Appeal No. 2003-1361
Application No. 09/099,758
Claims 1, 6 through 13, 16 and 52 through 54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sudo in view of
Forehand.
Claims 2 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Forehand and Patil.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Forehand and Hernandez.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 27) and the
answer (paper number 28) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 16 and 52 through 54.
The examiner has made findings (answer, page 1) that:
[F]irst and second groups of carrier vias 54-1 and 54-2
[in Sudo] have an arrangement of multiple, parallel
oriented conductive structures of the loop circuit, and
wherein current flows through a first group of the
conductive structures is in an opposing direction to
the current flow through a second group of the
conductive structures. It is noted that the loop
circuit as disclosed in Fig. 12 of Sudo et al would be
considered as a loop circuit having a loop inductance
because the mutual loop inductance would be formed when
the current flow through the first and second groups of
complementary power carrier vias.
According to the examiner (answer, page 2):
Sudo et al do further disclose that the loop circuit of
the closest power vertical conductive paths 15 and 16
arranged in Fig. 11 or the loop circuit arranged in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007