Appeal No. 2004-2296 Application No. 10/017,031 We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 4) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 7) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 6) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected. OPINION Appellant’s Brief does not address the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 18 over Mauritz. In the arguments submitted for instant claim 1 in response to the § 103 rejection, however, appellant contends that Mauritz does not teach a packaged structure. Mauritz is explicit, according to appellant, that different chips are used. The examiner acknowledges that Mauritz discloses a plurality of chips, as set forth in the rejection at page 4 of the Answer. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 does not specify the type or extent of “packaging,” and finds that the chips in the reference are inherently “packaged.” The examiner further addresses, in § 11 of the Answer, the deemed lack of limiting factors associated with the term “packaged” as used in the instant claims. Instant claim 1 purports, in the preamble, a “packaged integrated circuit comprising....” The language suggests a monolithic (i.e., single integrated circuit or IC) structure. The specification (e.g., bottom of page 4), however, refers to the disclosed structure as a packaged integrated circuit device. In any event, the preamble of instant claim 1 appears to set forth an intended use for the elements recited in the body of the claim, as there is nothing specifically related to structure of the “packaging” in the -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007