Appeal 2007-0750
Application 10/427,656
component and an intermediate layer directly attached to the heat-dissipating
substrate. The heat-dissipating layer of the stud has a coefficient of thermal
expansion (CTE) similar to the CTE of the electronic component, and the
intermediate layer has a CTE that is between the CTE of the heat-dissipating
layer and the CTE of the heat-dissipating substrate.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16 over Combs in view of
Joshi,
(b) claims 3, 4, 15, and 17 over Combs in view of Joshi and
Caletka
(c) claims 2 and 12 over Combs and Josh in view of De
Giacomo,
(d) claims 1, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16 over Combs in view of
Sherif.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any of the dependent
claims on appeal, nor do Appellants offer different substantive arguments
against the claims separately rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013