Appeal No. 2003-2174
Application No. 09/915,071
Appellant argues that the Examiner (Final Rejection p. 4) has dismissed claim
language that is integral to the structural elements. (Brief, p. 7) We do not find Appellant’s
argument persuasive . The Examiner has responded to Appellant’s argument in the Final
Rejection, pages 7-8, and in the Answer, page 12. Appellant, in the Brief, has not addressed
the Examiner’s position from the Final Rejection. Appellant also has not presented
arguments or evidence in rebuttal to the Examiner’s position in supplemental briefing.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Torres discloses all of the structural elements of
the claimed invention. As stated above, Torres’ active circuit dissipates heat during
operation. The extension around the active circuit area would function as a path away for
heat to travel from the active circuit.
Appellant also argues that “Torres does not disclose or even suggest the location of
any active circuit element, let alone one that is ‘adjacent’ to an active circuit area
boundary.” (Brief, p. 8). This argument is not persuasive. Torres describes an active circuit
area (22) is surrounded by the periphery (24). Thus, Torres describes all of the elements of
this claim.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been addressed by the Examiner
in the Answer. (Pages 12-13). Moreover, as stated above, the Examiner asserted that Torres
discloses an active surface that implements application logic which dissipates heat during
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007