Appeal No. 2003-2174
Application No. 09/915,071
operation. Appellant has not presented arguments or evidence to the contrary in
supplemental briefing.
The rejection under § 103
The Examiner rejected claims 8 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Torres and the admitted prior art of Figure 1. (Answer, pp. 8-10). We
affirm primarily for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following primarily
for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Torres does not teach the heat spreading extension that is
required for claims 8-13. We do not agree. As stated by the Examiner, Torres discloses
area (24) that does not contain active circuits. This area surrounds the active circuit. Thus,
heat created in the active circuit area will spread to the non-active area.
Appellant argues that the object of Torres is to reduce the die area and fails to teach
any temperature issues. (Brief, p. 11). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. There is no
indication on this record that the size of the die area would prevent heat from spreading to a
surrounding area. The Examiner’s position that active circuits when functioning produce
heat appears reasonable and has not been persuasively refuted by the Appellant. Appellant’s
representative’s argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Unsupported arguments of
counsel simply cannot take the place of evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007