Appeal No. 2006-2707
Application No. 09/749,792
frequency, McDermott is cumulative to a proper rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of representative claim 1, as Georgiou discloses
all that is claimed. It is therefore our view, after
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in representative claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9 and 11
through 17 is sustained.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is the Rejection of Claims 5 and
10 as being unpatentable over the combination of Georgiou,
McDermott and Ko Proper?
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Appellant argues in the
Appeal Brief that the combination of Georgiou and McDermott does
not disclose a performance demanding level input for determining
the rate of reduction of the temperature-related frequency. We
have already addressed this argument in the discussion of claim 1
above, and we do not agree with Appellant. Further, Appellant
argues that Ko does not cure the deficiencies of the Georgiou-
McDermott combination. As noted above, we find no such
deficiencies in the Georgiou reference for Ko to remedy. It is
therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us,
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007