Ex Parte Sett et al - Page 3



                Appeal 2007-1055                                                                               
                Application 10/831,012                                                                         

                      Appealed claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-21 stand rejected under                            
                35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fathy in view of Gotro.  The                     
                appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                          
                unpatentable over Swanson in view of Gotro.                                                    
                      We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by                         
                Appellants and the Examiner.  As a result, we concur with the Examiner that                    
                the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill                    
                in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the collective teachings of                  
                Fathy and Gotro.  Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of                     
                the appealed claims over the combination of Fathy and Gotro.  We will not,                     
                however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection over the combined teachings of                       
                Swanson and Gotro.                                                                             
                      We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims over                   
                Fathy in view of Gotro.  We agree with the Examiner that figure 5 of Fathy                     
                depicts an array of electrical transmission lines (509) separated from                         
                substrate (502) by a dielectric material, and that metal core layer (504) meets                
                the requirement of the claimed thermally conductive element.  Fathy teaches                    
                that the metal core layer (504) “provides thermal management, as it is                         
                essentially a built-in heat sink, for efficient spreading of generated heat”                   
                (col. 2, ll. 11-12).  As appreciated by the Examiner, and emphasized by                        
                Appellants, Fathy is silent with respect to the distance separating the                        
                adjacent transmission lines and the thickness of the conductive element.                       
                However, while we agree with Appellants that the Examiner improperly                           

                                                      3                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013