Appeal No. 2006-1056
Application No. 10/606,514
devoid of any express mention of a calculated temperature
estimate, with the statement that “package and die temperatures
can be predicted” not describing any actual calculation of a
temperature estimate. Rather, argue appellants, this recitation
does not refer to any actual calculation, but only to the well
known use of power dissipation as a proxy for thermal management
of devices. See page 3 of the principal brief.
To whatever extent the examiner is relying on Nizar’s
recitation of “summing the power dissipated,” appellant argues
that Nizar “teaches only calculating an accumulated power
dissipated, which is different from and does not identically
describe the recited calculated temperature estimate” (principal
brief-page 4). Appellants contend that while the temperature of
the package and die in Nizar has some relationship to the sum of
the power dissipation, the predicted package/die temperature is
not identical to the sum of the dissipated power. “Rather, some
other calculation would have to be made to arrive at a predicted
temperature based on the sum” (principal brief-page 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007