Appeal No. 2004-2296
Application No. 10/017,031
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 4) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 7) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 6) for
appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant’s Brief does not address the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 18 over
Mauritz. In the arguments submitted for instant claim 1 in response to the § 103
rejection, however, appellant contends that Mauritz does not teach a packaged
structure. Mauritz is explicit, according to appellant, that different chips are used.
The examiner acknowledges that Mauritz discloses a plurality of chips, as set
forth in the rejection at page 4 of the Answer. However, the examiner notes that claim 1
does not specify the type or extent of “packaging,” and finds that the chips in the
reference are inherently “packaged.” The examiner further addresses, in § 11 of the
Answer, the deemed lack of limiting factors associated with the term “packaged” as
used in the instant claims.
Instant claim 1 purports, in the preamble, a “packaged integrated circuit
comprising....” The language suggests a monolithic (i.e., single integrated circuit or IC)
structure. The specification (e.g., bottom of page 4), however, refers to the disclosed
structure as a packaged integrated circuit device. In any event, the preamble of instant
claim 1 appears to set forth an intended use for the elements recited in the body of the
claim, as there is nothing specifically related to structure of the “packaging” in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007