Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
The Examiner rejected claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 61 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and Hunninghaus.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the Appellant
and the Examiner and agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer that
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 61.
Appellant repeats the arguments about the copper foil and the plug with grooves
which have been discussed above. Appellant also argues that Hunninghaus teaches
using an electrically insulating layer between a separate heat sink. (Brief, p. 20).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Hunninghaus teaches disposing
solder between the body portion of an electronic component and the printed circuit
board. The electronic component is placed on the circuit board opposite of the heat
sink. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
solder was suitable for use in such an arrangement. Appellant’s argument does not
address the suitability of using solder between the body portion of an electronic
component and the printed circuit board.
Appellant asserts that claims 44, 48, 54 and 59 recite the plug has higher thermal
conductivity than solder and claims 45, 49 and 60 recite the plug is substantially pure
copper. (Brief, p. 21).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007