Appeal No. 2003-1021
Application 09/507,507
layer between the top of the intermediate region and bottom of
the body. Moreover, the examiner has failed to establish why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have used a discrete layer in
Gondusky’s heat sink. Gondusky also fails to disclose or suggest
varying the material composition of the body along a
substantially uniform gradient as discussed above in connection
with claim 9, from which claims 10-13 and 15 depend.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 2-4, 8,
10-13 and 15. Moreover, we are in agreement with appellants that
the examiner’s reliance on common knowledge for a teaching of the
features recited in the dependent claims is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See Appeal Brief,
page 34. See In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (It is impermissible to reach conclusions
based on what the examiner believes to be basic knowledge or
common sense. Rather, the examiner must identify concrete
evidence in the record in support of his findings.)
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007