Ex Parte Nakamura - Page 4


               Appeal No. 2004-1412                                                                                                   
               Application 09/818,686                                                                                                 

               person to the claimed invention as a whole, including each and every limitation of the claims                          
               arranged as required by the claims, without recourse to the teachings in appellant’s disclosure.                       
               See generally, In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998);                              
               Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626,                               
               1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-66, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84                                
               (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);                           
               In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,                             
               1074-76, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  The requirement for objective factual                             
               underpinnings for a rejection under § 103(a) extends to the determination of whether the                               
               references can be combined.  See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34                               
               (Fed. Cir. 2002), and cases cited therein.                                                                             
                       Upon carefully considering the teachings of Kamioka as set forth in the translation and                        
               the examiner’s position with respect thereto (answer, pages 3 and 4), on this record, we agree                         
               with appellant’s argument that element 12 of Kamioka Fig. 3, which illustrates the second                              
               disclosed embodiment, is an electrical “insulating sheet” (brief, page 8), for indeed, the reference                   
               discloses “insulating sheet 12 of a silicon gum . . . sandwiched between the print board 5 and the                     
               heat generating component 8, and between the print board 5 and the frame 3,” and “[t]hus, the                          
               electrical insulation between the heat generating component 8 and the frame 3 can be made                              
               perfect, and the presence of air is excluded to obtain better contact conditions” (page 6-7).                          
                       We contrast this disclosure with the disclosure with respect to Kamioka Fig. 1, which                          
               illustrates the first disclosed embodiment, and that does not have a numeral 12.  Instead,                             
               Kamioka discloses with respect to the first embodiment, that “heat generated from the heat                             
               generating component 8 is transferred to the metallic frame 3 through the coating 7 on the inner                       
               surface of a number of the throughholes 6 . . . [b]y filling the throughholes 6 with silicon grease,                   
               solder, or the like,” and “if silicon grease or the like is applied between the print board 5 and the                  
               heat generating component 8, and between the print board 5 and the frame 3, there is no presence                       
               of an air layer, and thereby heat transferability is improved” (page 6).                                               
                                                                                                                                      
               presented for review in paragraph (c)(6)" ) (emphasis supplied) (see brief, pages 3-5; answer,                         
               pages 2-3).                                                                                                            

                                                                - 4 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007