Appeal No. 1998-1504
Application 08/373,718
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, the
Examiner reasons that Lin discloses the claimed semiconductor
package with die 18 forming an exterior surface. Since Lin
discloses at column 5, lines 24-28 that a heat radiator, heat
sink, cold plate or the like can be directly attached to the
backside 22 of die 18, it would have been obvious to use
Pitasi’s heat dissipation pins 24 on Lin’s die 18. (Final
rejection-paragraph 3.)
Appellants argue:
There is no evidence that Lin et al. even considered
the use of multiple fins, let alone independent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007