Appeal No. 2004-1412
Application 09/818,686
said heat radiating plate and said first radiating pattern have a same area whereas said
second heat radiating pattern has a larger area than that of said first radiating pattern or said
radiating plate.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 1, are drawn to a printed wiring board with
an electronic component mounted on a circuit board in which the electronic component is
provided with a heat radiating plate soldered to a heat radiating pattern under said plate, and on
the opposed side of the circuit board, a second heat radiating pattern to which is soldered heat
radiating means, wherein the areas of the heat radiating plate and the heat radiating pattern to
which the plate is soldered are equal and are smaller than the area of the heat radiating pattern on
the opposed side of the circuit board.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Christopher et al. (Christopher) 6,058,013 May 2, 2000
Kamioka1 04-113695 Apr. 15, 1992
(published Japanese Patent Application)
We cite the following reference applied by the examiner in the final rejection:
Miyagi et al. (Miyagi) 5,506,755 Apr. 9, 1996
In the answer, the examiner has rejected only appealed claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christopher in view of Kamioka (pages 3-4).
We consider the grounds of rejection set forth by the examiner in the final action mailed
January 15, 2003, which have been briefed by appellant in the brief (see also reply brief, sentence
bridging pages 3-4), for full consideration of the issues on appeal presented by the record in this
application:2
claims 1, 10 through 12, 15 and 20 through 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable Christopher in view of Kamioka (pages 2-3);3
1 We refer in our decision to the translation of Kamioka filed by appellant on March 19, 2003.
2 See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (8th ed., Rev. 2, May 2004; 1200-
16 – 1200-17) (“Grounds of rejection not argued in the examiner’s answer are usually treated as
having been dropped, but may be considered by the Board if it desires to do so.”).
3 We observe no difference in the statement of the ground of rejection applied to, inter alia,
claims 1 and 15 over the combined teachings of Christopher and Kamioka in the final action
mailed January 15, 2003, and the rejection of claims 1 and 15 over the same references stated in
the answer.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007