Appeal No. 2003-2014
Application No. 09/757,185
to the overmold with the silicon-containing residue and absent
any showings of unexpected results one skilled in the art would
have readily appreciated using known adhesive techniques to
attach heat sinks to an object from which heat needs to be
dissipated, especially the adhesive techniques in Korleski that
yield stronger adhesion” (answer, page 7). This viewpoint of the
examiner is not well taken for a number of reasons.
First, the examiner appears to be not correct in stating
that “it is unclear how Applicant overcomes [sic] the weak bond
in the admitted prior art caused by the silicon-containing
residue” (id., page 6). In this regard, we direct the examiner’s
attention to the last paragraph on page 13 of the subject
specification wherein the appellants teach that “because the more
preferred film [of their invention] is porous and provides
lateral dispersion of air pockets, an adequately strong and heat
conductive bond may be formed” (lines 20-21). Regardless, it is
not a requirement of patentability that an inventor correctly set
forth, or even know, how or why the invention works. Diamond
Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, 435-36
(1911).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007