Appeal 2007-1727
Application 10/836,916
some "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id.
Thus, in the present case, the Examiner need not find in a reference a
reason for forming the legs from the heat spreader body. However, the
Examiner must provide a reason with some rational underpinning. The
Examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to form the legs
from the heat spreader in Houle "to simplify the processing steps of making
the device" "if the legs are required to be formed as an integral part of the
body portion." However, the assumption that the legs are to be formed as an
integral part of the body portion comes solely from Appellants' specification.
However, the Examiner has provided no explanation as to how or why
forming the legs from the heat spreader would simplify the method of
making the heat spreader without assuming that the legs are to be formed as
an integral part of the body portion. Further, the Examiner asserts that
bending the material of the body portion is simpler than attaching another
part. However, the recessing of the material of the body portion is more
than merely bending the material. Since it is unclear to us that forming the
legs from the heat spreader rather than attaching legs as in Houle would in
fact simplify the process of forming the device, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, 11 through 14, and 18
through 20 over Houle.
For claims 5 and 11 through 15, the Examiner adds Appellants'
Admitted Prior Art to Houle. However, the Examiner points to nothing in
the AAPA that would cure the deficiency of Houle. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 11 through 15 over Houle
and AAPA.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013