Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 43-46.
Appellant argues that the plated via in August is neither a layer of copper foil nor
is it separate from the printed circuit board. (Brief, p.14). Appellant also argues that
the copper pads of August are inseparably bonded to the fiberglass substrate as a result
of electrodeposition. (Reply Brief, p. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 43 requires a separate
layer of copper foil for disposition between the heat sink component and the printed
circuit board. The copper layer of August is disposed between the heat sink component
and the printed circuit board. The claim language does not specify the dimension of
the layer and does not preclude the copper from being bonded to a separate substrate.
Appellant argues that the subject matter of claims 43-46, 51 and 52 comprises a
plug that has a plurality of grooves and none of the cited references teaches or suggest
the use of grooves to enhance heat dissipation. (Brief, p.15-16). This argument is not
persuasive because the motivation to combine or modify the references does not have to
be identical to that of the Appellant to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appellant in the Brief, page 16,
acknowledges that Kubo suggests the use of grooves in the plug to eliminate the use of
solder flux and improve the reliability of the connection.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007