Appeal No. 1999-1131
Application No. 08/754,758
page 14. Next, Appellants argue that Takeda, similarly, does
not show, teach, or suggest the claim limitation recited
supra. Brief at page 15. Specifically, Appellants provide
the example that the control pin WE of Takeda is not placed on
a first side which is substantially perpendicular to the
second side where pins Din, Dout are provided. Brief at page
15. Turning to the Murai prior art reference, Appellants
contend that Murai also does not show, teach or suggest the
claim limitation recited supra. Brief at page 21. Appellants
state that Murai clearly teaches that the two sides of the
memory device that are used are parallel to one another, and
not perpendicular to one another. Brief at page 21. Finally,
with respect to the Werther prior art, Appellants state that
nothing in Werther shows, teaches or suggests that
each semiconductor package comprises first pins
connected to the second signal lines, second pins
connected to the third signal lines or that all the
first pins are provided on the first side of each
semiconductor package and all the second pins are
provided on the second side of each semiconductor
package perpendicular to the first side.
Brief at page 25. In sum, Appellants assert that nothing in
the combination of Michael, Takeda, Murai and Werther shows,
teaches or suggests the perpendicular arrangement of the first
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007