10837180 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 2009)

Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 18, 2009

10837180 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL LI, JITEENDER P. MANIK, and TIM A. RENFRO ____________ Appeal 2008-5305 Application 10/837,180 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided:1 February 18, 2009 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-5305 Application 10/837,180 decision rejecting claims 8, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM for the reasons expressed in the Answer and below. Statement of the Case Appellants claim an integrated circuit socket comprising a socket 34, a heat spreader 44 having a depression 46, and a metal load plate 12 hingedly connected to the socket body and including an integrally stamped protrusion 42 which mates with the depression on the heat spreader (Claim 8; Fig. 2). Representative independent claim 8 reads as follows: 8. An integrated circuit socket comprising: a socket; a heat spreader mounted on said socket, said spreader including a depression having a length; and a metal load plate hingedly connected to said socket body, said load plate including an integrally stamped protrusion to mate with said depression on said spreader, said protrusion having a length that substantially matches the length of the depression to reduce movement, along the length of said depression, of said plate relative to said spreader. Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US 6,219,241 B1) in view of Ma (US 6,485,320 B1). Issue Have Appellants established error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to replace Jones’s lever structure 122, 124 (for 2 Appeal 2008-5305 Application 10/837,180 clamping heat sink 30') with the metal clip structure 14 of Ma, thereby obtaining an integrated circuit socket having the metal load plate required by independent claim 8? Findings of Fact On this record, it is undisputed that Jones discloses all aspects of the claim 8 integrated circuit socket except for the claimed metal load plate. In the integrated circuit socket of Jones, the heat sink 30' (corresponding to the claim 8 heat spreader) is clamped in place with a lever 122 and cross bar 124 mechanism (Fig. 9; col. 8, ll. 28-40). Ma discloses a socket 11 having CPU 2 and copper plate 3 clamped in place via a metal clip 14 and lever 12 assembly (Figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 46-56; col. 3, ll. 21-52). Based on these findings and the combined teachings of the applied references, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to replace the lever 122, cross bar 124 clamping mechanism of Jones with the clamping assembly taught by Ma, which includes metal clip 14 (corresponding to the metal load plate of claim 8) (Ans., para. bridging 3-4). As further support for this obviousness conclusion, the Examiner points out that the metal clip 14 of Ma would provide a widened surface serving as a handle for opening and closing the socket and that Jones teaches that such a widened, handle-serving surface would be desirable (col. 8, ll. 53-55) (Ans., para. bridging 3-4). Principles of Law When the question is whether a claim for a combination of prior art elements is obvious, a court must ask whether the improvement is more than 3 Appeal 2008-5305 Application 10/837,180 the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007). Analysis Appellants emphasize that Ma teaches a lever 12 as well as a metal clip or load plate 14 and argues that “the combination of Jones and Ma teaches a modification to the levers, not a modification to the load plate” (App. Br. 10). According to Appellants, “the asserted combination clearly teaches away from the claimed invention since it clearly suggests modifying the lever, not the load plate” (id.). These arguments reveal no error in the conclusion that it would have been obvious to replace the lever clamping mechanism of Jones with the lever/metal plate (i.e., clip) clamping assembly of Ma. Such a replacement would yield the claim 8 combination comprising the prior art socket and heat sink (i.e., heat spreader) elements of Jones with the prior art lever and metal clip (i.e., plate) clamping elements of Ma. Moreover, an obviousness conclusion is supported by the fact that the improvement provided by this combination is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Conclusion of Law Appellants have not established error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to replace Jones’s lever structure 122, 124 (for clamping heat sink 30') with the metal clip structure 14 of Ma, thereby obtaining an integrated circuit socket having the metal load plate required by independent claim 8. We sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Ma. 4 Appeal 2008-5305 Application 10/837,180 Order The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 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 ssl TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 5