Appeal 2007-0998
Application 10/708,066
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
We will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative
claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that the lid 20 inherently functions as
a “heat sink” as claimed notwithstanding Toy’s providing a separate heat
sink 50.
First, lid 20 is made of a material with high thermal conductivity, such
as aluminum (Toy, col. 2, ll. 1-2). Second, although lid 20 functions as a
thermal spreader (Toy, col. 8, ll. 5-6), it also would inherently dissipate heat
to the ambient in view of (1) the lid’s structure itself, and (2) its relationship
to other components in the assembly.
As best seen in Fig. 1, the heat sink 50 is mounted to the lid 20 via
conductive adhesive 51 (Toy, col. 5, ll. 42-44; Fig. 1). Significantly, the lid
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013