Appeal No. 2005-0216
Application No. 10/157,347
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the anticipation rejection on appeal.
Independent method claims 1 and 10 each specify, inter alia,
the step of providing at least one module including a first
semiconductor device having a first back side that is secured to
a second back side of a second semiconductor device.
Having considered the overall teaching of Farnworth, as it
would be perceived by one skilled in the art, we find ourselves
in accord with appellant (main brief, page 7) that it would
require speculation to determine that the reference (drawing Fig.
4b and specification) teaches a first semiconductor device having
a first back side that is secured to a second back side of a
second semiconductor device to define a module, as claimed. As
such, the evidence does not support a conclusion of anticipation
and the rejection cannot be sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007