Appeal 2007-3874
Application 10/288,027
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art to, among other things, “employ in [Mahulikar] a
core plate composed of carbon-carbon matrix for the purpose of improving
heat exchange as recognized by Unger.” Answer 5. In response to
Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner contends, among other things, “[t]he
claims recite a subcombination, namely a heat sink not in combination with
a heat generating object.” Id. 6. In this respect, the Examiner contends
“[a]rguendo, [Mahulikar] (Figure 5 . . .) discloses a heat sink having an
interface surface . . . [in the area below the bottom of bonding pad 66] in
contact with heat generating object 22.” Id. The Examiner further contends
Mahulikar “discloses a core plate/heat spreader 76 separate from the
semiconductor 22 and is completely surrounded by the plastic main body.”
Id. 7, citing Mahulikar col. 9, ll. 1-4. The Examiner determines “the device
of [Mahulikar] is structurally similar to the claimed invention” because
“[t]he open-ended claims do not preclude the Examiner’s reading of
[Mahulikar] on the present invention.” Id. 7. The Examiner contends Unger
is relied on only for the disclosure “heat spreader plate 6 is composed of a
carbon-carbon matrix.” Id. 8.
Appellant contends, as claimed, the “invention is a unitary heat sink
that is it self [sic] a free standing structure, which is then applied as an
accessory to any heat generating object,” and “does not include an integrated
circuit assembly that is formed within the heat structure itself.” Br. 5; see
also 6. Appellant contends Mahulikar “discusses the placement of a metallic
spreader plate relative to a plastic package that also contains an IC device.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013