Ex parte SASAKI et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 1998

08103227 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 9, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHIGEYUKI SASAKI, TADAKATSU NAKAJIMA,
NORIYUKI ASHIWAKE, YASUO OHSONE, TOSHIO HATADA,
TOSHIKI IINO, AKIO IDEI and KENICHI KASAI
____________
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,2271
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before Thomas, Martin and Carmichael, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Carmichael, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-
20, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
2
Claim 19 reads as follows:
19. A liquid-cooled electronic device comprising:
at least one semiconductor device mounted on a substrate;
a cooling medium supply member for injecting a cooling
medium to a back surface of said at least one semiconductor
device; and
a member arranged upstream of the back surface adjacent
an outlet of the cooling medium supply member and configured
for interfering with a flow of said cooling medium from said
cooling medium supply member to create turbulence downstream
of the outlet and radial flow of said cooling medium over the
back surface.

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Azar 5,103,374 Apr.
7, 1992
Novotny 5,206,791 Apr. 27,
1993
Nakajima et al. (Nakajima) 5,270,572 Dec. 14,
1993
(filed June 24, 1992)
OPINION
Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Azar. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Azar and
Novotny.
Anticipation of Claims 19-20
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
3
Claims 19-20 recite a device with a member configured for
radial flow of cooling medium over the back surface of a
semiconductor device. Appellants argue the Azar does not
anticipate the claimed subject matter because Azar is not
configured for radial flow, among other things. The
examiner’s rejection does not address the “radial flow”
limitation and the examiner’s Answer does not respond to that
argument. We are unable to find such radial flow upon our own
inspection of Azar. We find that the examiner has not
presented a prima facie case of anticipation, and we will not
sustain the rejection.
Obviousness of Claims 1-20
Nakajima discloses the claimed subject matter except for
the recited member, mounted adjacent the cooling medium
ejection port (outlet), configured to create turbulence. The
examiner first relies on Azar to suggest adding a turbulence-
causing member to Nakajima, and second relies on Novotny to
suggest placing such a member adjacent Nakajima’s ejection
port.
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
4
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992). First, we agree with Appellants that Azar’s teachings
for a parallel-flow device do not suggest creating turbulence
in Nakajima’s radial-flow device. Second, we also agree with
appellants that Novotny’s teachings of fins 20 and heat sink
11 suggest nothing about placement of a turbulence-causing
member. Novotny does not employ turbulence. Thus, the
rejection will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are not sustained.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
5
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
John C. Martin ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
James T. Carmichael )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/gjh
Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
6
EVENSON, MCKEOWN, EDWARDS & LENAHAN
1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
GJH
Appeal No. 96-0271
Application No. 08/103,227
APJ Carmichael
APJ Martin
APJ Thomas
Reversed
November 9, 1999