Georg Seidemann et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2019006796 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
15/475,368 03/31/2017 Georg Seidemann P108958 (4884.661US1) 7716
45457 7590 09/30/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel
P.O. Box 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
PAPE, ZACHARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORG SEIDEMANN, BERND WAIDHAS,
THOMAS WAGNER, ANDREAS WOLTER,
SONJA KOLLER, and VISHNU PRASAD
____________

Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1–9, 11–17, 20, 21, and 23–25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 31, 2017 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated Oct. 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action
dated Jan. 23, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief filed June 10, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated July 18, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply
Brief filed Sept. 18, 2019 (“Reply Br. “).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Intel IP Corporation as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to heat management of electronic devices and, in
particular, to an electronic component assembly that includes a substrate
having a first face and an opposed second face and a filler interface heat
transfer system coupled with the substrate. Spec. 1, 3; Abstract. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a device housing;
a substrate within the device housing and coupled with the
device housing;
one or more electronic components coupled with the
substrate, the one or more electronic components and the
substrate include a composite profile; and
a filler interface heat transfer system coupled with the one
or more electronic components, the filler interface heat transfer
system includes:
at least one enclosure shell coupled with the
substrate, the at least one enclosure shell surrounds a filler
cavity, the one or more electronic components and the
composite profile,
a heat transfer filler within the filler cavity, the heat
transfer filler is a solid or liquid and includes a contoured
filler profile of the solid or liquid conformed along and
engaged along the composite profile, and
a distributive heat path including the heat transfer
filler and the at least one enclosure shell, the distributive
heat path is configured to distribute heat from the one or
more electronic components into the heat transfer filler
and the at least one enclosure shell and transfer heat from
the heat transfer filler and the at least one enclosure shell
to the device housing.
Appeal Br. 19 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Reisman et al.
(“Reisman”)
US 4,449,580 May 22, 1984
Lai et al. (“Lai”) US 2009/0052139 A1 Feb. 26, 2009
Refai-Ahmed et al.
(“Refai-Ahmed”)
US 8,574,965 B2 Nov. 5, 2013
Vincent US 2014/0078673 A1 Mar. 20, 2014
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–4 and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Reisman in view of Refai-Ahmed and further in view of
Lai (“Rejection 1”). Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 12–17, 20, and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103
as being unpatentable over Reisman in view of Refai-Ahmed
(“Rejection 2”). Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reisman in view of Refai-Ahmed and further in
view of Vincent (“Rejection 3”). Final Act. 9.
4. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Reisman in view of Refai-Ahmed and further in view of
Examiner’s Official Notice (“Rejection 4”). Final Act. 11.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions the Examiner and
Appellant advance in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections based essentially on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
4
provides in the Answer, Advisory Action, and Final Office Action. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 6–9 under § 103 as obvious over
Reisman, Refai-Ahmed, and Lai. Final Act. 3–5. In response to the
Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents argument for the patentability of
claim 1 but does not present separate argument for the patentability of claims
2–4 and 6–9. Appeal Br. 7–15. We select claim 1 as representative and
claims 2–4 and 6–9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed, and Lai suggests an electronic device satisfying the
limitations of claim 1 and concludes the combination would have rendered
the claim obvious. Final Act. 3–4. On this appeal record, we determine a
preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the
Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the cited art and the
Examiner’ conclusion that the combination of Reisman, Refai-Ahmed, and
Lai would have rendered the device of claim 1 obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Reisman, Abstract, 8:27–32, Fig. 1; Refai-Ahmed,
Abstract, 4:40–45, Fig. 8; Lai, Abstract, Fig. 4.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest all of the elements of
the claim. Appeal Br. 7–12. In particular, Appellant contends Reisman
neither teaches nor suggests that “the heat transfer filler is a solid or liquid,”
as required by the claim. Id. at 9–10. Appellant contends that, in contrast to
the claimed invention, Reisman’s heat transfer filler 40 is a pressurized gas,
and not “a solid or liquid,” as recited in the claim. Id. at 9 (arguing “the
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
5
Reisman system encloses a gas and pressurizes the gas to facilitate heat
transfer”), 10 (arguing “the alleged heat transfer filler 40 is a pressurized
gas”). Appellant further contends that, although Reisman discloses that
“other acceptable fluids” may be used as the heat filler material for its device
(Reisman 8:27–32), such disclosure does not clearly teach or suggest that a
liquid may be used with Reisman. Id. at 11 (arguing “Reisman fails to
mention the inclusion of any liquids, and instead focuses entirely on gases”
and “does not teach that ‘any fluid could be used’”).
