Ex Parte Jung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

13289257 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/289,257 11/04/2011
89980 7590 03/01/2016
NSIPLAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Young-sun Jung
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
024055.0019 6132
EXAMINER
ADAMS, EILEEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
pto@nsiplaw.com
pto.nsip@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-SUN JUNG
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Toshiba Samsung
Storage Technology Korea Corp. (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 8 and 21 have been cancelled.
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a heat-dissipating structure for an
electronic device (Spec. 2: 12-17). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a substrate on which a heat source is mounted;
a housing that accommodates the substrate and comprises
an upper cover and a lower base disposed above and below the
substrate, respectively; and
a heat-dissipating structure that is formed in the upper
cover, the lower base, or a combination thereof and contacts a
side of the substrate,
wherein the heat-dissipating structure protrudes at least a
portion inwardly towards the heat source.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-7, 9, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2004/0202212 Al; Oct 14, 2004) and Lai
(US 2011/0248616 Al; Oct 13, 2011) (see Ans. 4--17).
Claims 10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamauchi, Lai, and Reineke (US 2007/0139558 Al; June
21, 2007) (see Ans. 17-23).
Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamauchi, Lai, Reineke, and Kuwamura (US
2009/0121665 Al; May 14, 2009) (see Ans. 23-25).
2
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamauchi, Lai, Reineke, Kuwamura, and Lee (US 2011/0107359 Al;
May 5, 2011) (see Ans. 25-26).
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamauchi, Lai, Reineke, and Lee (see Ans. 26-27).
Issues on Appeal
Appellant's contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Yamauchi and Lai to
teach "the heat-dissipating structure protrudes at least a portion inwardly
towards the heat source," as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 20?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Yamauchi and Lai
teaches "an internal surface of the upper cover or the lower base contacts a
surface of the heat source," as recited in claim 2?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Yamauchi and Lai
teaches "a portion of the upper cover contacts an upper surface of the heat
source," as recited in claim 4?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Yamauchi and Lai
teaches "a thermal conductive layer directly contacts a lower surface of the
upper cover and directly contacts an upper surface of the heat source," as
recited in claim 22? 3
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 5-7, 9, and 11-19. (See
App. Br. 10.) Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further.
3
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 20
The Examiner finds Yamauchi teaches a heat-dissipating structure that
is formed in a lower base and contacts a side of a substrate (Ans. 5-7 (citing
Yamauchi i-f 49)), and finds Lai teaches a heat-dissipating structure protrudes
at least a portion inwardly towards a heat source (Ans. 7-8 (citing Lai i-f 35)).
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Yamauchi and Lai, resulting in a heat-dissipating structure in
the base of Yamauchi that protrudes toward a heat source, in order to
remove heat from the device more efficiently (Ans. 8 and 27-28 (citing Lai
i-f 35, protrusion provides a snug fit in the device and dissipates heat more
efficiently)).
Appellant contends the combination of Yamauchi and Lai is improper,
because the Examiner has not explained how Yamauchi would be modified
by Lai in order to include a protrusion toward the LED, and further, the
structure of Yamauchi does not allow for a such a protrusion as described by
Lai (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contentions.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner's finding that the
4
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
concept of protruding heat-dissipation material, as taught by Lai's
protrusion, would allow Yamauchi' s heat conducting material to protrude
into the substrate to reach toward the LED heat source and dissipate heat
more efficiently (see Ans. 27-28).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 20.
Claim 2
Appellant contends the combination of Yamauchi and Lai fails to
teach that an internal surface of the upper cover or the lower base contacts a
surface of the heat source, because neither Yamauchi' s covering member
(Fig. 4 (reproduced below), 14) nor lower base (12) touches any portion of
the light source (15) (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3--4).
FIG. 4
14
l
r·naznnmmwm!i?--7-~
14a r~ 1Ja
l 5b 15a
'
16a
22
----··-r·--'
21
17
L _____ ) _________
21
Yamauchi, Figure 4, depicts a light emitting device mounted on
a substrate.
5
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that the Examiner
erred. We understand the Examiner's position to be based on the
interpretation of "heat source" as including multiple layers that generate or
transfer heat, which include Yamauchi's light source (15) and upper support
layer (16_1) (see Ans. 8-9). Appellant's claims and Specification do not
preclude such an interpretation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that an internal surface of Yamauchi' s upper cover ( 14) contacts a
surface of a heat source, which includes upper layer ( 16_1 ).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
Claim 4
Appellant contends the combination of Yamauchi and Lai fails to
teach a portion of the upper cover contacts an upper surface of the heat
source, because Yamauchi's covering member (Fig. 4, 14) does not touch
any portion of the iight source (15) (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3--4). We
are not persuaded of error, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Yamauchi' s upper cover ( 14)
contacts an upper surface of the heat source (which includes 15 and 16_1)
(see Ans. 10-11).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Claim 22
Appellant contends Yamauchi does not teach a structure in contact
with the upper surface of light source (Fig. 4, 15), thus Yamauchi fails to
teach a thermal conductive layer which directly contacts a lower surface of
the upper cover and directly contacts an upper surface of the heat source
6
Appeal2014-003296
Application 13/289,257
(App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4--5). Appellant's contention is not persuasive of
Examiner error because, as discussed supra, the heat source includes both
the light source and the upper surface of the support layer (16_1 ). In
rejecting claim 22, the Examiner cited paragraph 42 of Yamauchi, which
teaches a metal film is used in metal joint portion (14a) to join upper cover
(14) and support layer (16_1) (see Ans. 16-17). Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Yamauchi's thermal conductive layer (i.e., the
metal joint film) directly contacts a lower surface of the upper cover (14)
and directly contacts an upper surface of the heat source (which includes 15
and 16_1).
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7