Appeal No. 2003-0671 Page 5
Application No. 09/099,632
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner finds all of the subject matter
recited in the claim to be disclosed by Phillips, “but [Phillips] does not disclose the first
layer being a polymeric film material.” However, it is the examiner’s view that it would
have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Phillips
by replacing the disclosed heat exchange material with a polymeric film because “it is
within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of
suitability for the intended use.” The examiner is of the further view that it would have
been obvious to make the “plate” disclosed by Phillips “of any desired thickness to
achieve a desired heat exchange or pressure strength” (Answer, page 5), which we take
to mean to make it so thin as to be a film.
Phillips is directed to a device for cooling high power electronic devices such as
integrated circuits. It comprises a heat sink 100 and a cover plate 130 that cooperate to
define a plurality of flow channels 114. The materials disclosed by Phillips for the heat
sink are gallium arsenide, germanium, indium phosphide, silicon, aluminum, copper and
silver (column 11, lines 59-61). There is nothing in the reference which suggests that
the heat sink can be made of film, much less polymeric film, and it would appear from
the disclosure that the entire device is of rigid construction, considering that the cover is
described as being a “plate” (column 8, line 23) and the heat sink as a “solid material”
(column 15, line 21).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007