Appeal No. 2007-0599
Application No. 10/822,054
is an effective solution to cool semiconductor chips. There is no indication
from the teachings in either Doll or Anderson that placing the impingement
point at the center of the fins is necessary to achieve the cooling function.
For example, Anderson has more general disclosure which does not specify
the position of the impingement point with respect to the fins (col. 2, ll. 41-
43; col. 6, ll. 56-59). Anderson also states that “[i]n fact the fins shown may
actually comprise any convenient heat transfer surface structure.”
(Anderson, col. 4, ll. 38-40.) A reference must be “considered in its entirety
for what it fairly suggests to one skilled in the art.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the person of
skill in the art would recognize that the impingement point can be positioned
with the fins in any configuration suitable to achieve the cooling function.
The instant specification does not indicate that there is any unexpected
advantage or benefit of offsetting the impingement point.
In sum, we affirm the rejection of claims 4, 10, 16, but because our
reasoning differs from the Examiner’s, we designate this as a new grounds
of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellants with the
opportunity to respond.
Claims 5, 11, and 17
Claim 5 states that “the channel walls provide[] a high fluid channel
aspect ratio.” The Examiner asserts that “the specification does not provide
the range in which the aspect ratio should be considered as high.” (Answer
5.) The Examiner finds that Doll’s ratio is sufficiently high to meet the
claimed limitation (id.). Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner has offered
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013