Appeal No. 2007-0599
Application No. 10/822,054
Claims 4, 10, and 16
Claim 4 further requires that “the impingement point is offset from a
central region of the fins.” The Examiner contends that Figs. 3 and 5 of Doll
show an offset impingement point (Answer 5). Appellants argue that “Doll
teaches only that the impingement is directly centered.” (Reply Br. 5).
We agree with Appellants that Doll describes Fig. 5 as showing the
impingement point “centered directly over the center of the fin plate.” (Col.
5, ll. 6-10). The Examiner does not explain what aspect of Figs. 3 and 5
disclose or suggest an impingement point offset from the center.
Nonetheless, we affirm this rejection, but for different reasons.
A general problem confronting the semiconductor industry is how to
dissipate heat from high density integrated circuits. According to Doll,
thermal energy produced by a semiconductor chip” is a problem because
heat “decreases [the chip’s] performance and reliability.” (Doll, col. 1, ll.
11-18.) Anderson also recognizes the concern with heat accumulation in
integrated circuits (“Increased heat removal demands [from chip surfaces]
have been an on-going problem.”). (Anderson, col. 1, ll. 20-21.)
One approach in the prior art to dissipating heat from a chip is “liquid
impingement on the chip.” (Anderson, col. 1, ll. 24-30.) Both Doll and
Anderson teach systems that use the impingement method of striking a fluid
stream against the hot surface of a chip. In each system, the fluid is
subsequently conducted along fin structures to further dissipate the heat.
The preferred embodiments in which the impingement point is located
centrally with respect to the cooling fins does not detract from the more
general teaching that having an impingement point coupled to fin structures
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013