Appeal 2007-1055
Application 10/831,012
Appealed claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fathy in view of Gotro. The
appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Swanson in view of Gotro.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. As a result, we concur with the Examiner that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the collective teachings of
Fathy and Gotro. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
the appealed claims over the combination of Fathy and Gotro. We will not,
however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection over the combined teachings of
Swanson and Gotro.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims over
Fathy in view of Gotro. We agree with the Examiner that figure 5 of Fathy
depicts an array of electrical transmission lines (509) separated from
substrate (502) by a dielectric material, and that metal core layer (504) meets
the requirement of the claimed thermally conductive element. Fathy teaches
that the metal core layer (504) “provides thermal management, as it is
essentially a built-in heat sink, for efficient spreading of generated heat”
(col. 2, ll. 11-12). As appreciated by the Examiner, and emphasized by
Appellants, Fathy is silent with respect to the distance separating the
adjacent transmission lines and the thickness of the conductive element.
However, while we agree with Appellants that the Examiner improperly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013