Appeal 2007-0750
Application 10/427,656
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Combs, like Appellants, discloses a heat sink assembly comprising a heat-
dissipating substrate (110) that may be copper, a heat-dissipating layer (124)
that is in direct attachment to an electronic component (130), wherein the
CTE of heat-dissipating layer (124) is similar to that of silicon, the material
of the electronic component (130). Nor do Appellants dispute the
Examiner’s factual finding that the assembly of Combs also comprises an
intermediate layer (122) between the heat-dissipating layer (124) and heat-
dissipating substrate (110), which intermediate layer may be beryllium
oxide. The examiner has also factually determined that the CTEs of silicon,
beryllium oxide, and copper are 4.1, 8, and 17, respectively. Accordingly,
the Examiner has presented substantial factual support for the conclusion
that Combs, like Appellants, discloses a heat sink assembly comprising an
intermediate layer between a heat-dissipating substrate and a heat-
dissipating layer wherein the CTE of the intermediate layer is between the
CTEs of the heat-dissipating substrate and heat-dissipating layer. The
Examiner appreciates that Combs does not disclose more than one heat-
dissipating stud and more than one electronic component, but Appellants do
not contest the Examiner’s legal conclusion that, based on the combined
teachings of Combs and Joshi, “it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Joshi’s
teaching in Combs’ assembly for the purpose of cooling a plurality of chips
while providing a dimensional stability and reworkability on each chip”
(Answer 4, penultimate full sentence).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013