Appeal No. 1999-1454 Page 14
Application No. 08/596,343
side of the multi-layer circuit wiring board. Thus, we see no
reason to have removed the CPU chip from the multi-layer
circuit wiring board it is already on in the admitted prior
art, and move it to a location between the lower metal plate
and the multi-layer circuit wiring board. With respect to
Lin, we find that Lin discloses that the upper substrate can
be an multi-layer circuit wiring board, but does not make up
for the deficiencies of the admitted prior art and Hosen.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-8 and 10,
which depend therefrom, is reversed.
We now turn to the rejection of independent claim 2.
Appellants assert (brief, pages 7 and 8) that
Claim 2 differs from claim 1 in that, inter alia,
a protection plate is provided at a center portion
of the metal board and has a plurality of pillars
at side end portions thereof. The subject
matter of present claim 2 offers an advantage in
terms of protecting the CPU from thermal expansion
and contraction of the other components, as described
in the specification, e.g., on page 8, lines 18-21.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007