Appeal No. 2004-0929
Application No. 09/386,103
We therefore find that Grandmont anticipates the heat sink
assembly claimed in the appellants’ claim 1. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Grandmont of
this claim and claims 5, 6, 8-10, 14-16, 18 and 19 that stand or
fall therewith.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Allison ‘756 or Grandmont
Claim 10 requires, like claim 1, a cylindrical heat
conductive rod within the inner segmented cylinder defined by the
troughs, and also requires a thermally conductive base plate
above which the heat exchanging section is mounted, with the
first end edges of the fins of the cylindrically configured
folded sheet being between the base plate and the second end
edges of the fins. Claim 17, which depends indirectly from
claim 10, requires that the rod and the thermally conductive base
plate constitute a single, integral structure.
As discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1 over
Allison ‘756, the Allison ‘756 tube envelope (16) is not part of
the heat sink assembly. The examiner has not explained how
Allison ‘756 would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, a heat sink assembly which includes the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007