Appeal No. 1999-1131
Application No. 08/754,758
See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 ("In
reviewing the Examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument").
Accordingly, we now consider the claims on appeal and focus
first on the arguments related to claim 1.
In argument, Appellants assert that the prior art lacks
the claim limitation that recites as follows:
wherein all of said first pins [for receiving
signals commonly used with said one or more
semiconductor devices] are provided on a first
side of said semiconductor device and all of said
second pins [for being connected to signal lines
which are not connected to said one or more
semiconductor devices] are provided on a second
side of said semiconductor device substantially
perpendicular to said first side, said first
pins and said second pins excluding pins for
receiving power voltages.
Brief at pages 12-13. Appellants first assert that the
Michael prior art does not teach, show or suggest the claim
language that all of the first pins are provided on a first
side and all of the second pins are provided on a second side
of a semiconductor device. Brief at page 14. According to
Appellants, Michael clearly teaches having both first and
second pins on one side of the integrated circuit. Brief at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007