CommScope Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2022000603 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/260,304 09/08/2016 Philip Lin 100.923US01R1 4548 135878 7590 02/02/2022 Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope 4600 W 77th St Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55435 EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3991 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): docketing@fogglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILIP LIN ___________ Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13-17. Claims 1-11 have been indicated to be allowable. (Final Act. 6.) Claim 12 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The instant application is a reissue application of US 8,830,678 B2, issued September 9, 2014, based on Application No. 12/144,734, filed on June 24, 2008. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a heat sink system to conduct heat away from a printed circuit board assembly. (Abstr.) Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 13. A heat sink system comprising: a printed circuit board having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the first surface having at least one high-heat component mounted thereon; at least one thermally conductive block thermally interfacing with the second surface of the printed circuit board underlaying the high-heat component; at least one heat sinking element configured to transfer heat to ambient air in which the heat sink system is located; and at least one heat pipe operably attached to the at least one thermally conductive block and the at least one heat sinking element, the at least one heat pipe extending from the at least 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CommScope Technologies LLC. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 3 one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element, the at least one heat pipe defining a heat transfer path directing heat away from the high-heat component and from the at least one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element. (Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims App.).) REFERENCES Name Reference Date Chao US 5,095,404 Mar. 10, 1992 Wiesa US 5,375,039 Dec. 20, 1994 REJECTION Claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesa and Chao. OPINION We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 4-11) that the combination of Wiesa and Chao would not have rendered obvious independent claim 13, which includes the limitation “the at least one heat pipe extending from the at least one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element.” The Examiner found that circuit board 10 and metal 18 of Wiesa, as illustrated in Figure 1, correspond to the limitation “at least one thermally conductive block thermally interfacing with the second surface of the printed circuit board underlaying the high-heat component.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner further found that heat pipe 25 of Chao, which removes heat from heat spreader 23 and mounting pad 27, and transfers such heat to fins 37, as illustrated in Figure 2, corresponds to the limitation “the at least one heat Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 4 pipe extending . . . to the at least one heat sinking element.” (Id. at 5.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the invention disclosed by Wiesa as to use a heat pipe [25] including fins [37] instead of heat spreader [18 of Wiesa] to further improve the heat dissipation of the device.” (Id. at 6; see also id. at 9-10.) The Examiner further concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the thickness of conductive block 18 disclosed Wiesa to provide an appropriate clearance.” (Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Wiesa relates to “circuit board arrangements and, in particular, to heat dissipative circuit board layering arrangements.” (Col. 1, ll. 6-8.) Figure 1 of Wiesa, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view of a circuit board layering arrangement, which includes circuit board 10 (col. 1, ll. 66- 67), power component 14 (col. 2, ll. 8-9), metal 18, and heat sink 16 (col. 2, ll. 30-32). Figure 1 is a cross-sectional view of a circuit board layering arrangement. In particular, Wiesa explains that “[a] layer of glass cloth 17 and a layer of metal 18, preferably copper, may be disposed between the circuit board 10 Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 5 and the heat sink 16.” (Col. 2, ll. 30-32.) Because Figure 1 of Wiesa illustrates power component 14 mounted on circuit board 10, with underlying metal 18, Wiesa teaches the limitation “at least one thermally conductive block thermally interfacing with the second surface of the printed circuit board underlaying the high-heat component.” Chao relates to integrated circuit (IC) chips, in particular, “an arrangement for mounting and cooling high density. . . IC chips.” (Col. 1, ll. 5-8.) Figures 2 and 3 of Chao, reproduced below, illustrate two different cross-sectional views of printed circuit board assembly 11, including heat pipe 25 (unlabeled) having cylindrical structure 26, such that “[m]ounting pad 27 serves to transfer the heat from heat spreader 23 to heat pipe 25” and fins 39 (col. 3, ll. 31-32). