Appeal No. 2006-2707
Application No. 09/749,792
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 claims 5 and 10.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and
10 is sustained.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is the Rejection of Claims 18
through 20 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ko,
Georgiou, McDermott Proper?
With respect to claims 18 through 20, Appellant argues in
the Appeal Brief that the combination of Ko, Georgiou and
McDermott does not disclose a performance demanding level input
for determining the rate of reduction of the temperature-related
frequency.
Now, the question before us is what Ko, Georgiou and
McDermott would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art?
To answer this question, we find the following additional facts:
1. At column 6, lines 32 through 43, Ko states the
following:
The clock arbiter 51 also changes from
the max state to the hold state in response
to an overheat signal latched from the
temperature sensing circuit 49 during each
cycle of clock 44. This state change is
shown by path 75 in FIG. 6 which indicates
that the temperature is greater than an
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007