Appeal No. 2001-1449 Page 5
Application No. 08/791,177
teaching is necessary to support the rejection of claim 20 since claim 20 simply recites
forming an electrical contact between the patch die and the primary die [answer, pages
3-5].
Appellants argue that Takiar does not teach or suggest that a second die be
mounted to a first die for upgrading, modifying, altering or remediating an electrical or
operational characteristic of the first die. Appellants note that Tsubouchi also fails to
provide this teaching. Appellants dispute the examiner’s findings and argue that the
examiner has not identified any teaching in Takiar to support the examiner’s position.
Appellants argue that the examiner is relying on an inherency argument and that the
inherency argument is not supported by the record [brief, pages 13-20].
The examiner responds that Takiar teaches that the primary die and the patch
die are electrically connected. The examiner asserts that when electrical signals travel
between dies, electrical characteristics of the die leads are inherently altered [answer,
page 6]. Appellants respond that the examiner has still failed to point to any portion of
Takiar which supports his position [reply brief, pages 2-8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 20. At the outset
we must determine the scope of claim 20. The critical phrase is the recitation “for
altering said at least one electrical or operational characteristic of said primary die.”
Appellants frequently argue that Takiar does not teach or suggest “a second die be
mounted to a first die for upgrading, modifying, altering, or remediating an electrical or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007