Appeal No. 2003-1021
Application 09/507,507
the material composition of the body vary along a gradient. See
Examiner’s Answer, page 8. We are in agreement with appellants
that in reaching his conclusion of inherency, the examiner
incorrectly interprets the language relating to the gradient as a
property or function rather than a structural limitation. See
Appeal Brief, pages 21-32. More specifically, the present
claims require a variation in the “material composition” of the
body. Although Gondusky may utilize the same metals for his
layers, he does not disclose or suggest varying the composition
of the layers along a gradient. Accordingly, we cannot agree
with the examiner’s conclusion that Gondusky’s device inherently
meets the claim language relating to varying the material
composition of the body.
We further note that Gondusky fails to specify the
claimed relationships between the coefficients of thermal
expansion for the heat sink, body and intermediate region, and
for the thermal conductivities of the heat sink, body and
intermediate region (see claims 1, 9, 16, 17 and 19). Rather,
Gondusky merely requires that
the first component 28 comprises a material
of relatively low coefficient of thermal
expansion substantially corresponding to the
coefficient of expansion of the semiconductor
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007