Ex Parte Lankston et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2013

11742540 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROBERT J. LANKSTON II, CHRISTOPHER G.
MALONE, and STEPHEN D. CROMWELL
________________

Appeal 2010-005542
Application 11/742,540
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed August 10, 2009; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed November 12, 2009; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed January 12, 2010.
Appeal 2010-005542
Application 11/742,540

2
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Yamamoto (US 6,082,443; issued July 4, 2000). Ans. 3.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a heat sink including a vapor chamber
base formed in a three-dimensional arrangement that mirrors topology of
underlying structures on a substrate upon which the heat sink can be
mounted. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the
key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A heat sink comprising:
a vapor chamber base formed in a three-dimensional arrangement
that mirrors topology of underlying structures on a substrate upon which the
heat sink can be mounted, the vapor chamber base formed with a surface
that encases sides and top of integrated circuits to maintain a uniform base
temperature raised to extend over obstructions on the substrate; and
at least one fin coupled to the vapor chamber base.

PIVOTAL ISSUE2
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), has the Examiner erred by finding that
Yamamoto teaches a vapor chamber base formed in a three-dimensional
arrangement that mirrors topology of underlying structures and formed with
a surface that encases sides and top of integrated circuits to maintain a
uniform base temperature raised to extend over obstructions on the substrate,
as recited in claim 1?

2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. However, as we are
persuaded of Examiner error regarding the identified issue, which is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2010-005542
Application 11/742,540

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds, with regard to claim 1, that Yamamoto teaches
all claim limitations. Ans. 3. For the recited vapor chamber base, the
Examiner does not clearly state which figures of Yamamoto are being relied
on, but the Examiner does refer to elements 2, 15, and 100 of Yamamoto.
For the recited limitation “formed with a surface that encases sides and top
of integrated circuits,” the Examiner refers to Figure 30 of Yamamoto.
Appellants argue that Yamamoto shows a base that contacts tops of
the underlying structures in Figures 4-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 20, and 23, but fails
to teach the base surface encasing the sides of the underlying integrated
circuits. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue, among other arguments, that
Figure 30 of Yamamoto only shows indentation of the base opposite the
integrated circuit and not to obstructions on the substrate. App. Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner states that the structures in Yamamoto’s
Figures 1, 29, and 30 show a three-dimensional arrangement that mirrors the
topology of the underlying structure, and that the indentation shown is
encasing the component. Ans. 4. The Examiner further states that, in
Figure 4 and other figures, the base in Yamamoto is raised to extend over
obstructions on the substrate. Ans. 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that Figures 29 and 30 describe
the conventional art and embodiments depicted in Figures 29 and 30 in
conjunction with embodiments depicted in Figure 1 cannot be relied on for a
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection. Reply Br. 1.
We note that the Examiner cites multiple different embodiments
described by Yamamoto to support the rejection, namely, the cooling device
Appeal 2010-005542
Application 11/742,540

4
of Figure 1 for cooling a single body, the cooling device of Figure 4 for
cooling multiple bodies, the conventional heat transferring body in
Figure 29, and the conventional heat transferring body including an
embedded heat pipe in Figure 30. The Examiner’s citation to different
embodiments described by Yamamoto does not establish anticipation of
claim 1, as anticipation requires disclosure of all recited elements arranged
as in the claim. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359,
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). None of Figures 1, 4, 29, and 30 shows a vapor
chamber base having all recited limitations of claim 1 in a single
embodiment. In Figures 1, 29, and 30, the vapor chamber base does not
extend over obstructions on the substrate as recited by claim 1. In Figure 4,
the vapor chamber base is not formed with a surface that encases sides of
integrated circuits as recited by claim 1.3
We are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims
2-10, which depend from claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 18, Appellants argue claims 11
and 18 together with claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Claim 11 recites “forming a
vapor chamber base in a three-dimensional arrangement that mirrors the
topology, the vapor chamber base formed with a surface that encases sides
and top of integrated circuits to maintain a uniform base temperature raised
to extend over obstructions on the substrate,” and claim 18 recites

3 We have considered the rejection before us. We have not considered
whether the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Yamamoto alone or in combination with additional references.
Appeal 2010-005542
Application 11/742,540

5
a vapor chamber base formed in a three-dimensional arrangement that
mirrors topology of components on the substrate upon which the heat sink is
mounted, the vapor chamber base formed with a surface that encases sides
and top of integrated circuits to maintain a uniform base temperature raised
to extend over obstructions on the substrate.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 18, and we therefore do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of those claims, or of claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
which depend variously from claims 11 and 18.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED

babc