Appeal No. 2004-1412
Application 09/818,686
fins, we find that Christopher would not have disclosed circuit boards having such heat radiating
means. As found by the examiner in the final action mailed January 15, 2003 (page 3), Miyagi
discloses such heat radiating means contacting a circuit board. Indeed, we find that Miyagi
discloses that the heat radiating fins are provided on a surface opposite the wiring surface of the
circuit board and connected thereto through thermal vias (e.g., cols. 2 and 4-6). Thus, we
determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the combined teachings of
Christopher and Miyagi the reasonable suggestion that the printed wiring board of Christopher
which has thermal vias can be modified to include the heat radiating fins of Miyagi in the
reasonable expectation of increased heat radiation. Indeed, Christopher would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill that additional heat radiation means can be applied in teaching the additional
use of metal plate 278 (col. 4, lines 61-64).
Accordingly, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely following the
combined teachings of Christopher and Miyagi would have reasonably arrived at printed wiring
boards that have fin heat radiating means as required by appealed claims 6, 7, 13 and 19, without
recourse to appellant’s specification. See In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is
whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed
process] should be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success viewed in light
of the prior art. [Citations omitted] Both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be
founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881-82 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill in the art.”).
With respect to appealed claims 16-18, which require that a plated layer to which the
second heat radiating pattern is soldered contains tin and or nickel, we find that Christopher
would not have disclosed these two metals per se for use in the heat radiating elements of the
thermally conductive paths taught in the reference. However, Christopher would have disclosed
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007