Appeal No. 2006-2930
Application No. 10/299,198
We agree with the examiner that Sinclair’s standoffs 58, 60, and 62
inherently form recesses between the standoffs. Such notch-shaped recesses
are best seen in Figs. 1-3. Although Sinclair is silent regarding the recesses’
ability to circulate air or gas from outside the base member 14 to the area therein
in the vicinity of solder tails 182, we nonetheless see no reason why air could not
circulate as the examiner suggests. The recesses directly expose the solder tails
to the atmosphere outside of the base member and therefore provide a direct air
or gas flow path to the interior of the base member. In our view, the existence of
such air or gas circulation -- and its attendant heat transfer effects -- would be
readily apparent to the skilled artisan given the structure of Sinclair.
Because we find that Sinclair’s recesses would inherently enable air or
gas circulation to the interior of the base member, the fact that Sinclair may not
have specifically mentioned such a feature is irrelevant. If a feature is inherent in
the prior art, it is irrelevant that the prior art did not recognize such a feature or
even if the feature was unknown. Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1321,
69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO,
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting
that it is irrelevant that the prior art does not recognize a key aspect of an
invention if such an aspect is nevertheless inherent in the prior art).
In addition, the standoffs of Sinclair’s base member 14 contact the circuit
board equally around the periphery of the base member. Although Sinclair
characterizes these corner portions of base member 14 as “standoffs” 58, 60,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007