies introduced by the transmission of analog temperature
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007