Ex Parte Pearson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14507904 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/507,904 10/07/2014 Matthew Robert Pearson
54549 7590 09/26/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
PA22856US;
67097-2676PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8679
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW ROBERT PEARSON and
NEAL R. HERRING 1
Appeal2018-001712
Application 14/507,904
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to heat transfer interfaces,
and more specifically to heat transfer interfaces for use in high temperature
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corp. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001712
Application 14/507,904
applications." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A thermal interface comprising:
a first thermal component;
a second thermal component;
a fluid filled cushion disposed between said first thermal
component and said second thermal component, and wherein the
fluid filled cushion is a thermal joint.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gelorme2
Gelorme 3
Harttig
US 2005/0061474 Al Mar. 24, 2005
US 2006/0157223 Al July 20, 2006
US 2010/0122807 Al May 20, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1--4 and 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Harttig and Gelorme '4 7 4. Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Harttig, Gelorme '474, and Gelorme '223. Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants focus much of their argument against the Examiner's
initial finding (Final Act. 2) that Harttig teaches a cushion, and therefore, it
would be a mere simple substitution of the cushion of Gelorme '4 7 4 for the
2 Gelorme '474.
3 Gelorme '223
2
Appeal2018-001712
Application 14/507,904
cushion in Harttig. See, e.g., Reply Br. 1--4. According to Appellants, "[t]he
examiner's assertion that the thermal interface layer [in Harttig] is a
'cushion' is complete speculation, and has no basis in the teachings of the
reference. Id. at 3. The Examiner, however, in both the Final Action and
the Answer, points to Harttig, paragraphs 37 and 38, which disclose that the
thermal interface layer may be a pad, "where a pad is readable as a cushion."
Ans. 3. Likewise, Gelorme '474 also explains that its cushion is a pad. Id. ,r
19. Accordingly, the Examiner's simple substitution rationale is sufficient
given that both Harttig and Gelorme '4 7 4 teach the use of pads ( or cushions)
and the Examiner is simply substituting the liquid filled pad/cushion of
Gelorme '4 7 4 for Harttig' s pad/ cushion.
The Examiner also points out that regardless of the exact meaning of
the term "cushion" or its application in either of the references at issue, both
Harttig and Gelorme '4 7 4 specifically refer to their interface layers as
"thermal interface layers." Ans. 6. Gelorme '474 (i-f 3) describes that its
cushion is an improvement over "a thin layer of thermally conductive paste
disposed between opposing surfaces of the chip and the heat sink unit." As
such, in addition to pads, both references teach the use of grease or paste as
thermal interface layers such that one of skill in the art would understand
that the cushion of Gelorme '474 is a suitable replacement for Harttig's
grease. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-15.
3
Appeal2018-001712
Application 14/507,904
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4