Ex Parte Ebert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 201612438336 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation