Ex Parte Jitaru

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2004

09310627 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2004)

1 According to the patent assignment data base, the present application is assigned to
ASCOM ENERGY SYSTEMS AG 303 Belpstrasse 37 CH-3000 Berne 14, Switzerland.
2 In rendering this decision, we have considered Appellant’s arguments presented in the
Brief filed March 3, 2003 and the Reply Brief filed July 3, 2003.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex Parte IONEL JITARU
_______________
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,6271
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before, KIMLIN, DELMENDO and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
Applicant appeals the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims
43 to 54, 56 and 59 to 62. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.2
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-2-
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a printed circuit board assembly. According
to Appellant, the invention has improved thermal conductivity through the use of
thermally conductive plug placed within the vias. (Specification, p. 3). Claims 43, 47
and 53 which are representative of the invention are reproduced below:
43. A printed circuit board assembly, comprising:
a metal plated first via extending through the printed circuit board;
a thermally conductive plug extending into said first via, said plug
including a plurality of grooves on an exterior surface thereof;
solder disposed between said grooves and the walls of said first via;
a separable heat sink component adapted for connection to the printed
circuit board; and
a separate layer of copper foil for disposition between the heat sink
component and the printed circuit board, to provide thermal
communication between said heat sink component and said plug.
47. A printed circuit board assembly, comprising:
a metal plated first via extending through the printed circuit board;
a thermally conductive plug extending into said first via, said plug having
an internal channel extending therethrough for conducting solder from one
side of the printed circuit board to the other; and
a separable heat sink component adapted for connection to the printed
circuit board so as to be in thermal communication with said plug.
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-3-
53. A printed circuit board assembly, comprising:
a metal plated first via extending through the printed circuit board;
a thermally conductive plug extending into said via;
an electronic component having a body portion and a lead portion;
solder disposed between said body portion of said electronic component
and said plug and between said body portion of said electronic component
and a side of the printed circuit board;
a separable heat sink component; and
a layer of copper foil for disposition between the heat sink component and
the printed circuit board.

CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art:
August et al. (August) 4,628,407 Dec. 09, 1986
Alexander et al. (Alexander) 5,189,261 Feb. 23, 1993
Kubo et al. (Kubo) 5,656,798 Aug. 12, 1997
Hunninghaus et al. (Hunninghaus) 5,708,566 Jan. 13, 1998

Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
(Answer, p. 2).
-4-
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following rejections:3
Claims 43 to 52 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Alexander, August and Kubo; and claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 62 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and
Hunninghaus. (Answer, pp. 3-6).
Appellant has indicated (Brief, page 9) that, for the purposes of this appeal,
“[t]he claims do not stand or fall together.” We will consider the claims separately only
to the extent that separate arguments are of record in this appeal. 37 CFR
§ 1.192 (c)(7)(2002).
Upon consideration of the present record, we will affirm the rejections of claims
43 to 54, 56 and 59 to 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
OPINION
Claims 43-46, 53, 54, 56, 59-61
The Examiner rejected claims 43 to 46 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Alexander, August and Kubo.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the Appellant
and the Examiner and agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer that
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-5-
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 43-46.
Appellant argues that the plated via in August is neither a layer of copper foil nor
is it separate from the printed circuit board. (Brief, p.14). Appellant also argues that
the copper pads of August are inseparably bonded to the fiberglass substrate as a result
of electrodeposition. (Reply Brief, p. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 43 requires a separate
layer of copper foil for disposition between the heat sink component and the printed
circuit board. The copper layer of August is disposed between the heat sink component
and the printed circuit board. The claim language does not specify the dimension of
the layer and does not preclude the copper from being bonded to a separate substrate.
Appellant argues that the subject matter of claims 43-46, 51 and 52 comprises a
plug that has a plurality of grooves and none of the cited references teaches or suggest
the use of grooves to enhance heat dissipation. (Brief, p.15-16). This argument is not
persuasive because the motivation to combine or modify the references does not have to
be identical to that of the Appellant to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appellant in the Brief, page 16,
acknowledges that Kubo suggests the use of grooves in the plug to eliminate the use of
solder flux and improve the reliability of the connection.
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-6-
The Examiner rejected claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 61 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and Hunninghaus.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the Appellant
and the Examiner and agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer that
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 61.
Appellant repeats the arguments about the copper foil and the plug with grooves
which have been discussed above. Appellant also argues that Hunninghaus teaches
using an electrically insulating layer between a separate heat sink. (Brief, p. 20).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Hunninghaus teaches disposing
solder between the body portion of an electronic component and the printed circuit
board. The electronic component is placed on the circuit board opposite of the heat
sink. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
solder was suitable for use in such an arrangement. Appellant’s argument does not
address the suitability of using solder between the body portion of an electronic
component and the printed circuit board.
Appellant asserts that claims 44, 48, 54 and 59 recite the plug has higher thermal
conductivity than solder and claims 45, 49 and 60 recite the plug is substantially pure
copper. (Brief, p. 21).
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-7-
Appellant acknowledges that Alexander was cited for teaching the use of a
copper plug but does not teach substantially pure copper. Appellant has not established
that substantially pure copper is patentably distinct from the copper plug disclosed by
Alexander. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability
of using the appropriate purity of copper for a printed circuit board.
Claims 47-52 and 62
The Examiner rejected claims 47 to 52 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Alexander, August and Kubo; and claim 62 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and
Hunninghaus.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the Appellant
and the Examiner and agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer that
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 47-52 and 62.
Appellant argues that Alexander does not teach the same purpose for the internal
channel of the eyelet. Appellant also argues that the internal channel is too short to
conduct solder from one side of the circuit board to the other. (Brief, p. 18).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claims 47 and 62 require a
plug that has an internal channel extending for conducting solder from one side of the
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-8-
printed circuit board to the other. The Examiner asserts that the eyelet of Alexander
meets this claim limitation. We agree. Alexander discloses that the eyelet is an
opening that allows gas to flow from one side of the circuit board to the other. (Col. 6,
ll. 6-8). Although Alexander does not suggest the channel in the eyelet could be used
for conducting solder therethrough, Alexander recognizes that solder would run out of
the through-hole if present during assembly. (Col. 6, ll. 25-31). This teaching would
also apply to a eyelet plug that contains a through-hole.
Appellant in the Reply Brief, page 7, argues that the flow of solder through the
eyelet of Alexander is contrary to its intended purpose. This argument is not
persuasive. The purpose of the opening in the reference does not have to be the same as
Appellant. We note that Appellant has failed to argue that the opening in the eyelet of
Alexander is not capable of allowing solder to flow from one side of the circuit board to
the other.
Appellant asserts that claims 46, 50 and 56 require the plug to extend through the
via of the circuit board and into a second via. (Brief, p. 21).
August teaches the means suitable for attaching a separable heat sink to a printed
circuit board. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
plugs that extend through the circuit board and into the heat sink were suitable for this
purpose.
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-9-
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, the rejection of claims 43 to 52
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August
and Kubo; and the rejection of claims 53, 54, 56 and 59 to 62 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and Hunninghaus
are affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-10-
Time period for response
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTS/kis
Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
-11-
GARTH JANKE
BIRDWELL, JANKE & DURANDO, PLC
1100 SW SIXTH AVENUE
SUITE 1400
PORTLAND, OR 97204