The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________
Ex parte JAMES E. JOHNSON
and RONALD J. DARCY
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2681
Application No. 09/167,295
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated June 26, 2003, the Board affirmed the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 2, and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 15 and 19 through 21.
The Board stated (decision, page 4) that:
Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that in Ikeya “there can
be no ‘interface’ because there are not two bodies, as
that term implies.” The examiner contends (answer, page
5) that Ikeya discloses (Figure 2) a compressive holding
pad 60 with an integral heat sink (i.e., heat-discharge
fins 60b) and heat spreader (i.e., plate holding part
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007