Appeal No. 1999-1131
Application No. 08/754,758
semiconductor package having pins on all four sides.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to arrange the signal lines and memory pins of Michael
on two perpendicular sides of the board or to use more than
one board.
An obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
based on underlying factual inquiries including the scope and
content of the prior art, differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in
the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148
USPQ 459, 465 (1966). In addition, obviousness based on
particular art references requires a showing of a suggestion
or motivation to combine the teachings of those references,
although it need not be expressly stated. Riverwood Int'l
Corp. v. Mead Corp.,
212 F.3d 1365, 1366, 54 USPQ2d 1763, 1765 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 1012 (2000).
In determining the scope of independent claim 1, we first
note that the claim contains at least three limitations: 1)
first pins for receiving signals common to one or more
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007