ALCATEL-LUCENT

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 24, 2020

2020001084 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/917,595 03/09/2016 Roger Scott KEMPERS 816940-US-PCT 4218 22046 7590 11/24/2020 Nokia of America Corporation 600-700 Mountain Avenue Docket Administrator - Room 6E-264 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 EXAMINER SMITH, COURTNEY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/24/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): narpatent@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROGER SCOTT KEMPERS, PAUL AHERN, ALAN MICHAEL LYONS, and ANTHONY ROBINSON Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed March 9, 2016 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action mailed November 8, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed May 3, 2019, Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2019 (collectively “Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 30, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed November 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 11–14.3 Appeal Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to heat transfer devices. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 2): 1. A thermally conductive heat transfer interface structure comprising a substrate having a first surface and a second surface and a plurality of raised features formed on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the substrate, the raised features being deformable under a compressive force, wherein at least some of the raised features each have an opening through a respective end portion thereof; and wherein a thickness of a wall of a raised feature of the at least some of the raised features at said end portion is smaller than a thickness of the wall of the raised feature at an intermediate portion of the raised feature. Claim 11 is also independent and recites an apparatus including a thermally conductive heat transfer interface structure with similar features as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4–5. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies ALCATEL LUCENT, a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 3 Claims 2, 3, and 5–9 have been have been allowed. Non-Final Act. 5. Claims 4 and 10 are no longer pending. See Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kim et al. hereinafter “Kim” US 2003/0052156 A1 March 20, 2003 Kimura US 2004/0099944 A1 May 27, 2004 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim. Non-Final Act. 2–3. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kimura. Non-Final Act. 3–5. OPINION Rejection 1 The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found Kim discloses a thermally conductive heat transfer interface structure including a substrate (planar element 18) containing a plurality of raised features (barrel shaped solder structure 26). Non-Final Act. 2; Kim, Fig. 3. The Examiner found Kim discloses at least some of the raised features each have an opening through a respective end portion thereof (central cavity 28, hole area 34). Id. at 2–3; Kim, Fig. 3. The Examiner found Kim discloses a thickness of a wall of a raised feature, where the thickness at an end portion is smaller than a thickness of the wall of the raised feature at an intermediate portion of the raised feature. Id. at 3; Kim, Figs. 3–5. In particular, the Examiner explained that at least a top portion at the height of the wall of 26 has a smaller thickness when compared to a greater thickness of another wall Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 4 portion at an intermediate section in the compressed condition. Ans. 5, citing Kim ¶¶ 13–14, 35, Fig. 5. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant argues that Kim does not disclose a wall thickness, but rather discloses a diameter of the barrel shaped solder structure 26. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 5 for the wall thickness limitations in claim 1 is improper, because it is based on the visual appearance thereof, and Kim expressly discloses the shapes and thicknesses of the elements may be exaggerated for clarity. Reply Br. 5, citing Kim ¶ 31. Issue Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Kim discloses a thickness of a wall at end portion that is smaller than a thickness of a wall at an intermediate portion of a raised feature as recited in claim 1? Discussion We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As disclosed in Kim, “[i]n the drawings, the shapes and thickness of elements may be exaggerated for clarity.” Kim ¶ 31. Although the Examiner additionally cites to certain paragraphs of Kim beyond Figure 5, these additional disclosures do not particularly describe the relationship of wall thicknesses recited in claim 1. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 35. Thus, the Examiner’s reliance on Kim’s Figure 5 and further disclosures in Kim are insufficient to support a finding that Kim Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 5 anticipates the wall thicknesses recited in claim 1. Cf. Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kim. Rejection 2 Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11, subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 12–16. We select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claims 1 and 11, the Examiner found that Kimura discloses an apparatus including a heat transfer interface structure having a substrate (metal ring 15) with a plurality of raised features (bumps 16). Non-Final Act. 3–4; Kimura ¶ 41, Fig. 6. The Examiner found Kimura discloses a respective opening, which is defined as a space between two distal portions of bumps 16. Id. at 4; Kimura Fig. 6. The Examiner found Kimura discloses a thickness of a raised feature that is smaller at an end portion relative to the thickness of the raised feature at an intermediate portion. Id. Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 6 Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends the spaces between bumps 16 do not constitute an opening through the end portion of each raised portion. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant contends Kimura does not disclose the thickness of a wall, and the Examiner is improperly relying on the feature itself for the thickness, ignoring the recitation that the thickness is for a wall of a feature. Id. at 13– 14. Appellant further argues the Examiner has ignored the claim limitations that raised features “each” have an opening “through” a respective end portion thereof. Reply Br. 6. Issue Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position that Kimura anticipates claim 1? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As explained by the Examiner, a pair of the bumps 16 disclosed in Kimura constitute a “raised feature” and a space defined between two distal portions of bump 16 constitute an “opening” as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner further explained that the thickness of the bumps 16 at the end portion is smaller than at an intermediate portion. Id. at 4. Thus, according to the Examiner the features recited in claim 1 correspond to the features disclosed in Kimura as depicted below in an annotated portion of Figure 6 of Kimura. Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 7 The portion of Figure 6 of Kimura reproduced above depicts a sectional view of a semiconductor package including a heat spreader 13, a semiconductor chip 6, and deformable metal ring 15 with multiple bumps 16. Kimura ¶¶ 29, 41. Figure 6 has been annotated to show a larger oval, representing one of the “raised features” recited in claim 1, and a smaller oval within the larger oval, representing the “opening” through the end portion of the raised feature recited in claim 1. Although Appellant argues the Examiner does not account for all of the limitations as recited in claim 1, we are not persuaded that this is the case. That is, as depicted above, the structure of Kimura includes raised features each having an opening through a respective end portion thereof. In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the claims do not limit the plurality of raised features from being connected. Ans. 5–6. In addition, although the Examiner does not expressly refer to the bumps 16 as “walls,” the Examiner’s discussion of the bumps 16 in Kimura with respect to the Appeal 2020-001084 Application 14/917,595 8 thicknesses recited in claim 1, reasonably indicates the Examiner considered the bumps 16 in Kimura to correspond to the walls recited in claim 1. In this regard, Appellant does not argue the bumps 16 do not have a thickness at an end portion that is smaller than a thickness at an intermediate portion. Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 6–7. As a result, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 102 Kim 1 1, 11–14 102 Kimura 1, 11–14 Overall Outcome 1, 11–14 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED