Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Hamzehdoost et al. (Hamzehdoost) 5,689,091 Nov. 18, 1997
Egawa 6,229,215 May 08, 2001
(filed October 23, 1998)
Bertin et al. (Bertin) 6,300,687 Oct. 09, 2001
(filed June 26, 1998)
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 to 29 and 39 to 47 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Egawa, Bertin and Hamzehdoost.
(Answer, p. 3).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Brief.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103
rejection is well founded.
Appellant’s invention is directed to multi-chip modules for coupling more than one
chip together in a single package. According to the specification, pages 1 and 2, there is a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007