Appeal No. 2003-1021
Application 09/507,507
4. Rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gondusky in view of Toy
The examiner relies on Toy for a disclosure of using
two layers between a heat sink 22 and cap 18 to secure the heat
sink to the cap. In particular, Toy discloses the use of a
thin adherent metal interface layer 20 and silicone elastomer
material layer 21. See column 8, lines 58-61.
Where an obviousness determination is based on a
combination of prior art references, there must be some
“teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination.”
In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Although the examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to have employed a plurality of layers in Gondusky
to attach a heat sink body to an intermediate layer in view of
Toy’s disclosure may seem plausible, it is simply unsupported by
the references.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and the rejection
is reversed.
In sum, we reverse as to all four grounds of rejection.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007