Ex Parte Egitto et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-2014                                                        
          Application No. 09/757,185                                                  


               The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for bonding           
          which comprises bonding a heat sink to an overmold surface with             
          silicon-containing residue thereon by applying a porous polymer             
          film impregnated with epoxy adhesive between the heat sink and              
          the surface of the overmold.  Further details of this appealed              
          subject matter is set forth in representative independent claim             
          11 which reads as follows:                                                  
               1. A method for bonding comprising the steps of:                       
                    providing a molded polymer molded to a substrate,                 
               wherein the molded polymer comprises an overmold, and                  
               wherein the overmold has a surface with silicon-                       
               containing residue thereon;                                            
                    bonding an article to the surface of the overmold                 
               by applying a porous polymer film between the article                  
               and the surface of the overmold, wherein the film is                   
               impregnated with epoxy adhesive, and wherein the                       
               article comprises a heat sink; and                                     
                    heat curing the impregnated film so that a bond                   
               strength between the heat sink and the surface of the                  
               overmold is greater than a bond strength between the                   
               overmold and the substrate.                                            
               The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the examiner           
          as evidence of obviousness:                                                 
               Korleski, Jr. (Korleski)      5,879,794      Mar. 09, 1999             
               Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, specification, pages                   
               1-3; page 6, lines 18-24; and page 13, lines 14-17.                    



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007