Ex Parte Ebert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

12438336 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/438,336 0212012009
23409 7590 07/28/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Ebert
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
023435-9009-00 4755
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS EBERT and HERMANN HAHN
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Ebert and Hermann Hahn ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16-18, 31, and
32 in this application. 2 The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify IQ evolution GmbH as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-15 and 19-30 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "a semiconductor component
which has within it a micro cooling structure which is connected by
connection channels to at least one inflow opening and at least one outflow
opening by means of which a cooling medium can be supplied to the micro
cooling structure or be discharged from the latter." Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 31, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A micro cooling element comprising:
a top surface and a bottom surface, the top surface defining
a mounting area for receiving a component to be cooled; and
a micro cooling structure disposed beneath the mounting
area and between the top surface and the bottom surface, the
micro cooling structure including a channel having an inlet and
an outlet for a cooling medium to flow therethrough, the inlet and
the outlet beingformed through the top surface;
wherein the micro cooling element is formed as a
monolithic structure having a first region and a second region,
the first region being a thermally stressed area and comprising
one of a metallic and a ceramic material, the second region being
a mechanically stressed area and comprising one of a metallic
and a ceramic material different than the one of the metallic and
ceramic material of the first region.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App., emphasis added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 7, 18, 31, and 3 2 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawanishi (US
2006/0227827 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006) and Kuwahara (US
6,248,290 Bl, iss. June 19, 2001).
2
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
II. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kawanishi, Kuwahara, and Lehman (US
2007/0017658 Al, pub. Jan. 25, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants assert the Examiner fails to establish properly Kawanishi
discloses the limitation requiring a "micro cooling structure including a
channel having an inlet and an outlet for a cooling medium to flow
therethrough, the inlet and the outlet being formed through the top surface."
Appeal Br. 5---6. For that limitation, the Examiner points to Figures 3 and 5
of Kawanishi, reproduced below:
FIG. 5
Figure 3 is a sectional side elevation view of a stacked version of the
disclosed semiconductor laser device and Figure 5 is an exploded view of
3
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
the lower heat sink of the stacked semiconductor laser device depicted in
Figure 3. Kawanishi i-fi-123, 25. In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner finds
Kawanishi discloses,
a micro cooling structure (e.g. at least 9B and 1 OB) between the
top and bottom surfaces (note this is orientation dependent), the
micro cooling structure including a channel having an inlet
(19B) and an outlet (18B) that define passages extending
through the top surface (4Bm).
Non-Final Act. 2-3. Further, in response to Appellants' challenge, the
Examiner states,
While the inlet and outlets as disclosed in the figure 5
embodiment of Kawanishi (as relied upon in the office action
dated 10/4/2013) includes "an inlet aperture 23" and "an outlet
aperture 24," an inlet (e.g. 19B) is still an inlet (i.e. an inlet
passage of the channel) regardless of how many layers with
corresponding "inlet apertures (e.g. llb, 16b, 23, etc.)" it takes
to define the inlet. Similarly, an outlet (e.g. 18B) is still an outlet
(i.e. an outlet passage of the channel) regardless of how many
layers with corresponding "outlet apertures (e.g. 15b, 17b, 24,
etc.r it takes to define the outlet.
Ans. 4. For the following reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred by
finding Kawanishi discloses an inlet and outlet formed in a top surface of a
micro cooling element to allow a cooling medium flow into and out of the
channel of the claimed micro cooling structure.
Although no express interpretation of the claim language "an inlet and
the outlet being formed through the top surface" is provided, the Examiner
appears to apply a meaning broad enough to encompass an inlet and outlet
formed through the bottom surface, so long as the opening also extends
through the purported top surface. For example, the Examiner identifies
supplying channel 19B and discharging channel 18B as satisfying the
claimed channel inlet and outlet, respectively, because they extend through
4
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
the top surface (4Bm). Non-Final Act. 3. Further, the Examiner suggests
the finding that 19B is an inlet formed in the top surface and 18B is an outlet
formed in the top surface is correct because 19B and 18B include openings
23 and 24 formed in the layer 4Bm. Ans. 4; see Kawanishi, Fig. 5.
Such an interpretation is unreasonably broad because it disregards the
clear language of claim 31 specifically requiring an "inlet" in the top
surface, which is an opening through which the cooling medium enters the
channel of the micro cooling structure (see Inlet Definition, Meriam-
Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inlet (last visited
on July 18, 2016) and an "outlet" in the top surface, which is an opening
through which the cooling medium exits the channel of the micro cooling
structure (see Outlet Definition, Meriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/inlet (last visited on July 18, 2016). The Examiner's
interpretation appears to simply require the opening in the top surface to
connect to an inlet or outlet, regardless of whether the opening provides any
path into or out of the channel of the micro cooling structure.
