Appeal No. 1998-3071
Application 08/477,054
Thus, Sommerfeldt clearly suggests there, if not its entire discussion and the portions we
outlined at pages 6-9 of our original opinion, that plural integrated circuit chips or plural
chips may be embodied on the top surface of the Figure 1 device 10 in Sommerfeldt.
At the bottom of page 6 of our original decision, we stated that the "entire depiction
in Figure 2 [of Sommerfeldt] may comprise a so-called ‘chip site.’ We therefore agree with
the examiner’s view expressed at the seventh page of the answer." There, the examiner
states that "any group of these pads can be called a chip site." It is appellants and not us
or the examiner at page 2 of the request that indicates that only two bonding pads may
constitute a chip site. Appellants’ discussion in the remaining portion of the first alleged
error seems to be focused only upon a consideration of two bonding pads as a chip site.
The examiner seemed to be indicating that Sommerfeldt’s chip sites may be located
anywhere. It appears that appellants have attempted to set up a redherring argument only
to shoot it down. We also indicated at the bottom of page 8 of our original opinion that
appellants’ discussion of chip sites in the paragraph
bridging specification pages 7 and 8 should not be considered to be sites for receiving
complete integrated circuits or chips themselves since they are merely described there to
receive discrete semiconductor devices.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007