Appeal No. 2002-0503 Page 5
Application No. 09/089,698
was made to have provided in Oda et al. a heat sink
having integrally formed fins for the purpose of
increasing the surface area of the heat sink, thereby
increasing the rate at which heat is dissipated as
taught to be old by Watanabe.
The examiner acknowledges that Oda is not relied upon to
provide motivation for the examiner’s proposed modification of
Oda. Rather, the examiner relies on Watanabe for the suggestion
for the proposed modification of Oda. See the paragraph bridging
pages 15 and 16 of the answer. According to the examiner, the
device of Watanabe is analogous to the device of Oda and one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ a heat
sink with fins in Oda to improve efficiency in dissipating heat
generated by a semiconductor chip. See page 17 of the answer.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s obviousness conclusion
on the record before us.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner carries the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). As part of meeting this initial burden, the
examiner must determine whether the differences between the
subject matter of the claims and the prior art “are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007