Ex Parte Lankhorst et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2009

10530449 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BMARTIJN HENRI RICHARD LANKHORST,
FEMKE KARINA DE THEIJE, ERWIN RINALDO MEINDERS,
and RONALD MARTIN WOLF
____________

Appeal 2009-002591
Application 10/530,449
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 11, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12. We have

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 2009-002591
Application 10/530,449

jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. An electric device with a body having:

a resistor comprising a phase change material which is able to be in a
first phase and in a second phase, the resistor having a surface with a first
contact area and a second contact area, the resistor having an electrical
resistance between the first contact area and the second contact area, the
electrical resistance having a first value when the phase change material is
in the first phase and a second value when the phase change material is in
the second phase,

a first conductor electrically connected to the first contact area,

a second conductor electrically connected to the second contact area,

the first conductor, the second conductor and the resistor being able to
conduct a current for heating of the phase change material to enable a
transition from the first phase to the second phase, and

a layer of a dielectric material for reducing a heat flow to parts of the
body free of the resistor during the heating, the dielectric material
comprising a porous material with pores having a size between 0.5 and 50
nm.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 2-3):
Ovshinsky 6,141,241 Oct. 31, 2000
Chiang 6,339,544 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Yan 2002/0134995 A1 Sep. 26, 2002
Hawker 6,670,285 B2 Dec. 30, 2003

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an electric device
comprising a resistor, first and second conductors in contact with the
resistor, and a layer of a dielectric material for reducing heat flow to parts of
2
Appeal 2009-002591
Application 10/530,449

the electric device free of the resistor. The resistor comprises a phase
change material and the dielectric material comprises a porous material
having the recited pore size.
Appealed claims 1-4 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Yan. Claims 5-7 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated
combination of references and further in view of Hawker. Also, claim 12
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
stated combination of references and further in view of Ovshinsky.
Appellants do not present arguments that are reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Also, Appellants do not advance separate
substantive arguments for the rejections further incorporating Hawker and
Ovshinsky. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute that Chiang, like Appellants, discloses an
electric device having a resistor comprising a phase change material that is
in contact with first and second conductors and a dielectric material for
reducing heat flow. As set forth by the Examiner, Chiang teaches that the
dielectric material has a low-k value, but Chiang is silent with respect to the
porous nature of the dielectric material. However, there is no dispute that
3
Appeal 2009-002591
Application 10/530,449

Yan discloses the use of dielectric materials in an electric device that have
the presently claimed porosity. Accordingly, based on the collective
teachings of Chiang and Yan, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
dielectric material of Yan for the electric device of Chiang for the benefits
taught by Yan, namely, mechanical strength and resistance to moisture.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is flawed “because it
fails to show why one of skill in the art would use the teachings of the Yan
reference in the context of the teachings of the Chiang reference” (App. Br.
4, second para.). However, Yan teaches that the porous dielectric material
finds utility in semiconductors and other electric devices, in general, and
Appellants have presented no technical or scientific reason for why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using the porous
dielectric material of Yan in the electric device of Chiang. Appellants have
not identified any specific teaching in Yan that would have precluded the
use of the porous dielectric material in the electric device of Chiang.
Appellants also maintain that “[t]he Chiang reference teaches the
desirability of low thermal conductivity [whereas] the Yan reference teaches
that low thermal conductivity is undesirable” (App. Br. 5, third para.).
Chiang, however, in relevant part, teaches that in one embodiment the
dielectric material may be silicon dioxide and, in another embodiment, the
dielectric material is selected for its reduced thermal conductivity that is less
than the value for silicon dioxide (col. 5, ll. 23-30). In addition, Chiang
teaches that not all of the dielectric material need be of a material having a
thermal conductivity less than that of silicon dioxide (col. 5, ll. 37-47).
Accordingly, we conclude that it would have been obvious for one of
4
Appeal 2009-002591
Application 10/530,449

ordinary skill in the art to select a dielectric material having a thermal
conductivity that is suitable for a particular application. Chiang provides no
teaching that the dielectric material must have a thermal conductivity that is
higher than the thermal conductivity of the porous dielectric materials fairly
taught by Yan.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

NXP, B.V.
NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
M/S41-SJ
1109 MCKAY DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95131
5