Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
layers 3, 2, 16, 17 and 1 of Potter are considered to be a
structural equivalent to the claimed means for eliminating heat
[answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that Potter does not
anticipate the claimed invention because there are four layers
between the Potter heat sink and the Potter diamond [brief, page
6]. The examiner responds that when the means for eliminating
heat is considered to include all of elements 3, 2, 16, 17 and 1
of Potter, then the carbon layer 4 of Potter is directly
connected to layer 3 which meets the claim recitation [answer,
pages 8-9].
We observe first that the examiner’s initial theory of
anticipation cannot be sustained. The direct mounting of claim 8
does not permit an intervening layer as suggested by the
examiner. The first and second embodiments of appellants’
invention (figures 2 and 3) show intervening layers, but are not
described
as being directly mounted. Appellants do not suggest that
mounting is direct until Figure 4 is described. Appellants note
that “[t]he embodiment shown in Figure 4 differs from the
embodiment shown in Figure 3 only in that the insulator layer
ISO4 is grown directly on the cooling member W4 and no connecting
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007