Appeal 2007-0750
Application 10/427,656
Appellants make the argument in their principal Brief that Combs
does not teach or suggest that the CTE of Comb’s layer (124) is between the
CTE of the heat-dissipating layer and the CTE of the heat-dissipating
substrate. However, as explained by the Examiner, Appellants’ argument
misses the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rejection
identifies layer (122) of Combs as the intermediate layer, not layer (124),
which the Examiner identifies as the heat-dissipating layer that has a CTE
similar to the silicon of electronic component (130).
Appellants’ Reply Brief presents a different argument than that
appearing in the principal Brief. Specifically, Appellants emphasize that
“Combs merely indicates that the CTE of polymeric thermal interface (124)
is similar to that of silicon” (Reply Br. 7, last paragraph). Appellants reason
that “[a]s Combs is silent apart from this teaching, the CTE of a polymeric
thermal interface (124) may in fact be greater than the CTE of an adapter
element (122) and be similar to that of silicon” (sentence bridging pages 7
and 8 of Reply Br.).
We find no merit in Appellants’ argument. Since the CTE of silicon
is 4.1 and the CTE for beryllium oxide in layer (122) is 8, we find it
unreasonable to conclude that the CTE of layer (124), which has a CTE
similar to the 4.1 of silicon, is greater than the CTE of beryllium oxide in
layer (122). Since Combs expressly teaches that “the coefficient of
polymeric thermal expansion ‘CTE’ of the thermal interface (124) is similar
to that of silicon to minimize stress on the semiconductor dye (130)” (col. 6,
ll. 7-10), we find it reasonable to conclude that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art that the CTE of Combs’ layer (122) is
intermediate the CTE’s of layer 124 and heat-dissipating substrate (114).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013