Our understanding of the claimed micro cooling structure, in the
context of claim 31 as a whole, requires (1) a channel that extends beneath
the mounting area of a component to be cooled and between the top and
bottom surfaces of the micro cooling element and (2) an inlet and outlet
formed in the top surface of the micro cooling element to provide an
entrance and exit for a cooling medium to pass through the channel. See
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Figure 1 in Appellants' Specification,
reproduced below, is consistent with our interpretation:
5
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
Figure 1 is an illustration of a micro cooling element according to the
invention and shows, "[ d]isposed beneath the mounting surface 2 within the
micro cooling element 1 is a micro cooling structure 3 which by means of
connection channels 4 with inflow and outflow openings 4a, 4b located in
region II forms a cooling circuit through which a cooling medium, such as
for example deionised water, can flow for cooling purposes." Spec. i-fi-121,
24.
Turning now to Kawanishi; we agree with the Examiner that 9B and
1 OB from Figure 5 disclose a channel that extends beneath the mounting
area of a component to be cooled and between the top and bottom surfaces
of the micro cooling element. See Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner also
correctly finds that 4Bm is the "top surface" of the lower heat sink in
Kawanishi's stacked version of the disclosed semiconductor laser device.
Id. Regarding supply channel 19B and discharge channel 18B, however, we
disagree the entirety of those channels can be properly characterized as
disclosing an "inlet" and "outlet" formed in the "top surface" 4Bm to allow a
cooling medium enter into and exit from the cooling channels 9B and 1 OB.
Appellants assert "[ w ]hen the upper heat sink 2A and the lower heat
sink 2B are stacked, the inlet 23 and outlet 24 no longer serve as an inlet or
6
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
an outlet through a top surface, but rather become part of the cooling
channel." Appeal Br. 5. We understand Appellants to be arguing that, in the
stacked version of Kawanishi' s semiconductor laser device, although
openings 23 and 24 are part of the supply channel 19B and discharge
channel 18B, those openings do not serve as an inlet and outlet to the
cooling channel of the lower heat sink 2B. Instead, they are conduits to the
cooling channels of the upper heat sink 2A. After analysis of the flow path
of the cooling medium through channels 9B and 1 OB in the lower heat sink
2B of Kawanishi, we agree with Appellants that openings 23 and 24 are not
properly characterized as an "inlet" or "outlet" for the cooling channels 9B
and 1 OB in the lower heat sink.
Notably, openings 23 and 24 do not provide a means for cooling fluid
to either enter into or exit out of the cooling channels 9B and/or lOB. The
configuration of Kawanishi uses opening 16B to allow a cooling medium to
enter into and flow through a stacked version of the semiconductor laser
device. Kawanishi i-fi-189, 93, Figs. 3 and 5. The cooling fluid accumulates
in reservoir 14B and overflows into channel lOB. Id. i-fi-189--91, Figs. 3 and
5. The cooling fluid then fills channel lOB, which overflows into reservoir
13B and, subsequently, into channel 9B. Id. i-fi-190-92, Figs. 3 and 5. From
channel 9B, the cooling fluid flows down through openings 15B, 12B, and
ultimately exits the lower heat sink through 17B. Id. i-fi-192-93, Figs. 3 and
5. Rather than allowing a cooling medium to flow to or from channels 9B
and 1 OB, Kawanishi describes openings 23 and 24 as allowing a cooling
medium to enter into and exit out of the upper heat sink 2A. Id. i183, Figs. 3
and 5.
7
Appeal2014-007799
Application 12/438,336
Considering the design and flow path described by Kawanishi, the
portion of supply channel 19B directing a cooling medium into channels 9B
and 1 OB is comprised of openings 16B and 11 B, and the portion of
discharge channel 18B directing a cooling medium out of channels 9B and
lOB is comprised of openings 15B, 12B, and 17B. As a result, openings
16B and 17B, which are formed in the bottom swface (i.e., layer 8B), are
properly identified as the "inlet" and "outlet" for the cooling channels 9B
and 1 OB in the lower heat sink. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence
does not support the Examiner's finding that Kawanishi discloses a "micro
cooling structure including a channel having an inlet and an outlet for a
cooling medium to flow therethrough, the inlet and the outlet being formed
through the top surface." As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 31 and claims 17, 18, and 32 depending
therefrom.
Rejection II
The Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 16 does not cure the
deficiency identified above for independent claim 31. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 16-18, 31, and 32
are reversed.
REVERSED
8