Ex Parte Cobbley et al - Page 13

                Appeal 2007-1772                                                                             
                Application 10/672,750                                                                       
                      [a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary                      
                      skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from                       
                      following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a                      
                      direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.                     
                      Here, the Examiner relies on Hakey for showing that it is well known                   
                in the art that die come in different thicknesses.  Hakey’s disclosure of a                  
                non-stacked die packaging arrangement does not rise to the level of a                        
                general teaching away from the use of stacked die, especially given the                      
                known use of such an alternative packaging arrangement as taught by Pai.                     
                Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art faced with the desire to conserve                   
                space would have been led to consider the available option of stacking the                   
                die, whether the die are of the same or differing thicknesses based on the                   
                combined teachings of the references.  The fact that non-stacked die                         
                packaging options are available does not serve to detract from the Pai                       
                teaching/suggestion of using stacked die packages.                                           
                      It follows that, on this record, we shall affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)               
                rejection of claims 69 and 70 over Pai in view of Hakey.                                     
                                                 CONCLUSION                                                  
                      The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 45, 47-49, 63, 65-67                     
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Huang;                    
                and to reject claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                   
                Pai in view of Hakey is affirmed.  The decision of the Examiner to reject                    
                claims 35, 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pai in                  
                view of Huang; and to reject claims 69 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                    
                being unpatentable over Pai in view of Hakey is reversed.                                    




                                                     13                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013