Ex Parte Bhunia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

13195515 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2017)

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.
13/195,515 08/01/2011 Avijit Bhunia 108-2009-076 2047
12851 7590 09/25/2017
Brooks Acordia IP Law, A Professional Corporation
31365 Oak Crest Drive
Suite 225
Westlake Village, CA 91361
EXAMINER
OSWALD, KIRSTIN U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
docketing @brooksacordia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AVIJIT BHUNIA, QINGJUN CAI, and
CHUNG-LUNG CHEN
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,51s1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—18 and 24—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellants, the invention relates “to systems for cooling
high-power devices on a direct-bonded copper (DBC) substrate.” Spec. 13.
1 According to Appellants, the “real party in interest... is Teledyne
Scientific & Imaging, LLC.” Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
Claims 1,14, and 24 are the only independent claims on appeal. Br., Claims
App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A thermal management apparatus, comprising:
a substrate having a metallic face;
at least one microporous wick formation in thermal
communication with said metallic face; and
a liquid delivery head positioned in complementary
opposition to said metallic face, said liquid delivery head having
at least one nozzle for directing a liquid towards said metallic
face.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—10, 13, 14, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ballard (US 5,687,577, iss. Nov. 18,
1997) and Lai (US 2009/0166003 Al, pub. July 2, 2009).
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ballard, Lai, and Oh (US 2003/0141045 Al, pub. July 31,
2003).
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ballard, Lai, and Daikoku (US 5,349,831, iss. Sept. 27,
1994).
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 24—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ballard, Lai, and Zheng (US 2009/0211095 Al, pub.
Aug. 27, 2009).
2
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 14, and their dependent claims 7—11, 13,
and 15—18
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal Brief, for the reasons
discussed below, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1 and 14,
and their dependent claims 7—11, 13, and 15—18.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ballard shows “a
metallic face ([pjlate 10). . . and a liquid delivery head (30) positioned in
complementary opposition to said metallic face (see Figure 4), said liquid
delivery head having at least one nozzle (26) for directing a liquid towards
said metallic face (see Figure 4).” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s finding is erroneous because Ballard’s nozzle 26 is mounted on
cooling plate 10, and, thus, Ballard’s cooling plate 10 is not in
“complementary opposition” (i.e., opposite) to the nozzle. Br. 7—8.
However, the Examiner later relies on Ballard’s printed circuit board 45,
which is, in fact, opposite nozzle 26 that is mounted on cooling plate 10, to
teach the claimed metallic face “in complementary opposition” to the liquid
delivery head. Ans. 13. We determine that the Examiner adequately
supports the finding that Ballard’s nozzle 26 is in complementary opposition
to circuit board 45, and, thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue that claim 1 ’s rejection is erroneous because
Lai, in the Background of the Invention section, teaches away
from [the Examiner’s proposed] modification that would
accommodate a liquid delivery head and nozzle [within Lai’s
heat spreader] to direct liquid[,] [because Lai] stat[es] that an
increase in ‘the distance [between the plates, which would be
necessary to accommodate nozzles between the plates,] would
cause the heat spreader to be thick, and [a thick heat spreader]
3
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
cannot be mounted in a thin electronic device [,] which has
become a development tendency nowadays.’
Br. 8. The argument is unpersuasive, however. The Examiner’s proposed
combination uses Lai’s wick in Ballard’s arrangement, and does not use
Ballard’s nozzle in Lai’s arrangement. See Ans. 4—5, n.b. 15 (“Lai’s
teaching is being applied within the system of Ballard and not vice versa.”).
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Although Appellants separately argue against the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, Appellants’ arguments are substantially
the same as the above arguments for claim 1, which we do not find
persuasive. See Br. 15—16. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons we sustain claim 1 ’s
rejection. Further, we also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 7—11,
13, and 15—18 that Appellants do not argue separately.
Dependent claims 2—6
For the following reasons, we do not sustain any of the rejections of
dependent claims 2—6.
With respect to claim 2 (that depends from claim 1), the Examiner
finds that Lai discloses “a plurality of microporous wicks (multiple
sections 300 of [wick layers] 30 and 40, see Figure 2) and a plurality of
macroporous channels (channels 36 of [wick layer] 30).” Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the rejection is in error, in part, because Lai “discloses
reference no. 300 as ‘triangle apertures 300,’” and, thus, “these apertures
(holes containing the working fluid) are not the claimed (with emphasis
added) ‘a plurality of microporous wicks.’” Br. 9. Based on our review of
Lai, we agree with Appellants that Lai’s triangle apertures 300 do not teach
the claimed wicks. Thus, the Examiner’s factual finding underlying
4
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
claim 2’s rejection is not supported adequately. Further, with regard to
claim 3 that depends from claim 2, the Examiner does not rely on Zheng to
overcome the deficiency in claim 2’s rejection. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2 or 3.
With respect to claim 4 that depends from claim 1, similar to the
above discussion regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, the Examiner finds
that Lai’s apertures 300 teach the claimed wicks. Ans. 5. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4, or the rejection
of claims 5 and 6 that depend from claim 4, for reasons substantially the
same as the reasons we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 3.
Dependent claim 12
Dependent claim 12, which depends from claim 1, recites “[t]he
apparatus of claim 1, wherein said nozzle is a micro-jet nozzle.” The
Examiner finds the combination of Ballard and Lai does not disclose a
micro-jet, but that Daikoku discloses the claimed jet. Ans. 8—9. Appellants
argue the rejection is in error because “neither the term ‘micro-jet’ nor
‘microjet’ are present in Daikoku.’ '’ Br. 18. We are not persuaded of error by
Appellants, however. The Examiner determines that Appellants’
Specification does not define the term “microjet,” and that “applying the
broadest reasonable interpretation, the nozzle (6) of Daikoku is construed as
a microjet nozzle, as it is used in semiconductor technology which is micro
in scale.” Ans. 17. We determine that the Examiner’s determinations are
reasonable and supported adequately, and Appellants do not demonstrate
otherwise that the Examiner errs. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 12.
5
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
Independent claim 24 and its dependent claims 25—27
For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 24, or its dependent claims 25—27.
With respect to claim 24, the Examiner finds that “Lai [is] directed to
a heat spreader with vapor chamber, discloses a microporous wick formation
(formations 30 and 40), said microporous wick formation having a plurality
of macroporous channels extending radially from a central fluid
impingement area.” Ans. 11. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection
is erroneous because the Examiner does not identify which structures of
wick formations 30 and 40 teach the claimed macroporous channels, and,
thus, the Examiner does not provide any evidence that Lai teaches the
channels as claimed. Br. 21. The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’
argument. See Ans. 18—19. Further, to the extent that other findings made
by the Examiner regarding Lai’s disclosure are relevant, as discussed above,
the Examiner erroneously relies on Lai’s triangle apertures 300, which are
open spaces, to teach wicks. See, e.g., Ans. 5. Thus, we determine that the
Examiner’s factual finding underlying claim 24’s rejection is not supported
adequately. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 24, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 25—27 that depend from claim 24.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1
and 7—18.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2—6
and 24—27.
6
Appeal 2016-006990
Application 13/195,515
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7