Appeal No. 1999-1052 Page 3
Application No. 08/604,841
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our
reviewing court. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Independent claims 1 and 12 and dependent claims 2-4, 9 and 11 stand rejected
as being anticipated by Frankeny. It is axiomatic that anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The appellant’s invention is directed to a cold plate the purpose of which is to
replace both the liquid cooled and the air cooled systems that are separately utilized in
computers in the prior art. According to the appellant, his invention decreases the number
of parts and parts variations that manufacturers must maintain, and reduces manufacturing
and assembly complexity and part costs. As manifested in independent claim 1, the
invention comprises a mounting plate for carrying thereon a printed circuit board assembly,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007