Appeal No. 2004-2296
Application No. 10/017,031
teachings. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
Hsuan teaches the advantages of multi-chip packages (col. 1, ll. 18-34),
containing chips that may include processors and volatile memory (id. at ll. 34-40; col. 3,
ll. 41-42). Hsuan thus teaches a “packaged” device, as recited in the preamble of
instant claim 1, and two of the three elements recited in the body of the claim. Mauritz
teaches the advantages of a cross-point memory; namely, the capability of replacing a
defective memory chip in situ, obviating physical removal and replacement of the
defective chip. Col. 1, ll. 33-43; col. 3, ll. 51-62. The artisan would thus have found it
obvious to provide the “packaged” device taught by Hsuan with a cross-point memory
as taught by Mauritz. The teachings of these two references alone demonstrate the
prima facie obviousness of the subject matter as a whole of instant claim 1.
With respect to the subject matter of claims 10 and 18, Haba teaches all that is
recited in the claims except for a cross-point memory on a separate die. The reference
teaches incorporating several IC die into a single package (col. 1, ll. 14-19), which IC
die may comprise one or more types of diverse IC devices such as a processor and
memory (col. 13, ll. 33-36). In view of the afore-noted advantages of cross-point
memories revealed by Mauritz, the artisan would have found it obvious to place a cross-
point memory on a die within a packaged device as taught by Haba. Thus, the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007