Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
cabling."2 Hence, appellants maintain that such a stacking of an
additional set of die would not result in de Givry stacking all
the die before bonding wire to the die. It is our view, however,
that although one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the
embodiment of de Givry's Figure 3 as allowing for the stacking of
additional die after the first set of four is bonded with wire,
one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that an
additional stacking of die is not necessary, i.e., a
semiconductor device comprising a multichip module comprising
only a set of four chips depicted in Figure 3 is also described
by de Givry. We agree with the examiner's reasoning that
"[s]ince de Givry never teaches a stack that comprises more than
four chips, it can also be said that the de Givry reference
suggests that no additional chip will be stacked on the set of
four chips shown in Fig. 3."3 In addition, we find that the term
"comprising" of claim 9 opens the claim to additional stacking of
die after all the die of one module are bonded.
As for separately argued claim 12, we find no substantive
distinction between the claimed steps of "marginally clearing a
line of sight" and "clearing a line of sight" and the angular
2 Sentence bridging pages 8 and 9 of principal brief.
3 Page 9 of Answer, second paragraph.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007