Appeal No. 2003-0672 Page 4
Application No. 09/151,886
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). While obviousness
is tested by what the combined teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)), obviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings of
the prior art to produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching or suggestion
supporting the combination. See ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a generally planar thermal dissipation
member formed of a thermally conductive, electrically-nonconductive ceramic material
having a thickness of less than about 100 mils (2.5 mm), wherein the ceramic material
is aluminum oxide (i.e., alumina), and wherein the outer periphery of the thermal
dissipation member extends generally coterminously with or within the margins of the
second heat transfer surface of the source. However, these limitations are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007