Appeal No. 2005-0303
Application No. 09/928,884
unobvious over a teaching of providing heat sinks to protect circuits. Appellants
contend that by utilizing independent cooling on the partitioned circuit portions of the
engine controller, “specific heat generating components can be specifically addressed
while heat from such components can be isolated from the central controller” (principal
brief-page 8). But, it would appear to be a design choice, well within the skill of an
artisan, as to whether one wishes to heat sink individual components or a group of
components, or to seal individual components or a plurality
of components. Again, in any event, we do not find the argued limitation in the instant
claims. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9-12, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. §103.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 8, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b)
and the rejection of claims 9-12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, the
examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007