Appeal 2007-0998
Application 10/708,066
extends farther horizontally as compared to the heat sink. As a result, at
least the edges of lid 20 (i.e., those portions that are not covered by the heat
sink 50) are exposed to the ambient. In our view, this direct exposure of the
lid’s edges to the ambient would inherently dissipate heat to the ambient at
least at these regions. The relevant portion of Fig. 1 of Toy detailing this
region has been enlarged below for clarity.
Enlarged Detail View of Relevant Portion of Fig. 1 of Toy
In short, although Toy provides a heat sink 50, the lid 20 also
functions inherently as a heat sink as claimed since it (1) spreads heat more
evenly via conduction, and (2) dissipates heat to the ambient. For this
reason alone, we conclude that the Examiner’s finding that the lid fully
meets a “heat sink” as claimed is reasonable.
The embodiment of Fig. 5 of Toy -- an embodiment where lid 20 has
even a greater horizontal extent than the lid in Fig. 4 -- only reinforces this
conclusion. Appellants’ contention that such an extension would not
significantly increase the cooling rate over smaller lids is merely speculative
without evidentiary support. Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013