Appeal No. 2004-0748 Page 6
Application No. 09/427,226
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 2, and claims 11 and 12 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Buechele is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Hacke
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Hacke.
Claims 3 and 5 on appeal read as follows:
3. A method of stacking similar, packaged first and second dies comprising
steps of:
(a) mounting at least one of the first dies into a first package;
(b) installing several electrical conduits into the first package in a first
conduit configuration;
(c) mounting at least one of the second dies into a second package;
(d) installing several electrical conduits into the second package in a
second conduit configuration different from the first configuration; and
(e) electrically coupling the first package to the second package to form a
stacked device.
5. A stacked device made by the method of claim 3.
Hacke teaches that two semiconductor memory chips are placed onto a flexible
wiring and are shaped by simple folding of the flexible wiring about a central elastic line,
into a space-efficient stack arrangement whose outer contacts are formed only at one
marginal side. To form memory cards, a plurality of such stack arrangements can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007