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two different cross-sectional views of printed circuit board assembly 11. Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 6 Because Chao explains that heat pipe 25 (or cylindrical structure 26) transfers heat from mounting pads 27 to fins 39, Chao teaches the limitation “the at least one heat pipe extending . . . to the at least one heat sinking element.” Combining Wiesa and Chao is nothing more than the simple substitution of heat pipe 25 and fins 39 of Chao, for heat sink 16 of Wiesa, with predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). This combination of references would incorporate heat pipe 25 and fins 39 of Chao into underlying metal 18 of Wiesa, and thus, teaches the limitation “the at least one heat pipe extending from the at least one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element.” Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that modifying Wiesa to incorporate heat pipe 25 and fins 39 of Chao would have been obvious. First, Appellant argues that “the layer of thermally conductive material 42 and the mounting pad 27 in Chao cannot form part of the thermally conductive block in the asserted modification/combination” and “[s]ince the heat pipe 25 extends from the mounting pad 27 to the fins 39 in Chao, it is clear that the asserted modification does not teach ‘the at least one heat pipe extending from the at least one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element’ as claimed.” (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 10-11.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining Wiesa and Chao was based upon incorporating heat pipe 25 of Chao into underlying metal 18 of Wiesa (Ans. 6), rather than incorporating conductive material 42 and the mounting pad 27 of Chao into underlying metal 18 of Wiesa, as argued by Appellant (Reply Br. 4). Moreover, “a determination of obviousness based on Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 7 teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Second, Appellant argues that [i]f Wiesa incorporated the components described in Chao as asserted, the circuit board 10 in Wiesa could not include further components 19 on the bottom side as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5 because the fins 39 described in Chao would be too close to the bottom side of the circuit board 10 and would direct heat to that area. (Reply Br. 5.) However, the Examiner also proposed modifying the dimensions of underlying metal 18 of Wiesa “to provide an appropriate clearance.” (Ans. 6.) As recognized by the Supreme Court, “[a] person of ordinary skill [in the art] is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in demonstrating “ordinary creativity” would experiment with the dimensions of underlying metal 18 of Wiesa and fins 39 of Chao to optimize heat transfer away from circuit board 10 of Wiesa. Third, Appellant argues that “[t]he configurations described in Wiesa utilize a single, common heat sink 16 for all of the power components 14, which provides a simple, compact, and efficient mechanism for removal of heat from multiple components” and accordingly, “[t]his design is not possible with a heat pipe 25 and fins 39 utilized in Chao, which facilitate the heat dissipation for a single chip 21, and complex design of multiple heat Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 8 pipes and sets of fins would be required rather than a single, common heat sink 16 as described in Wiesa.” (Reply Br. 5.) Appellant has not presented adequate evidence to support the argument that “[t]his design is not possible with a heat pipe 25 and fins 39 utilized in Chao” due to its “complex design.” Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Last, Appellant argues that “[t]he chip 21 in Chao is directly attached to the top (pedestal 31) of the heat spreader 23, which transfers the heat from the chip 21 to the heat pipe 25 for dissipation via the fins 39” and “[t]his arrangement of the features in Chao is clear and establishes that the printed circuit board 13 is not included in the thermal path from the chip 21 to the fins 39 in Chao.” (Reply Br. 8.) However, the Examiner cites Chao for teaching the limitation “heat pipe” (Ans. 6), and cites Wiesa for teaching the limitation “at least one thermally conductive block thermally interfacing with the second surface of the printed circuit board underlaying the high- heat component” (id. at 4). The rejection of claim 13 is based on the combination of Wiesa and Chao, and Appellant cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wiesa and Chao would have rendered obvious independent claim 13, which includes the limitation “the at least one heat pipe extending from the at least one thermally conductive block to the at least one heat sinking element.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and Appellant has not Appeal 2022-000603 Application 15/260,304 9 presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 13. Independent claim 15 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 13, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 15, as well as dependent claims 16 and 17 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 13. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13-17 103 Wiesa, Chao 13-17 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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