Appeal No. 2000-0628
Application No. 08/838,536
Gaverick shows a MCM 10 (see cover Figure, and
column 3, line 53 et seq.) with multiple chips which
are connected with two data busses (column 4, line
62). Gaverick also shows multiple conductive paths
to the chips.
We agree with the examiner that Gaverick discloses all of
the referenced structure. On the other hand, we agree with
appellants’ argument (Brief, page 15; Reply Brief, page 2)
that Gaverick uses conventional bonding pads, as opposed to an
interconnection/interconnecting means that permits a portion
of the circuitry between the two ICs to be bypassed, to
connect one IC to another IC. Thus, “Gaverick does not
disclose each and every element of the claimed invention and
as such, fails to anticipate independent Claims 1 and 22”
(Brief, page 15). In short, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 22 and 23 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 5 through 7, these rejections are reversed because we
also agree with appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, page 2)
that “neither Bozso, Sundstrom nor Katsuki cures the
deficiencies of Gaverick.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007