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the Examiner’s proposed combination of Reisman and
Refai-Ahmed would change Reisman’s principle of operation. Appeal Br.
12–15; Reply Br. 2–8. In particular, Appellant argues that, because Reisman
“repeatedly discusses the use of gases at increased pressures to realize
different thermal benefits” and “notes the unexpected benefits of using gases
at increased pressures,” modifying Reisman’s device to include
Refai-Ahmed’s liquid heat transfer filler 45 would impermissibly change the
principle of operation of Reisman. Appeal Br. 12, 14 (arguing “exchange of
the gases of Reisman for the liquids of Refai changes th[e] principle of
operation”); see also Reply Br. 6 (arguing “the Reisman principle of
operation is directed to pressurized gases”).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection based principally on the fact-finding and
reasoning the Examiner provides at pages 3–7 of the Answer and pages 3–4
of the Final Office Action. Regarding “the heat transfer filler is a solid or
liquid” claim recitation, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 3–4; Final Act. 3),
Reisman discloses a heat dissipating system for cooling electronic
components (e.g., circuit chips) comprising an encased module, including, a
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
6
heat transfer filler (gas 40) contained within an enclosed interior portion of
the encased module. Reisman, Abstract, 3:40–48, 4:19–21, 4:25–26,
4:29–32, Fig. 1. As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4),
Reisman further discloses that “[a]lthough argon and helium gases are both
specifically described as appropriate for filling the encased module 20, other
acceptable fluids operating at an elevated pressure may also be used.”
Reisman, 8:27–30.
As the Examiner also finds (Final Act. 4), Refai-Ahmed discloses
liquid thermal interface material 45 placed within the internal cavity of a
device for thermal contact with certain of the device’s electronic
components (e.g., semiconductor chips). Refai-Ahmed, Abstract, 4:36–45,
Fig. 8. Refai-Ahmed further discloses that “it is preferred that the thermal
interface material 45 readily behave as a fluid in the internal cavity 40 and
fill any voids and encompass the semiconductor chip 15 for more favorable
thermal conduction” and the thermal interface material’s flowability is a
desirable feature. Id. at 4:41–45.
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of the
Reisman and Refai-Ahmed to arrive at the claimed invention. Final Act. 4
(explaining it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Reisman’s heat dissipating system to include a liquid heat transfer
filler, as Reisman suggests and Refai teaches, because doing so would
provide good flowability at a desired temperature”); Reisman, 8:27–30;
Refai-Ahmed, 4:40–45. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007) (explaining that any need or problem known in the art can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
7
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings, analysis, and conclusions in this regard.
Appellant’s contentions regarding Reisman’s heat transfer filler 40 being a
gas and that Reisman does not teach or suggest that the heat transfer filler is
a liquid (Appeal Br. 7–12) are not persuasive because Reisman’s teachings
are not limited to the disclosures in its examples or preferred embodiments.
In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A
reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the
described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); see also In re Mills, 470
F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“[A] reference is not limited to the disclosure
of specific working examples.”). Although Reisman describes the heat
transfer filler being a gas, for example, argon or helium (Reisman, 3:38–45,
8:27–30, Fig. 1), such disclosure is exemplary or merely preferred
embodiments and does not negate or take away from Reisman’s broad
disclosure and suggestion that other acceptable fluids may also be used. See
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (explaining that a prior art
reference’s disclosure must be considered for all that it teaches, including
“the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to
draw therefrom”).
Appellant’s contentions in this regard are also not well-taken because
they are premised on what Reisman teaches individually, and not the
combined teachings of Reisman and Refai-Ahmed as a whole, and what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA1981). The Examiner
does not rely solely upon Reisman for disclosing that limitation. Rather, as
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
8
we previously discuss above, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Reisman and Refai-Ahmed for suggesting “the heat transfer filler is a solid
or liquid” recitation of the claim.
