Ex Parte Lakin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

11741550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ERIC D. LAKIN and PAUL BONSTROM ____________ Appeal 2010-004815 Application 11/741,550 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004815 Application 11/741,550 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 (App. Br. 4). Claim 7 was cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. An electronic assembly comprising: a substrate that includes a first side and a second side; a first electronic component mounted on the first side of the substrate; a second electronic component mounted on the first side of the substrate, the first electronic component extending a different height above the first side of the substrate as the second electronic component; and a heat sink that includes a base and fins extending from the base, the base of the heat sink including a formation which engages the second electronic component in order to maintain the base of the heat sink substantially parallel to the substrate when the heat sink is mounted in thermal contact with the first and second electronic components, wherein the heat sink and the substrate form an enclosure that encloses the first electronic component and the second electronic component. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vinson (U.S. 6,982,877) (Ans. 3-4). Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vinson (Ans. 4-5). Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vinson in view of Chiou (U.S. 7,023,700) (Ans. 5). Appeal 2010-004815 Application 11/741,550 3 ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Vinson discloses that “the heat sink and the substrate form an enclosure that encloses the first electronic component and the second electronic component,” as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding the Examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-6) in response to arguments made in the Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address certain findings and arguments below. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that independent claim 1 is anticipated because Vinson’s Figs. 3 and 5 “clearly illustrate the disclosed heat sink 12 does not form an enclosure with substrate 14 when the heat sink 12 is mounted to the substrate 14” (App. Br. 8). The Examiner found, however, that the heat sink 12 and substrate 14 of Vinson’s device “enclose the electronic components 16” (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. Our reviewing Court requires us to give a claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification states that “[a]lthough FIGS. 1 and 2 show that the heat sink 30 and the substrate 12 Appeal 2010-004815 Application 11/741,550 4 may fully enclose the first electronic component 20 and the second electronic component 22, it should be noted that in some embodiments the heat sink 30 and the substrate 12 may only partially enclose the first electronic component 20 and the second electronic component 22” (p. 5, ll. 5-9). In addition, claim 1 does not require the heat sink and substrate to form a full enclosure; it instead recites only that they form an enclosure. Vinson shows that the heat sink 12 and the substrate 14 at least form a partial enclosure around the electronic components 16 by surrounding the components (FIG. 5). Accordingly, under the proper claim construction, Vinson’s disclosure of a heat sink and substrate surrounding electronic components qualifies as the claimed forming of an enclosure. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 2-6 and 8-20) because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for the dependent claims (see App. Br. 9-10). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb