Appeal No. 2006-1352
Application 10/250,683
10. A heat dissipating member which is disposed between a heat generating electronic
component which when operated generates heat and reaches a temperature higher than room
temperature and a heat dissipating component, wherein the heat dissipating member is non-fluid
in a room temperature state prior to operation of the electronic component and acquires a low
viscosity, softens or melts under heat generation during operation of the electronic component to
fluidize at least a surface thereof so as to fill between the electronic component and the heat
dissipating component without leaving any substantial voids, and the heat dissipating member is
formed of a composition comprising a silicone resin and a heat conductive filler, and
wherein said silicone resin contains, in the molecule, RSiO3/2 units (T units) and R2SiO2/2
units (D units) wherein R is a substituted or unsubstituted monovalent hydrocarbon radical
having 1 to 10 carbon atoms in a ratio of T units to D units being 20:80 to 80:20.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sato et al. (Sato) 3,974,122 Aug. 10, 1976
Hayase et al (Hayase) 5,998,509 Dec. 7, 1999
Mine et al. (Mine) 6,040,362 Mar. 21, 2000
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mine in view of Hayase (answer, pages 3-5),1 and claims 10 through
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mine in view of Sato (answer, pages
5-7).
Appellants argue independent claim 1 with respect to the first ground of rejection (brief,
pages 11-14; reply brief, pages 8-10) and argue independent claims 10 and 15 as a group with
respect to the second ground of rejection (brief, pages 11-14; reply brief, pages 8-10). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on claims 1 and 10 as representative of the grounds of rejection and
appellants’ grouping of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
We affirm.
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief2 for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
Opinion
1 The examiner states the ground of rejection as involving “[c]laims 1-9” (answer, page 3) even
though claim 6 was canceled in the amendment filed August 18, 2004.
2 An appeal, whether on brief or heard, is decided on the record. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(September 2004) provides in pertinent part: “Any arguments or authorities not included in the
brief or reply brief filed pursuant to § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless
good cause is shown.” See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 1205.02 and 1209
(8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005; 1200-14 and 1200-48).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007