Appeal No. 2007-0599
Application No. 10/822,054
and directly impinges on the chip surface where it vaporizes and dissipates
the heat (col. 2, ll. 42-47; col. 3, ll. 55-66; Fig. 1).
DISCUSSION
All the claims stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over Doll in view
of Anderson (supra at p. 2). We address below the patentability of each
grouping of the claims as separately argued by Appellants (id.).
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19 and 20
We interpret claim 1 to be drawn to an apparatus comprising an
enclosure with a connecting fluid inlet and outlet, radial flow channels
between the fluid inlet and outlet, and an impingement point. Appellants
have not challenged the Examiner’s finding that this structure is described in
the prior art. Rather, they argue that the prior art does not disclose that “an
impingement point for cooling fluid in the enclosure is located at a position
corresponding to an expected relatively hotter spot of a heat source.” (Br. 3)
The problem with this argument is that not all the claims in this grouping,
particularly claim 1, require the presence of a heat source. The placement of
the impingement point at a hot spot of a heat source is an intended use of the
apparatus which does not confer a structural limitation on the apparatus,
itself. For this reason, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive.
Claim 13 contains the same elements of claim 1, but further comprises
an electronic component. In this claim, placing the apparatus on a
“relatively hotter spot of the electrical component” may constitute a
limitation to the scope of the claim. However, Appellants did not take the
opportunity, when they had it, to argue this claim separately. But, instead
grouped claim 13 with claim 1, waiving any argument that the Board must
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013