Appeal No. 2006-0576
Application No. 10/284,473
prima facie case of obviousness for the proposed modification of the solid heat sink
device of the admitted prior art with the steel wool heat sink teachings of Hampden.
Lastly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
and 13 based on the combination of Ronkese with either of Glaus or the admitted prior
art. In our view, the disclosure of Ronkese, as with Hampden, at best, provides a
teaching that steel wool heat sinks exist. Absent a suggestion from Appellant’s own
disclosure, we find nothing in the disclosure of Ronkese that would lead the ordinarily
skilled art, seeking to improve the device of Glaus or the admitted prior art, which have
existing heat sink devices, to construct a heat sink of woolen material as claimed.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s rejections of any of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007