Appeal No. 1999-0421 Page 3
Application No. 08/587,866
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejection.
Claims 1 and 8, the only independent claims on appeal, both recite a heat sink
comprising, inter alia, a base strip having long and short edges and a plurality of surface area
enhancing projections extending outwardly from at least one of the long edges, the base strip
being coiled so that the projections extend in substantially the same direction.
Minakami discloses a multi-layer heat sink (see Figures 1A, 1B, 42A, 42B, for
example) comprising a plurality of heat sink fin elements 12 and spacers 13 bonded together in
alternating layers. Each of the elements 12 is made of a thin plate 15 of thermally conductive
material, such as aluminum or copper, having a number of slits 16 therein, with the remaining
material between the slits forming a plurality of pin-fin sections 17. As conceded by the
examiner (answer, page 4), Minakami fails to disclose the base strip (the bottom marginal
portion of an element 12) being coiled as required by the claims.
Kashima discloses a latent heat accumulator comprising an accumulating tank 1 formed
into a cylindrical shape and having an inlet 1a and an outlet 1b for passage of a heating medium
through the tank and accumulating chambers 2 having accumulating material 3 sealed therein
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007