Ex Parte Ujazdowski et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 15, 2011

11095976 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2011)

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.
11/095,976 03/31/2005 Richard C. Ujazdowski CYMRP019 1722
85523 7590 11/16/2011
Cymer Inc./MPG, LLP
17075 Thornmint court M/S 4-2D
San Diego, CA 92127
EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD C. UJAZDOWSKI, RICHARD M. NESS, J. MARTIN
ALGOT, VLADIMIR B. FLEUROV, FREDERICK A. PALENSCHAT,
WALTER D. GILLESPIE, BRYAN G. MOOSMAN, THOMAS D.
STEIGER, BRETT D. SMITH, and THOMAS E. MCKELVEY
____________________

Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a gas discharge laser system
having a magnetic switch assembly comprising a housing having a recess
formed by an inner wall, an outer wall and a bottom wall of the housing for
holding a cooling mechanism operative to withdraw heat from the walls of
the housing; wherein, the cooling mechanism includes at least two magnetic
cores with cooling fins disposed between the cores and a thermal
conductivity enhancement mechanism installed in the grooves of the inner
wall surface of the housing (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A high pulse repetition rate gas discharge laser system pulse
power system magnetic reactor comprising:

a housing comprising a core containing compartment
between an inner wall of the housing, an outer wall and a
bottom wall of the housing;

a cooling mechanism operative to withdraw heat from the
at least one of the inner wall, outer wall and bottom of the
housing;

at least two magnetic cores contained within the core
containing compartment;

Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

3
a cooling fin disposed between each of the at least two
magnetic cores;

a thermal conductivity enhancement mechanism
intermediate at least one of each respective cooling fin and each
respective core and a respective one of the inner wall, the outer
wall or the bottom wall, the thermal conductivity enhancement
mechanism comprising a band comprising a plurality of
individual and separate torsion spring or leaf spring elements
each in contact with the respective one of the cooling fin or core
and the respective inner wall, outer wall or bottom wall
between which it is intermediate forming an independent spring
loaded contact between them.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Birx US 5,448,580 Sep. 05, 1995
Zittel US 5,730,016 Mar. 24, 1998
Von Bergmann US 6,198,761 B1 Mar. 06, 2001
Hutchison US 6,404,637 B2 Jun. 11, 2002
Schielke US 6,426,488 B2 Jul. 30, 2002

Multi-Contact AG Basel CH, The MultilamTM Prinicple (June 2002)
(hereinafter “Multi-Contact”).

Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Von Bergmann in view of Hutchinson and Multi-Contact.
Claims 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Von Bergmann in view of Hutchinson, Multi-Contact and
Schielke.
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

4
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Von Bergmann in view of Hutchinson, Multi-Contact and
Birx.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Von Bergmann in view of Hutchinson, Multi-Contact,
Birx, and Zittel.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
determining that the combination of Von Bergmann, Hutchison and Multi-
Contact teaches or would have suggested “a thermal conductivity
enhancement mechanism intermediate at least one of each respective cooling
fin and each respective core and a respective one of the inner wall, the outer
wall or the bottom wall, the thermal conductivity enhancement mechanism
comprising a band comprising a plurality of individual and separate, torsion
spring or leaf spring elements each in contact with the respective one of the
cooling fin or core and the respective inner wall, outer wall or bottom wall
between which it is intermediate forming an independent spring loaded
contact between them” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Von Bergmann
1. Von Bergmann is directed to a coaxial laser pulser with solid
dielectrics having a pulse transformer including annular shaped
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

5
ferromagnetic cores; wherein, the transformer includes a recess that is filled
with fluid for heat transfer to carry off heat by means of fans (col. 3, ll. 57-
61).
2. Ceramic plates are positioned between each core (col. 4, ll. 24-
25).
Hutchinson
3. Hutchinson discloses card receiving sleeves that include leaf
springs that compressively contact the cylindrically protruding interior
surface portion of a closed lid to improve thermal conduction from the
sleeve (col. 4, ll. 22-30).
Multi-Contact
4. Multi-Contact discloses a louver contact produced from strips
that form independent current bridges; wherein, the contact comprises a
band including a plurality of individual and separate, torsion spring or leaf
spring elements (p. 4-5; Figs. described as “Contact arrangement with
torsion spring-type Multilams™,” “MC-Torsion spring Multilam™,” and
“MC-Leaf spring Multilam™”).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 1 without
separately providing similar arguments for dependent claims 2-4 (App. Br.
4-5). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as being representative of
the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that “there is no teaching or suggestion in the
references cited, individually or in combination, of the utilization of such for
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

