Appeal No. 2003-2052
Application No. 09/403,674
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only claim 1, which is the sole independent claim.2
Davis discloses a heat sink (col. 1, lines 8-13). The
examiner relies upon Davis’ figure 5 turned sideways such that
wall 27 is the appellants’ upper plate member and wall 26 is the
appellants’ lower plate member (answer, pages 4-5). These walls
form a hermetically sealed cavity having a working fluid (24;
col. 2, lines 21-24) enclosed therein. The examiner relies upon
Davis’ dimples (35, 36; col. 2, lines 50-53; figure 1) as being
the appellants’ at least one pressure resisting column disposed
in the cavity (answer, page 5). The examiner considers Davis’
semiconductor device stem (61; col. 4, line 8-10) to be the
appellants’ heat generating part, and Davis’ threaded
support (60; col. 4, lines 6-8) to be the appellants’ heat
transferring metal column which is integrally formed with the
upper plate member, is disposed in the cavity on a portion
corresponding to the heat generating part, and has substantially
the same cross sectional area as the heat generating part
2 The examiner does not rely upon Arai, Furukawa or Sasaki
for any disclosure which remedies the deficiency in Davis and
HEAM as to claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007