Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
claims on appeal. The claim 7 language "defining a minimum
angular offset" does not require any particular angle, let alone
an angle that only barely allows for access to a bonding site.
Rather, the claim language encompasses an angle that allows for
such access as well as for the placement of an auxiliary
component in keeping with the disclosure of de Givry.
Significantly, the appealed claims do not recite that the minimum
angle defined is not great enough for the placement of auxiliary
components.
Appealed claim 9 does not define such a minimum angular
offset but calls for stacking all the dies of a multichip module
with no intervening bonding step, which appellants and the
examiner interpret as stacking all the dies before any bonding of
wire to the dies. Here, we also agree with the examiner that
Figure 3 of de Givry is described in the reference disclosure as
being formed by first stacking the die and then "cabling" or
bonding wire to the dies. It is appellants' position that
reading de Givry in context, as a whole, "suggests that attaching
a set of four chips and then cabling will be followed by de Givry
stacking an additional set thereon and performing additional
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007