Ex Parte Lima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11380778 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/380,778 04/28/2006 David J. Lima 0023-0272 3168
44987 7590 02/28/2014
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
GUMEDZOE, PENIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte DAVID J. LIMA
______________

Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals to the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13,
15-17, 24, 26-28, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3, 5, 7-11,
13, 15, 26, 30 and 31 over Kutlu (US 6,111,313), Call (US 5,533,256), Lee
(US 2004/0218354 A1), Belopolsky (US 5,272,375) and Anschel
(US 4,914,551); claim 24 over Kutlu, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel;
claim 16 over Kutlu, Call, Lee, Belopolsky, Anschel and Baska
(US 6,261,404 B1); claim 17 over Mahajan (US 6,706,562 B2), Call, Lee,
Belopolsky and Anschel; and claims 1, 27 and 28 over Fitzgerald
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
2
(US 2005/0139998 A1), Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel.1 App. Br. 9;
Ans. 5, 9, 12, 13, 15. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claims 1, 17 and 24 illustrate Appellant’s invention of a re-workable
heat dissipation assembly (claims 1 and 17) and a re-workable heat sink
attachment assembly (claim 24), and are representative of the claims on
appeal:
1. A re-workable heat dissipation assembly, comprising:
a substantially permanent first adhesive layer;
a first interposer layer adhered to an electronic device via the
substantially permanent first adhesive layer, where the first interposer layer
has a thickness of approximately 0.001 inches;
a second adhesive layer adhered to the first interposer later, where the
second adhesive layer comprises a thermally conductive tape; and
a heat dissipation device adhered to the first interposer layer via the
second adhesive layer.
17. A re-workable heat dissipation assembly, comprising:
a substantially permanent first adhesive layer;
a first interposer layer adhered to a device via the substantially
permanent first adhesive layer, the first interposer layer having a thickness
of approximately 0.001 inches;
a second substantially permanent adhesive layer adhered to the first
interposer layer;
a second interposer layer adhered to the first interposer layer via the
second substantially permanent adhesive layer,
a third adhesive layer adhered to the second interposer later, where the
third adhesive layer comprises a thermally conductive tape; and
a heat dissipation device adhered to the third adhesive layer.

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Ans. 3, 17.
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
3
24. A re-workable heat sink attachment assembly, comprising:
a thermally conductive metallic interposer layer permanently bonded
to a device to be cooled by a substantially permanent adhesive layer, the
thermally conductive metallic interposer layer having a thickness of
approximately 0.001 inches; and
a heat dissipation device removably bonded to the metallic interposer
layer by a second adhesive layer, where the second adhesive layer comprises
a thermally conductive tape.
App. Br. 32-34 (Claim App’x).
Appellant argues claim 1 with respect to the first and fifth grounds of
rejection, relying on the same arguments for the first ground with respect to
the third ground of rejection. App. Br. 20, 25, 30. Thus, we decide this
appeal based on claims 1, 17 and 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
The issues raised entail the interpretation of the language of claims 1,
17 and 24. We give the claim terms the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256
(Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We determine that the preambular language “re-workable heat
dissipation assembly” in claims 1 and 17, considered in light of the
Specification, requires that the second adhesive layer comprising any
manner of thermally conductive tape in claim 1 and the third adhesive layer
comprising any manner of thermally conductive tape in claim 17 are capable
of being “re-workable,” that is, repositionable or removable, to any extent
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
4
with respect to any manner of “interposer layer,” which can be metallic,
and/or any manner of “heat dissipation device,” which can be a heat sink.
We note that the preambular language “re-workable heat sink attachment
assembly” in claim 24 is reflected in the requirement that the second
adhesive layer comprising any manner of thermally conductive tape must be
“removably bonded” with respect to any manner of metallic interposer layer
and/or any manner of heat dissipation device that functions as a heat sink.
Spec., e.g., ¶¶ 0018, 0025. See, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Corning Glass Works v.
Sumitomo Elect. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754-55 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and cases cited therein
(“Whether a [statement] . . . of intended purpose constitutes a limitation to
the claims is, as has long been established, a matter to be determined on the
facts of each case in view of the claimed invention as a whole.”).
We point out that, contrary to the Examiner’s determination, the
language “a heat dissipation device removably bonded to the metallic
interposer layer by a second adhesive layer” in claim 24 is not product-by-
process language because the language characterizes the “re-workable”
functionality of the second adhesive layer comprising any manner thermally
conductive tape as “removably bonded” and not the manner in which the
claimed “assembly” is made. Ans. 11, 24. See, e.g., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d
695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Bridgeford, 357 F.2d 679, 680-83 (CCPA
1966).
