Appeal No. 2003-0249
Application 08/863,848
positioned on said integrated circuit” as recited in Appellant’s
claim 1. We note that claims 2 and 5 through 7 depend on claim 1
and thereby also recite this limitation through their dependency.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2 and 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Now we turn to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
note that the Examiner relies on Nakamura for the teaching of the
limitation of having “wires being centrally positioned on said
integrated circuit” for both of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Therefore, we will not sustain these rejections for the
same reasons as stated above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007