Appeal No. 2003-2052
Application No. 09/403,674
(figure 5) (answer, page 5). The examiner relies upon HEAM for a
suggestion to include in Davis’ heat sink at least one heat
radiating fin integrally formed with the upper plate member
(answer, page 4).
The appellants argue that “the heat generating part
(stem 61) of Davis is actually located in the cavity, and not
attached to an outer surface as required by claim 1" (brief,
pages 6-7). The examiner argues that “the heat generating
device ‘61’, ‘62’ illustrated in figure 5 contacts the outer
surface of the plate member ‘26’” (answer, page 6).
Because the appellants’ heat transferring metal column and
heat generating member must have substantially the same cross
sectional area, Davis’ component which corresponds to the heat
generating member must be stem 61 (figure 5). For this stem to
meet the appellants’ claim 1 requirement of being attachable to
an outer surface of the lower plate member, the cylindrical wall
of the heat transferring metal column to which the stem is to be
attached must be part of the outer surface of wall 26 and,
therefore, cannot be in the cavity formed, in part, from that
wall. But if the heat transferring metal column is not in the
cavity, then it does not meet the appellants’ claim 1 requirement
of “being disposed in said cavity on a portion corresponding to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007