Appeal No. 2001-1449 Page 7
Application No. 08/791,177
voltage level at the port would be altered to indicate the presence or absence of a
signal from the patch die to the primary die.
Notwithstanding appellants’ argument that this finding is improperly based on
inherency, we agree with the examiner that when an electrical characteristic is broadly
defined to be nothing more than a voltage level at a connection point, then the artisan
would have recognized that the voltage level at this connection point would be altered
based on the presence or absence of signals at this connection point. Therefore, when
giving representative claim 20 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the
examiner that the collective teachings of Takiar and Tsubouchi would have suggested
the claimed invention to the artisan. Since we sustain the rejection of claim 20, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 35-38 and 41 which are grouped
therewith.
We now consider the rejection with respect to claims 23, 27 and 31 which stand
or fall together [brief, page 13]. These claims recite that an electrical connection
between the primary die and the patch die uses a TAB connection. Appellants argue
that Takiar teaches against using a TAB connection because TAB connections are
complex and expensive [brief, pages 20-22]. The examiner responds that Takiar
teaches that TAB connections are conventional. The examiner notes that the fact that
TAB connections are complex and expensive does not render such connections as
being non-obvious to the artisan [answer, page 7].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007