Appeal 2007-0998
Application 10/708,066
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Toy.
2. Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Toy.
3. Claims 2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Toy in view of Boyer.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding representative claim 1,2 the Examiner has indicated how
the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Toy
(Answer 3). Appellants argue that Toy does not teach or suggest at least one
spacer member in contact between the substrate surface and the heat sink as
claimed (emphasis in original).
Specifically, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s characterization of
element 20 in Toy as a “heat sink.” Appellants emphasize that element 20 is
not a heat sink, but rather a lid that protects the chip. Appellants further note
that Toy explicitly discloses a heat sink 50 in Fig. 1. Although Appellants
acknowledge that lid 20 can act as a thermal spreader, Appellants contend
that a thermal spreader is not equivalent to a heat sink. According to
Appellants, a thermal spreader more evenly distributes heat via conduction
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 together as a group
(Br. 3-5). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013