Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
Claims 19-20 recite a device with a member configured for
radial flow of cooling medium over the back surface of a
semiconductor device. Appellants argue the Azar does not
anticipate the claimed subject matter because Azar is not
configured for radial flow, among other things. The
examiner’s rejection does not address the “radial flow”
limitation and the examiner’s Answer does not respond to that
argument. We are unable to find such radial flow upon our own
inspection of Azar. We find that the examiner has not
presented a prima facie case of anticipation, and we will not
sustain the rejection.
Obviousness of Claims 1-20
Nakajima discloses the claimed subject matter except for
the recited member, mounted adjacent the cooling medium
ejection port (outlet), configured to create turbulence. The
examiner first relies on Azar to suggest adding a turbulence-
causing member to Nakajima, and second relies on Novotny to
suggest placing such a member adjacent Nakajima’s ejection
port.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007