Appeal No. 2005-0460
Application No. 09/775,881
filter does not remedy the deficiency of Chang discussed above.
Hence, we cannot sustain this rejection.
We will sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 7
and 8 over Chang in view of Wyler or Ende. Claim 7 does not
require a heat sink but, rather, fins mounted on the carrier for
holding a hard disk drive. While claim 8 further recites a heat
sink including fins mounted on the carrier, both Wyler and Ende
disclose such a finned heat sink for a holder of hard disk
drives. Accordingly, we find that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to select a heat absorbing
material for cover 60 of Chang and to further incorporate fins in
the cover 60 to enhance the dissipation of heat. We are
satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
collective teachings of the prior art, would have found it
obvious to employ a finned heat sink for the carrier of a hard
disk drive, as presently claimed. Appellant contends that "no
teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited art as to how
such a conductive heat path would be advantageous in the carrier
of Chang which is taught to already include ventilating slots 62"
(page 8 of Brief, first paragraph). However, we are confident
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the ventilating slots 62 could be substituted for a
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007