Appeal No. 1998-1504
Application 08/373,718
Although moot, we make the following comments.
With respect to claim 2, we find that Pitasi does teach the
use of a metalized layer to solder pins to a surface, and that
the claim is not limited to a single layer as alleged in the
brief at page 10. Also, we find no basis to limit Lin to a
single heat radiator (brief-page 11), there is no hint as to a
single or plural preference in Lin. However, Lin does express
a preference for a thin package (column 2, lines 1-3; column
6, line 67 to column 7, line 1) which would be contrary to
using fins which add substantial thickness, and weighs against
the Examiner’s combination. Furthermore, we find difficulty
in applying Davidson which is a unitary structure of several
heat pipes, making it contrary to the “means for independently
attaching” of claim 1. With regard to means for connecting to
a power source being located within the package (brief-page
15), we view solder bumps 26 as meeting such a limitation.
Finally, we find that Pitasi’s control of heat enhancement via
pin density (answer-page 4) does not meet the language of
claim 13's “predetermined power distribution of the die to
selectively control the heat gradient of the die.”
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007