Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
via bond wires or by other connective devices to serve any particular
electrical function as part of the integrated circuit package. Given this claim
construction, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments against
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 45, 47-49, 63, 65 and 67 on the basis that
the stack of Pai includes a non-electrically functional die (see, e.g., die 160,
Fig. 8) is unpersuasive of any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
In any event, we note that Pai discloses that it is known to employ
adhesive without a dummy die to space die that are connected via bondwire
to a substrate (Pai, col. 1, ll. 33-62 and drawing Fig. 1. Thus, even if we
agreed with Appellants’ interpretation of the claim term “electrically
functional”, which we do not, Pai teaches/suggests the option of forming
stacks, wherein all of the chips (die) are electrically functional in a manner
within the meaning of Appellants’ argued more limited definition for that
claim term.2
Appellants’ argue that eliminating a dummy die in the disclosed
inventive integrated circuit package of Pai would change the principle of
operation of the Pai device (Br. 18). We are not persuaded by this argument.
2 We have determined that the teachings of Pai, by itself, are sufficient to
render the formation of a stack with all of the chips/die thereof being
electrically functional, as claimed. Thus, we need not further discuss the
additional teachings of Huang, as referred to by the Examiner as an option,
in further support of showing that this claimed feature (all stacked die being
electrically functional) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013