Appeal 2007-1098
Application 10/026,059
1 In this case, Claim 1 is directed to (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix):
2 1. A circuit, comprising:
3
4 electronic component having an enclosure that protects the
5 electronic component;
6
7 structure that surrounds the enclosure and that reduces a
8 thermal drift of the electronic component by increasing a thermal
9 mass of the electronic component.
10
11 Dependent claims further limit the structure of the Claim 1 circuit to structure
12 comprising “a metal case around the enclosure” (Claim 3) and structure
13 comprising “a ceramic case around the enclosure” (Claim 4). Other dependent
14 claims further limit the circuit of Claim 1 to “an oscillator circuit” (Claim 12) and
15 “a clock circuit” (Claim 13). Read literally, Claim 1 is drawn to a circuit
16 comprising:
17 (a) an electronic component;
18
19 (b) a protective enclosure for the electronic component; and
20
21 (c) a structure surrounding protective enclosure (b) that increases a
22 thermal mass of the electronic component (a) and thereby reduces a
23 thermal drift of the electronic component (a).
24
25 The Examiner finally rejected Claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35
26 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of Luce et al. (Luce), U.S. Patent 4,008,564,
27 patented February 22, 1977. On this record, I would affirm the Examiner’s final
28 rejection of Claim 1, and all claims which stand or fall with Claim 1.
29 Luce’s Claim 2 reads, in pertinent part (emphasis added):
30 2. A digital electronic watch comprises watch components including
31 an electro-optic display cell, a power supply, an oscillator and
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013