Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
rotation of the reference die which also clears a line of sight
to underlying die.
The arguments presented by appellants for claims 13-16 and
17 are essentially the same as those discussed above. Also, we
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret Figure 3 of de Givry, which depicts no auxiliary
components, as possessing a minimum bond pad clearance. Also,
appellants have not established that the relative terminology
"minimum bond pad clearance" within the scope of claim 13 does
not allow for the accommodation of auxiliary components of the
same minimum dimension. Furthermore, appealed claim 13 does not
preclude the presence of auxiliary components and embraces within
its scope a minimum bond pad clearance that takes into account
the dimensions of the auxiliary components. Significantly,
claim 13 fails to specify any particular dimension for the
clearance.
Concerning claim 17, appellants have not explained how the
orientation of de Givry's Figure 3 embodiment does not define
less than the maximum underlying bond pad clearance. We find
that the die of reference Figure 3 could be reoriented to provide
greater clearance in some areas. Again, the relative terminology
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007