Appeal No. 2006-1056
Application No. 10/606,514
Moreover, appellants argue, Nizar “further fails to
identically describe controlling access to the device using the
‘predicted temperature’” (principal brief-page 4). Rather, the
cited portion of Nizar, although mentioning controlling an access
rate when a certain amount of I/O traffic is reached, does not
teach or suggest using the predicted temperature to control
access to the device. “[T]he controller described in Nizar
controls access to the package/die based on the throttle counter
limit and a determined maximum amount of traffic, and not based
on any calculated temperature estimate” (principal brief-page 5).
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including, inter
alia, the disclosure of Nizar and the arguments by appellants and
the examiner, and we conclude that the subject matter of instant
claim 1 is anticipated by Nizar, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Nizar describes a method of determining access rate to a
component, comparing the access rate with a predetermined access
rate, and controlling the temperature of the component through
some corrective action. Thus, at first glance, it would appear
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007