We further determine that, contrary to the Examiner’s position, the
requirement that the interposer layer has a thickness of “approximately 0.001
inches” in claims 1, 17 and 24, does not specify the range “approximately
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
5
0.001 – 0.080 inches” described in the Specification. Spec. ¶ 0027. Ans.,
e.g., 4. Appellant, by amendment, has retreated to the disclosed lower end
point “approximately 0.001 inches.” See, e.g., In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1017-19 (CCPA 1977). We determine that Appellant’s consistent use
of the term “approximately” in describing thickness ranges in the
Specification indicates the term has its customary meaning of “close to” in
similar manner to the term “about” which has the customary meaning of
“[a]pproximately; nearly.”2 Spec., e.g., ¶¶ 0024, 0026, 0027. Thus, we are
of the opinion that the limitation that an interposer layer has “a thickness
approximately 0.001 inches” encompasses thicknesses slightly below and
slightly above 0.001 inches. Cf. Ex parte Eastwood, 163 USPQ 316, 317
(Bd. App. 1968) (“The descriptive word ‘about’ is not indefinite . . . . Its
meaning is not as broad and arbitrary as contended by the examiner. Rather,
the term is clear but flexible and is deemed to be similar in meaning to terms
such as ‘approximately’ or ‘nearly’.”); see, e.g., Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v.
Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Pall Corp. v. Micron
Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The use of the
word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.
Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context.”);
Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of
the word ‘about’ is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the
invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to
those skilled in the art.” (citation omitted)); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,

2 See, e.g., about, approximate, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language 5, 88-89 (4th ed. 2000).
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
6
1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“concentration of ‘about 1-5%’ does allow for
concentrations slightly above 5%.”).
A. Claims 1 and 24: Kutlu, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel
We cannot agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Kutlu, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and
Anschel would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kutlu’s
heat dissipation assembly in an integrated circuit package by using a
re-workable thermally conductive tape disclosed by Call and Lee as Kutlu’s
second thermally conductive adhesive layer 36 attached to metal heat
spreader 18, that is, an interposer layer, and to heat sink 20; and by reducing
the thickness of Kutlu’s metal heat spreader 18, that is, an interposer layer,
to approximately 0.001 inches as suggested by Belopolsky and Anschel, thus
arriving at a re-workable heat dissipation assembly falling within claim 1
and a re-workable heat sink attachment assembly falling within claim 24
which provide a heat transfer path, as we interpreted these claims above.
Kutlu col.4 ll.4-38, col.4 l.64 to col.7 l.10, Fig. 1. Ans. 5-7, 9-12, 18-24;
Reply Br. 4-8.
We find Call would have described that it was known in the art that
“[s]emiconductor devices are becoming smaller and more dense” thus
requiring reduced package size and weight with improved thermal
efficiencies, and that “[o]ne way to increase performance and reliability is to
provide the shortest and most efficient thermal cooling path for the
integrated circuit chips” which had been done with a thermally conductive
film, adhesive or double sided tape between the heat sink and the chip
module. Call col.1 l.28 to col.2 l.34. Call would have disclosed to one of
ordinary skill in the art a re-workable heat dissipation assembly and a
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
7
reworkable heat sink attachment assembly wherein double-sided, pressure-
sensitive, thermally-conductive adhesive tape 42 is re-workably and
repairably bonded to chip 20 and heat sink 10 to provide secure thermal
contact between the chip and the heat sink which cools the chip faster and
more efficiently. Call col.2 ll.35-67, col.3 ll.11-12, col.4 l.41 to col.5 l.7,
Fig. 2.
We find Lee would have described that it was known to one of
ordinary skill in the art that “[o]ne common method of cooling electronic
devices includes thermally coupling a heat sink to the package of the
electronic device,” and that in electronic assembly 6, thermal interface
material 16 can be used in the form of a tape between heat spreader 12, that
is, an interposer layer, and heat sink 10 of integrated circuit package 14. Lee
¶¶ 0006-0008, Fig. 1 (prior art).
We find Kutlu would have described that it was known in the art that
heat energy produced by semiconductor devices must be removed to ensure
reliable operation. Kutlu col.2 ll. 51-53. Kutlu would have disclosed to one
of ordinary skill in the art that metal heat spreader 18 is “formed from
thermally conductive material (e.g., a metal such as copper),” and “[i]n order
to be effective, . . . preferably has a vertical thickness of greater than or
equal to about 0.5 mm,” that is, about 0.02 inches, and efficiently conducts
heat to heat sink 20 through thermally conductive adhesive layer 36. Kutlu
col.6 l.54 to col.7 l.10, Fig. 1. Kutlu would have disclosed that heat spreader
18 is attached to chip 12 by first adhesive layer 34. Kutlu col.6 ll.59-61, Fig.