Moreover, in view of Reisman’s disclosure regarding use of other
acceptable fluids as a heat transfer filler for cooling electronic components
within an enclosed interior portion of an electronic device (Reisman,
Abstract, 3:46–48, 8:27–30, Fig. 1) and Refai-Ahmed’s disclosure regarding
use of a liquid thermal interface material for thermal contact with electronic
components within the internal cavity of an electronic device (Refai-Ahmed,
Abstract, 4:36–45, Fig. 8), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3–4) that the
references’ combined teachings would have reasonably suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the heat transfer filler is a liquid, as claimed.
Appellant’s contentions regarding Reisman repeatedly discussing and
being directed to pressurized gases and that modifying Reisman’s device to
include Refai-Ahmed’s liquid heat transfer filler would change Reisman’s
principle of operation (Appeal Br. 12–15; Reply Br. 2–8) are not persuasive
because Appellant does not identify or direct us to persuasive evidence in
the record to support them. Contrary to what Appellant’s argument implies,
as we previously explain above, the fact that Reisman discusses the use of
gases at increased pressures and the benefits thereof and describes certain
embodiments using pressurized gases as the heat transfer filler, without
more, does not limit Reisman’s teachings to such use. See Reisman, 4:31–32
(describing using a gas “such as helium or argon”), 8:27–30; Applied
Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298.
We also do not find Appellant’s contentions persuasive based on the
fact-finding and analysis the Examiner provides at pages 3–7 of the Answer.
As the Examiner finds and explains (Ans. 3–4), the basic principle of
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
9
operation of Reisman’s heat dissipating system involves the combination of
convection and conduction to cool electronic components mounted on a
circuit board. Reisman, Abstract, 2:43–51, 2:64–3:7, 3:40–59. As the
Examiner finds (Ans. 3–4, 6), Reisman teaches that heat generated by circuit
chips 30 is transferred, via convection, to gas 40 (heat transfer filler) and
then transferred, via conduction, to sidewalls, including back sidewall 26 of
encased module 20, which act as a heat sink to dissipate the heat and thus,
cool circuit chips 30. Reisman, 3:64–4:46. As the Examiner further finds
(Ans. 6), Reisman teaches that the sidewalls are tightly sealed and connected
to each other and to the substrate, and together contain gas 40 within the
module at an elevated pressure. Reisman, 3:43–45, 4:25–41.
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 6–7), because Reisman’s sidewalls
and substrate are rigid and sealed and the sidewalls’ surfaces able to handle
pressurized gas (gas 40) at an elevated pressure, replacing Reisman’s gas
heat transfer filler with a liquid heat transfer filler, as taught by
Refai-Ahmed, would not change or destroy the basic principle of operation
of Reisman. See Ans. 6 (finding “the elements appear to be tailor made for a
liquid to be used since they are hermetically sealed to hold a fluid” and
“‘substantial reconstruction and redesign’” would not be required “in order
to accommodate the liquid”), 6–7 (explaining “[r]eplacing the fluid (gas 40)
with a different type of fluid (liquid) . . . would not materially change th[e]
basic operational principle of Reisman” and may “result in enhanced cooling
of the chips”); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (rejecting argument that
principle of operation would be destroyed by combination when
modifications did “not affect the overall principle of operation”).
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and analysis in this regard. Cf. SmithKline
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
10
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual
disputes do not amount to a developed argument.”). Thus, on this appeal
record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s proposed modification would
change Reisman’s principle of operation.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and
6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reisman, Refai-Ahmed, and Lai.
Rejections 2, 3, and 4
In response to the Examiner’s Rejections 2, 3, and 4 (Final Act. 6–11),
Appellant does not present any additional substantive arguments. Rather,
Appellant relies on principally the same arguments previously discussed and
presented above in response to the Examiner’s Rejection 1. See Appeal Br.
15–17.
Thus, based on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner provides
in this appeal record, and for principally the same reasons we discuss above
for affirming the Examiner’s Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 12–17, 20, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Reisman and Refai-Ahmed (Rejection 2); claims 1, 3, 5, and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reisman, Refai-Ahmed, and Vincent
(Rejection 3); and claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed, and Examiner’s Official Notice (Rejection 4).
Appeal 2019-006796
Application 15/475,368
11
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–9 103 Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed, Lai
1–4, 6–9
12–17, 20,
23–25
103 Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed
12–17, 20,
23–25

1, 3, 5, 11 103 Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed,
Vincent
1, 3, 5, 11
21 103 Reisman,
Refai-Ahmed,
Examiner’s Official
Notice
21
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–17,
20, 21,
23–25

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