Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2012

12240941 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________ Ex parte YE-YONG KIM ___________ Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 Technology Center 2800 __________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a dust eliminator for a computer having a main body 30 with a ventilation hole 32, heat radiating fan 50, cooling fin 60, and a vibration generation element 70 mounted on the cooling fin opposite to a heat pipe 80. The vibration generation element shakes dust off the cooling fins. (See Figs. 3, 4). Claim 1 reproduced below is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A dust eliminator for a computer, comprising: a main body having an internal space and a ventilating hole; a heat-radiating fan provided in the internal space of the main body to form an air stream for exhausting heat in the main body to the outside; a cooling fin provided between the ventilating hole and the heat-radiating fan, the cooling fin exchanging heat with the air stream passing therethrough; a vibration-generating element transmitting vibration to the cooling fin to shake off dust accumulated on the cooing [sic] fin; a control unit in the main body; a power supplying unit for supplying the main body with power; a switch for selectively supplying power from the power supplying unit to the vibration-generating element according to a signal of the control unit; and Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 3 a heat pipe contacting a surface of the cooling fin for transferring heat generated in a heat-generating component provided in the main body to the cooling fin, wherein the vibration-generating element is in contact with a surface of the cooling fin opposite to the surface of the cooling fin contacting the heat pipe, wherein a driving duration of the vibration-generating element and the number of times the vibration-generating element is driven are controlled by the control unit, and wherein the vibration-generating element is driven for a predetermined time from an initial time at which the main body is required to be powered off. REFERENCES and THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, and 7-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeh (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0058346 A1; Mar. 15, 2007) and Hattori (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0131383 A1; June 14, 2007). ISSUE The issue is whether the combination of Yeh and Hattori teaches or suggests the limitation of a vibration-generating element being “in contact with a surface of the cooling fin opposite to the surface of the cooling fin contacting the heat pipe” as recited in independent claims 1 and 7. PRINCIPLES OF LAW To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 4 “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). ANALYSIS Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Yeh nor Hattori, nor their combination, teaches or suggests the limitation of a vibration-generating element being “in contact with a surface of the cooling fin opposite to the surface of the cooling fin contacting the heat pipe” (see App. Br. 4-5). We agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner has not provided any evidence to support the finding that Yeh or Hattori teaches or suggests the limitation of a vibration-generating element being “in contact with a surface of the cooling fin opposite to the surface of the cooling fin contacting the heat pipe” (emphasis added), as recited in independent claims 1 and 7. The Examiner has also not articulated, with respect to either of the references, a rationale for providing a vibration generating element on a surface opposite the cooling fin from the surface contacting the heat pipe. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We agree with Appellant that this limitation is not taught or suggested by Yeh or Hattori. See Royka, 490 F.2d at 985. The Examiner contends that the base 62 of Yeh is a heat sink (Yeh ¶ [0015]); and therefore can be considered a heat pipe, as disclosed in Hattori, which has the same function of transferring heat to the fin assembly (Ans. 4). In other words, the Examiner is asserting that Yeh’s heat sink is the functional equivalent of Hattori’s heat pipe. Even if we were to follow the Examiner’s reasoning, the vibrating element 66 and the heat pipe 62 of Yeh Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 5 would be on the same side of the cooling fins 64 (see Yeh ¶ [0015], ll. 18- 19; Fig. 3)—rather than on a surface of the cooling fins 64 opposite to the heat pipe as required by claims 1 and 7. The Examiner also argues that it would be common sense to provide the vibrating element in direct contact with the cooling fin to provide effective dust removal (Ans. 4). Again, this contention fails to address the claim limitation of the vibration generating element contacting an opposite surface of the cooling fin from the surface contacting the heat pipe, as recited in claims 1 and 7. Thus, the Examiner’s contention does not support a prima facie case of obviousness for the vibration generating element being on an opposite surface of the cooling fin from the surface contacting the heat pipe, as recited in claims 1 and 7. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 7, and also the rejection of claims 3-5 and 8-16 which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION The combination of Yeh and Hattori does not teach or suggest the limitation of a vibration-generating element being “in contact with a surface of the cooling fin opposite to the surface of the cooling fin contacting the heat pipe” as recited in independent claims 1 and 7. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 7-16 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-009075 Application 12/240,941 6 babc