Appeal No. 2003-2174
Application No. 09/915,071
arguments are of record in this appeal. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 to 7 under § 102(b) is well founded. We also conclude that the rejection of claims
8 to 13 under § 103(a) is well founded.
The rejection under § 102
The Examiner has found that Torres discloses a semiconductor die that anticipates the
subject matter of claims 1 to 7. (Answer, pp. 4-8). We affirm primarily for the reasons
advanced by the Examiner and add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Torres does not teach “an active surface. . . comprising at least
one active circuit element that dissipates heat during operation.” (Brief, p. 7). We agree
with the Examiner, Answer pages 11-12, that Torres discloses an active surface that
implements application logic. The Examiner asserts that the active circuit element of Torres
dissipates heat during operation. Appellant has not presented arguments or evidence to the
contrary in supplemental briefing.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007