Appeal 2007-1727
Application 10/836,916
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 20, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed July 24, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed December 20,
2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the indefiniteness
rejection and also the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3 through 8, 11
through 15, and 18 through 20.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that the claims “are unclear as to
how and what is meant by forming legs from a body portion." Appellants
contend (Br. 12-13) that the phrase "legs formed from the body portion" is
clear from the disclosure and means that "the heat spreader provides the
material from which the legs are formed, and that the legs extend from the
heat spreader." The first issue, therefore, is whether the phrase "from the
body portion" is indefinite.
Each of independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recites "legs formed from
the body portion" and "recessed below the body portion" of the heat
spreader. The word "recessed" means that a deformation such as an
indentation is formed in the body portion to form the legs. Thus, taking the
two phrases of the claims together, "formed from the body portion" clearly
means both formed from the same material as and extending from the body
portion. Further, all of the drawings show the legs being integral with the
body portion, and throughout the Specification Appellants disclose that the
legs may be formed by stamping the body portion. Accordingly, we find
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013