Appeal 2007-1098
Application 10/026,059
1 Reference Relied on by the Examiner
2 Luce US Patent 4,008,564 Feb. 22, 1977
3 Khan Pub. US 2002/0185720 Dec. 12, 2002
4 Kirkpatrick Pub. US 2002/0186618 Dec. 12, 2002
5
6 The Rejections on Appeal
7
8 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
9 unpatentable over Luce.
10 The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
11 Luce and Khan.
12 The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
13 as unpatentable over Luce and Kirkpatrick.
14 B. Issues
15 Have the applicants shown error in the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13,
16 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20?
17 C. Summary of the Decision
18 The applicants have shown error in the rejections of each of claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
19 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. But new grounds of rejection are herein entered
20 against claim 1 and it is recommended that the Examiner revisit the patentability of
21 all other claims in light of the new grounds of rejection against claim 1.
22 D Findings of Fact (Referenced as FF. ¶ No.)
23 1. The invention relates to a circuit comprising an electronic component
24 the thermal mass of which is increased by the addition of some structure, for
25 reducing thermal drift (Specification 3: 3-13).
26 2. The applicants’ specification does not define or explain the meaning
27 of “thermal mass.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013