1.
We find Belopolsky would have described that it was known in the art
that “[t]hermal management in semiconductor packages is a problem
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
8
common to electronic products.” Belopolsky col.1 ll. 12-15. Belopolsky
would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art a heat dissipation
assembly in which heat spreader 203, formed from “any thermally
conductive metal,” “[t]ypically copper or aluminum,” is attached to larger
heat sink 205 by adhesive dielectric layer 204, wherein the thickness of the
metal heat spreader is determined by the disclosed formula to optimize heat
dissipation. Belopolsky col.1 l.37 to col.2 l.55, col.4 ll.61-68, Fig. 2a.
Belopolsky discloses that “it has been found that optimum heat dissipation
can be achieved by choosing the dimensions of the heat spreading layer so
that the surface area, the thickness and the spatial relationship of the heat
spreader to the chip are within certain range limitations.” Belopolsky col.2
ll.32-36. Belopolsky discloses “[t]he heat spreader should have a thickness
in the range” having a lower end point of “about 5” mils, that is, about 0.005
inches, wherein the surface area of the heat spreader is greater than that of
chip 201 to which the heat spreader can be attached by solder 202.
Belopolsky col.2 ll.46-55, col.4 ll.61-64, Fig. 2a. Belopolsky further
discloses that heat spreader 203 can be attached to chip 201 by solder 202.
Belopolsky col.4 ll.61-64, Fig. 2a.
We find Anschel would have described that it was known in the art
that semiconductor devices require effective removal of heat, and would
have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art a heat dissipation assembly
in which chip 17 is attached by adhesive 41 to larger metal heat spreader 37
that is attached by adhesive 51 to heat sink 33 for effective heat transfer,
wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of chip 17, heat spreader 37
and adhesive 41 are substantially similar. Anschel abstract, col.1 l.20 to
col.2 l.2, col.2 l.18 to col.5 l.36, col.6 ll.12-31, Figs. 1-2. Anschel discloses
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
9
that heat spreader 37 can be preferably formed from, among other things,
metallic copper-clad Invar™ and from aluminum or tin-plated copper.
Anschel col.3 ll.48-51, col.4 ll.39-44. Anschel discloses that when the
thickness of adhesive 51 (“a” in Fig, 2) falls within a certain range, the
thickness of heat spreader 37 (“b” in Fig. 2) “is preferably within the range
of about 0.0025 to about 0.0055 inch,” and the thickness of adhesive 41 also
falls within a certain range. Anschel col.5 ll.27-33, Fig. 2. Anschel
discloses that the electronic package with the heat dissipation assembly
greatly promotes heat removal and high circuit densities required in “today’s
electronics packages.” Anschel col.6 ll.12-21.
On this record, we are unconvinced by Appellant that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been led by Call and Lee to use Call’s double-
sided, pressure-sensitive, thermally-conductive adhesive tape between
Kutlu’s heat spreader and heat sink to obtain the benefits of a re-workable
and repairable bond that provides a secure thermal contact which cools the
chip faster and more efficiently as taught by Call, as the Examiner contends.
Ans. 5-6, 9-10, 21-24; App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 6. Indeed, we find that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of using Call’s
thermally conductive tape between the heat spreader and heat sink in Kutlu’s
heat dissipation assemblies even in view of the differences between the
structures of the integrated circuit packages disclosed by Kutlu and Call and
acknowledged by Lee pointed out by Appellant. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88
(Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
10
presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.”); see also, e.g., In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.” (citations omitted)).
