Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
In accordance with the arguments set forth in appellants'
brief, the following groups of claims stand or fall together:
(I) claims 7 and 8; (II) claims 9-11; (III) claim 12; (IV) claims
13-16; and (V) claim 17.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter is described by
de Givry within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
de Givry, like appellants, discloses a method of stacking a
plurality of die wherein an upper die is mounted on a lower die
at an angular offset (see Figure 3 of de Givry). A principal
argument advanced by appellants is that the claimed term
"'minimum' connotes an absolute smallest value" that allows for
access to a bonding site on the lower die.1 According to
appellants, de Givry discloses the maximum, not minimum, angles
at which the upper and lower die are offset in order to ensure
adequate space for accommodating an auxiliary component on the
lower die. However, we concur with the examiner that appellants'
argument is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the
1 Page 5 of Reply Brief, third paragraph.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007