6
thermal conductivity enhancement in the particular claimed environment for
purposes if (sic) improved laser system pulsed power systems capable of
operating at very high pulse repetition rates of around 6 kHz and above”
(App. Br. 4). Appellants argue that they “have chosen an element from the
prior art, inserted into the combination of the claimed subject matter, to
enhance the capabilities of another prior art apparatus (the magnetic reactor
switching element of the claimed subject matter)” and therefore, “[i]t is this
new combination of elements, not the new reason for use of the electrical
connector of Multi[-]Contact, that is the subject matter of the claims” (App.
Br. 4).
However, the Examiner finds that “it is known in the art that spring
elements may be utilized as thermal connectors” (Ans. 15). Thus, “[s]pring
contact points as related by Multi-Contact would enhance the teachings of
vonBergmann (sic) and Hutchison by improving thermal conductivity due to
an increased number of contact points as well as improving serviceability by
decreasing the probability of fusion between contact points” (Ans. 17).
To determine whether the combination of Von Bergmann, Hutchison,
and Multi-Contact teaches or would have suggested a laser system having a
thermal conductivity enhancement mechanism as recited in claim 1, we give
the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “thermal conductivity
enhancement mechanism” means, includes, or represents other than that it is
“a band comprising a plurality of individual and separate, torsion spring or
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

7
leaf spring elements.” Thus, we give “thermal conductivity enhancement
mechanism” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a band of torsion spring
or leaf spring elements, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 1.
Von Bergmann is directed to a coaxial laser pulser with solid
dielectrics having a pulse transformer including annular shaped
ferromagnetic cores; wherein, the transformer includes a recess that is filled
with fluid for heat transfer to carry off heat by means of fans (FF 1) and
ceramic plates are positioned between each core (FF 2). We find that the
coaxial laser pulser having a pulse transformer including the ferromagnetic
cores and ceramic plates to be the laser system having a housing including
magnetic cores with cooling fines disposed between each core (FF 1 and 2).
In addition, Hutchinson discloses card receiving sleeves that include
leaf springs that compressively contact the cylindrically protruding interior
surface portion of a closed lid to improve thermal conduction from the
sleeve (FF 3). We find that the card receiving sleeves represent the “thermal
conductivity enhancement mechanism” that is in contact with a respective
one of the cooling fin or core and a respective wall for the purpose of heat
transfer (FF 3).
Further, Multi-Contact discloses a louver contact produced from strips
that form independent current bridges; wherein, the contact comprises a
band including a plurality of individual and separate, torsion spring or leaf
spring elements (FF 4). We find the louver contact to be the thermal
conductivity enhancement mechanism that includes a plurality of individual
and separate torsion spring or leaf spring elements (FF 4). That is, we find
that “the thermal conductivity enhancement mechanism comprising a band
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

8
comprising a plurality of individual and separate, torsion spring or leaf
spring elements” reads on Multi-Contact’s spring Multilam contact element.
In view of our claim construction above, we conclude that the
combination of Von Bergmann, Hutchinson, and Multi-Contract at least
suggests a laser system having a “thermal conductivity enhancement
mechanism comprising a band comprising a plurality of individual and
separate, torsion spring or leaf spring elements each in contact with the
respective one of the cooling fin or core and the respective inner wall, outer
wall or bottom wall between which it is intermediate forming an
independent spring loaded contact between them,” as specifically required
by claim 1.
Regarding Appellants’ argument that they have derived a “new
combination of elements,” the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Von Bergmann’s coaxial laser pulser with card receiving
sleeves that include leaf springs for the improvement of thermal conduction,
as disclosed in Hutchinson, and the louver contact having torsion or leaf
springs, as disclosed in Multi-Contact, produces a laser system having an
enhanced cooling mechanism which would be obvious since “each of the
assembled elements would perform in the new combination in substantially
the same manner as it did in the old” id. (Ans. 16-17; FF 1-4).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Von
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

9
Bergmann in view of Hutchinson and Multi-Contact and claims 2-4
depending from claims 1 which have been grouped therewith.
Claims 5-12
Appellants argue that dependent claims 5-12 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent
claim 1 (App. Br. 5-6).
As noted supra, however, we conclude that the combined teachings of
Von Bergmann, Hutchison, and Multi-Contact teach all the features of claim
1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1,
supra.
Claims 13 and 14
Appellants provide an argument with respect to independent claim 13
without providing separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 14
(App. Br. 4-5). Accordingly, we select independent claim 13 as being
representative of the claims.
Appellants argue that independent claims 13 is patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent
claim 1 “[r]egardless of the additional disclosure from Birx,” since “there is
still no prima facie case of obviousness for the subject matter of claim 13”
(App. Br. 6-7).
As noted supra with respect to claim 1, however, we find no
deficiencies with the combined teachings of Von Bergmann, Hutchison, and
Multi-Contact. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 13 and its dependent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 1, supra.
Appeal 2009-014707
Application 11/095,976

10
Claim 15
Appellants argue that dependent claim 15 is patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim 13
(App. Br. 8).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of Von
Bergmann, Hutchison, and Multi-Contact teach all the features of claim 13.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 13, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb