Appeal No. 1999-1651
Application No. 08/775,308
attention to column 1, lines 15-16 of Sugishima. We agree with appellants. The
examiner maintains that “the heat sink 70 is [on] one side of circuit board 74 and power
supply 71 is on the opposite side of circuit board 74. . . . The important idea is that they
are on opposing sides of the circuit board.” (Answer, page 5.) In our view, Sugishima
clearly discloses that the heat sink is connected directly to the power device and the
circuit board is on the opposite side of the power device. Therefore, these devices are
not on the upper surface of the support member and the heat sink on the lower portion
of the support member. Contrary to the examiner position that package may be
mounted upside down, the prior art still would not meet the relative orientation as set
forth in claim 41. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 41 and its dependent claims
42-45.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 41-45 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 41-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007