Appeal No. 2005-0346
Application. 09/897,891
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that
Lach fails to teach the claimed limitation of the passive devices
being “directly connected to said exterior conductor level of
said integrated circuit chip.” Rather, Appellants point out that
Lach teaches interposing at least a layer (14) between the IC
chip and the passive devices. Further, Lach specifically
distinguishes his IC chip (12) from the interposed layer (14) to
which Lach attaches his passive devices. The Examiner responds
that, “Applicant attempts to discredit the validity of the Lach
patent by characterizing the die (12) as a chip ‘chip’” and
“[s]uch a characterization is inconsistent with the disclosure of
Lach.”
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner has
failed to provide any evidence to support the stated position
that the interposer (14) would be recognized by an artisan to be
part of the IC chip, i.e. the “commonly know definition of
integrated circuit chip is consistent with the structure (60) of
Lach.” Rather, we find the Lach patent explicitly teaches at
column 6, line 3, that the die (12) is an IC chip. We find that
the integrated circuit package of Lach comprises at least three
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007