Appeal No. 2000-2001
Application No. 09/172,732
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976).
The Examiner provides a detailed explanation of the
rejection of claims 1-21 at pages 4, 5, and 6 of the Examiner’s
answer, wherein the Examiner recognizes that Miyamoto does not
teach said intermediate metal adhesive layer comprising ZnCr.
The Examiner alleges that Appellants have admitted at page 6,
lines 12-19 of their disclosure that the claimed heat spreader
arrangement including the ZnCr layer were commercially available
at the time of the invention. Therefore, the Examiner concludes
(id. at page 5) that “[i]t would have been obvious ... to employ
a layer of ZnCr in (sic) as it is shown by applicant in the
device by Miyamoto in order to increase a durability of the
device.” Appellants argue (brief at pages 4 and 5) that “[t]o
bridge this gap [i.e., the lack of ZnCr intermediate layer] in
the prior art, the Office action relies upon the disclosure
in the present application that refers to the commercial
availability of an arrangement containing a ZnCr layer along with
a layer of thereon of Cu/CuO .... However, the mere fact that
such a combination exists in the prior art does not adequately
suggest that such would be or should be used in the article or
process of the present invention for enhancing adhesion between a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007