Ex parte MIKI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2001

08467052 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2001)

1
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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ATSUSHI MIKI
__________
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-
4, which constitute all the claims in the application.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A semiconductor laser module, comprising:
a meta casing of said semiconductor laser module;
a semiconductor laser; and
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
2
a Peltier effect element mounted on an inner surface of said metal casing by
soldering;
said metal casing having a Peltier effect element mounting region in the inner
surface of said metal casing on which said Peltier effect element is mounted, the area of
said Peltier effect element mounting region being substantially equal to that of the bottom
surface of said Peltier effect element;
wherein an entire periphery of said Peltier effect element mounting region is raised
with respect to a region of said metal casing adjacent to said Peltier effect element
mounting region such that extra solder squeezed out from under the Peltier effect device
during the soldering will flow away from the Peltier effect device instead of up onto the
device.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Kluitmans et al. (Kluitmans) 5,005,178 Apr. 2, 1991
Greve et al. (Greve) 5,031,184 July 9, 1991
Herbst, II (Herbst) 5,457,342 Oct. 10, 1995
(filing date Mar. 30, 1994)
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Although the answer indicates
that claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Kluitmans in view of Herbst, the final rejection from which this appeal was
taken clearly indicates that the examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 and 4 on the basis of this
combination of references. We agree with the assessment of this as set forth in the brief
and reply brief. Correspondingly, the answer indicates that claim 3 is rejected in light of
the combination of teachings of Kluitmans in view of Greve. The final rejection indicates
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
3
that this rejection is of claim 2 and not of claim 3. This second rejection is inherently flawed
as well. Since the examiner has taken the approach that Kluitmans and Herbst must be
utilized to reject independent claim 1 on appeal in the first stated rejection, any claim
depending therefrom, such as claim 2, must utilize as a basis both references to Kluitmans
and Herbst, in addition to Greve from which obviousness may be properly determined with
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections.
If we assume for the sake of argument that Kluitmans and Herbst are properly
combined within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to reach independent claim 1 on appeal and that their
teachings and suggestions are taken most favorably to the examiner, the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal would not have been met by the overall combination
anyway. We agree with the examiner’s view that the cooling plate CP in the various figures
would have provided the raised portion mounting region for the Peltier effect element TEC
in the various figures of Kluitmans. We also would agree with the examiner’s view that the
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
4
mounting region would be "substantially" equal to that of the bottom surface of the Peltier
element TEC when the showings in Figures 1, 2, 6 and 7 are taken in combination. We
also agree with the examiner’s view that the entire periphery of the Peltier effect element
TEC in the noted figures of Kluitmans would be raised with respect to the metal casing.
On the other hand, claim 1 recites a functional feature "such that extra solder
squeezed out from under the Peltier effect device during the soldering will flow away from
the Peltier effect device instead of up onto the device." Both the statement of the rejection
portion and the responsive arguments portion of the answer has not addressed this
functional feature. Corresponding arguments of appellant at page 12 of the principal brief
and page A3 of the reply brief persuade us that the requirements of this quoted clause
would not have been met by the combination of teachings and suggestions of Kluitmans
and Herbst. The region of the Peltier effect device TEC near the vertical portion of the L-
shaped cooling plate CP in the various figures of Kluitmans would have caused any solder
that may have been squeezed out from under the Peltier effect device during the soldering
operation, as quoted above, to congregate in that end region and tend to flow upwardly
onto the top surface of the lower portion P of the Peltier device TEC. The solder in this1
region or end portion of the Peltier device TEC would well up or wick up because of its
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
5
inherent surface tension and would not appear to us to flow downwardly into what may be
seen as a groove-shaped side region below the bottom portion of the cooling plate CP,
such as illustrated in the end view of Figure 7. Thus, the solder would not tend to flow away
from the Peltier effect device around the entire periphery of the region as required by claim
1 as a whole according to the combination of teachings of the references relied upon by
the examiner.
Because we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4, we must also reverse the
additional rejection of claim 2 even if we consider the additional teachings of Greve
because this latter reference does not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to
the combination of Kluitmans and Herbst.
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
6
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Michael R. Fleming )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/cam
Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
7
Cushman, Darby and Cushman
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Ninth Floor East Tower
Washington, DC 20005-3918