Appeal No. 2006-0576
Application No. 10/284,473
Hampden 6,572,370 Jun. 03, 2003
(filed March 07, 2002)
B. J. Ronkese (Ronkese), “Metal Wool and Indium Heat Sink,” IBM Technical Disclosue
Bulletin, vol. 21, no. 3, 1143-44 (August 1978).
Claims 1-27, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Glaus in view of Hampden with
respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 23-27, adds Arai to the basic
combination with respect to claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 22, and adds Nath to the
basic combination with respect to claims 15 and 16. In a separate rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner offers the admitted prior art in view of Hampden with
respect to claims 1-11, 14, and 17-27, adds Arai to this basic combination with respect
to claim 12, and adds Nath to the basic combination with respect to claims 15 and 16.
In a further separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1 and 13 stand finally
rejected as being unpatentable over Glaus in view of Ronkese and, in the alternative, as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Ronkese.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is
made to the Brief (filed May 3, 2005) and Answer (mailed July 12, 2005) for the
respective details.
2 As indicated at page 2 of the Answer, the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1, 9, 11, and 12 has been withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007