Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
appellant’s argument (brief, pages 7 through 9) that Fogal
teaches away from the claimed invention is not convincing of the
nonobviousness of the claimed invention.
Appellant’s impermissible hindsight argument (brief, pages 9
and 10) is without merit because the examiner did not have to
resort to appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention to discover
the benefits of mounting discrete components with a substrate
mounted stacked assembly of chips via bonding wires. In summary,
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 19 is sustained. The
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 through 23 and 25
through 34 is likewise sustained because appellant has chosen to
let these claims stand or fall with claim 19 (brief, page 5).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 19, 21 through
23 and 25 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007