Appeal No. 2004-0929
Application No. 09/386,103
required cylindrical heat conductive rod. Consequently, we
reverse the rejection of claim 17 over Allison ‘756.
As for Grandmont, the examiner argues that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have a single, integral structure”
(answer, page 4). The examiner, however, has not explained how
Grandmont would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, the required thermally conductive base plate. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claim 17 over Grandmont.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Allison ‘756 in view of Dean
Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, and claim 20 require
that the heat sink assembly includes a cylindrical heat
conductive rod within the inner segmented cylinder defined by the
troughs of the folded thermally conductive sheet. The examiner
has not explained how Allison ‘756 would have fairly suggested
this rod to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the examiner
does not rely upon Dean for a disclosure that remedies this
deficiency in Allison ‘756. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 7, 20, 21 and 24-27 over Allison ‘756 in view
of Dean.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007