Appeal No. 1998-3071
Application 08/477,054
and reversed some claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. The request is thus filed in a
timely manner. In the request appellants set forth what amounts to three points alleging
misapprehension by us in our earlier opinion of certain features of the prior art as applied
only to independent claims 1, 15 and 24 on appeal, which are in the context only of the
rejection within 35 U.S.C. § 102.
As to the first point, appellants allege that we improperly interpreted what
constitutes a "chip site" in independent claims 1, 15 and 24. We do not see that
appellants have alleged any error at pages 2-4 of the request. We discussed chip sites in
various contexts at pages 6-9 of our original opinion even to the point of making reference
to appellants’ disclosure in the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of our original opinion
as the term was originally used in the specification as filed.
Appellants’ reference to plural integrated circuit chips as discussed at page 3 of the
request is noted. Besides stating that Sommerfeldt is consistent with appellants’
consideration of what a chip site is, appellants make reference to their own specification
generally relating to a discussion of Multi-Chip Modules or MCMs. The discussion at
columns 1 and 2 of Sommerfeldt is consistent with this description of what an MCM is.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007