Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
reasons why it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify the prior art in order to
arrive at the instant claimed subject matter.
Therefore, the burden has shifted to appellant to rebut this prima facie case of
obviousness, either by objective evidence or convincing argument.
Appellant sets forth general arguments as to how the instant invention is an
improvement over Balamurugan in that the reference requires a locator die coordinate
and uses the wafer map host to store and manipulate the data (e.g., see pages 9-11 of
the principal brief). Appellant also explains how the definitions of a “pseudo reference
die” and an “auxiliary reference die” differ.
These arguments by appellant, even if accurate, are directed to possible
differences between Balamurugan and the instant disclosed invention. Since appellant
fails to point to any distinguishing claim language, these arguments are not persuasive
of nonobviousness.
At page 11 of the principal brief, appellant refers to specific claim language in
contending that Balamurugan fails to suggest using a coordinate, determined after
moving the wafer table to the last left column of the partial wafer, to remove all dies that
are not part of the partial wafer. Moreover, appellant argues that Balamurugan fails to
suggest “storing the coordinate of the last left column.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007