Ex Parte Eidson et al - Page 10


             Appeal 2007-1098                                                                                 
             Application 10/026,059                                                                           
         1   cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.  Meitzner v. Mindick, 549               
         2   F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977 ); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,                       
         3   1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).  Also, the applicants’ specification does                   
         4   not describe how the applicants’ metal case 14 or 20 is attached to the substrate on             
         5   which the electronic component is mounted and does not preclude attaching the                    
         6   metal case to the substrate by an electrically non-conductive sealing agent.  The                
         7   manner of attachment is left to be determined by one with ordinary skill in the art              
         8   and is of no real significance in the context of a means-plus-function clause under              
         9   35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.  As for the functionality of reducing thermal                  
        10   drift, according to the applicants’ specification that simply follows from increasing            
        11   the electronic component’s thermal mass.  If anything else is required, none is                  
        12   disclosed.  Furthermore, on page 1 of the specification, lines 12-15, it is stated:  “A          
        13   variation in the characteristics of an electronic component with temperature may                 
        14   be referred to as thermal drift.”  Based on that definition, it cannot be reasonably             
        15   disputed that a higher thermal mass results in reduced thermal drift.                            
        16         In the alternative, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable              
        17   over Luce.                                                                                       
        18         Continuing from the foregoing discussion of anticipation by Luce, but now                  
        19   assuming that the only pathway of heat transmission from the display cell 95 to the              
        20   metal can 40 is through sealing agent 42 along the edge of the metal can, it is noted            
        21   that not all electrical insulators are necessarily thermal insulators.  Luce does not            
        22   particularly specify the thermal-insulating characteristics of the electrical insulator          
        23   42 used.  Accordingly, one with ordinary skill in the art would be free to select                
        24   from any known electrical insulator including those which are thermal conductors,                
        25   such as ceramic, in which case there would be no substantial obstruction of heat                 
        26   flow from the display cell to the can through the electrical insulator.                          


                                                      10                                                      

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013