We are also unconvinced by Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been led to use a metal heat spreader, that is, an
interposer layer, in Kutlu having a thickness of less than the lower limit of
about 0.02 inches preferred by Kutlu in view of the teachings of a lower
limit of about 0.005 inches taught by Belopolsky and of a lower limit of
about 0.0025 taught by Anschel based on consideration of other components
of the heat dissipation assembly in order to efficiently dissipate heat from
the integrated circuit package, as the Examiner contends. Ans. 5-7, 9-12,
17-24; App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 4-8. We initially note that the use of the
term “about” by Belopolsky and Anschel allows for a thickness slightly
below 0.005 and 0.0025 inches, respectively. See, e.g., Woodruff, 919 F.2d
at 1577. We are mindful that, as Appellant points out, the structures of the
heat dissipation assemblies and the manner in which the same are affixed to
the integrated chip package in Kutlu, Belopolsky and Anschel differ from
the structure including the thermally conductive tape adhesive specified in
claims 1 and 24. The difficulty we have with Appellant’s position is that the
combination of Kutlu, Belopolsky and Anschel acknowledge that it was
known in the art that effective heat dissipation is critical with respect to the
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
11
density and size of a semiconductor package, and in this respect, would have
taught one of ordinary skill in the art that the material and dimensions of the
heat spreader including its thickness is a result effective variable for which
workable and optimum ranges can be established with respect to other
elements of a heat dissipation assembly to effectively dissipate heat, as the
Examiner contends. See, e.g., Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456-58 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). We fail to find in Kutlu any
language with respect to the thickness of the heat spreader which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art away from a heat spreader thickness
below Kutlu’s preferably about 0.02 inches, particularly in view of
Belopolsky and Anschel. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of
the protective layer should not be less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far
short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art
from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less.”). Indeed, the
about 0.005 inches and about 0.0025 inches, respectively, of Belopolsky and
Anschel would have suggested a much thinner heat spreader depending on
other heat dissipation components.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the heat spreader thickness of about
0.0025 inches disclosed by Anschel is sufficiently close to the interposer
layer thickness of approximately 0.001 inches specified in claims 1 and 24
that the minor difference in thickness of the interposer heat spreader between
claims 1 and 24 and Anschel alone taken with the teachings that elements of
the heat dissipation assembly are considered in determining the thickness of
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
12
the heat spreader in Kutlu, Belopolsky and Anschel does not patentably
distinguish claims 1 and 24. See, e.g., Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1471; Haynes
Int’l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 1576-77, 1577 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1993); Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1577-78; Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775,783 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We point out that Appellant’s
arguments based on the modification of Kutlu’s heat dissipation assembly by
replacing the adhesive layer between the heat spreader and hear sink with
the thermally conductive adhesive tape of Call and Lee does not establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the use of the
thermally conductive adhesive tape would require a heat spreader with
increased thickness.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Kutlu, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel with
Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument,
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13,
15, 24, 26, 30 and 31 would have been obvious as a matter of law under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant relies on the same arguments with respect to claim 16 and
thus we further affirm the ground of rejection of this claim over Kutlu, Call,
Lee, Belopolsky, Anschel and Baska under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). App. Br. 25;
Reply Br. 8.
B. Claim 17: Mahajan, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Mahajan, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
13
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mahajan’s heat
dissipation assembly in an electronic assembly by using a re-workable
thermally conductive tape disclosed by Call and Lee as a thermally
conductive adhesive layer between Mahajan’s thermal spreader 108, that is,
an interposer layer, and heat sink 80; and by adjusting the thickness of
Mahajan’s thermal spreader 110, that is, an interposer layer, to
approximately 0.001 inches as suggested by Belopolsky and Anschel, thus
arriving at a re-workable heat dissipation assembly falling within claim 17,
as we interpreted this claim above. Mahajan col.6 ll.1-38, Fig. 3. Ans.
13-15, 24-25; App. Br. 26-29; Reply Br. 8.
Appellant relies on the same arguments we considered above with
respect to the teachings of Belopolsky and Anschel with respect to adjusting
the thickness of Mahajan’s thermal spreader 110 to approximately 0.001
inches as specified in claim 17. We remain of the view that the disclosure of
a heat spreader thickness of about 0.005 inches and about 0.0025 inches,
respectively, of Belopolsky and Anschel would have suggested a much
thinner heat spreader depending on other heat dissipation components.
Appellant has not established that the other components of Mahajan’s heat
dissipation assembly would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
a thicker thermal spreader.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Mahajan, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel with
Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument,
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claim 17 would have
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
14
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
C. Claim 1: Fitzgerald, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in determining that
Fitzgerald, Call, Lee, Belopolsky and Anschel would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to a re-workable heat dissipation assembly
comprising at least, among other things, “a substantially permanent first
adhesive layer” as specified in claim 1. Ans. 15-16, 25-26; App. Br. 29;
Reply Br, 9-10. We determine that, as Appellant points out, the claim term
“substantially permanent . . . adhesive,” when considered in light of the
Specification, specifies that the separation of bonded layers joined by the
adhesive typically results in damage to one or both layers. Reply Br, 9-10
(citing Spec. ¶ 0024). The Examiner has not established by scientific
argument or evidence that Fitzgerald’s first thermal interface material 20,
described as providing “some adhesion between [first] [integrate heat
spreader] 10 and die 50,” is a “substantially permanent adhesive” as claimed.
Fitzgerald ¶¶ 0024, 0035, Figs. 1, 7. Ans. 15-16, 25-26.
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we
reverse the ground of rejection of claims 1, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In summary, we have affirmed the grounds of rejection of claims 1-3,
5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 24, 26, 30 and 31, and have reversed the ground of
rejection of claims 27 and 28.
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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).
Appeal 2011-012435
Application 11/380,778
15
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
bar