Appeal No. 2002-1183
Application 08/975,549
dice. Construed, as they are required to be, in light of the
underlying specification, the “packaging” limitations in claims
28 through 31 cover the second type of packaging, but not the
first.1 They therefore read on Littlebury’s sleeving or boxing
step 11, 11'. Littlebury’s second functional test 9, 9' occurs
prior to this packaging step and subsequent to the
segmentation/singulation step embodied by wafer mounting and
sawing step 3. Contrary to the position taken by the appellants,
claims 28 through 32 do not require the segmented or singulated
die to be devoid of packaging of the first type. Thus, the
examiner’s determination that Littlebury meets the electrical
functionality testing steps respectively set forth in claims 28
through 32 is sound. Indeed, these claims are so broad that it
is not evident how the subject matter as a whole recited therein
distinguishes over the Littlebury process, or for that matter
over the prior art process shown in Figure 1 of the appellants’
drawings.
1 The comments on pages 7 and 8 in the reply brief imply
that the packaging limitations in claims 28 through 32 refer to
packaging of the first type. If this were the case, however, it
would be arguable that the claimed subject matter would lack
written descriptive support in the specification as required by
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and would not point out and
claim the subject matter the appellants regard as their invention
as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007