Appeal No. 2005-0346
Application. 09/897,891
items, which are an IC chip, an interposer, and passive devices
directly connected to the interposer. Claim 1 requires an IC
chip and passive devices, which are both clearly taught by Lach.
However, claim 1 also requires that the passive devices be
directly connected to the IC chip and we find that Lach does not
teach this limitation.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4, 9, 24, and 29 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 4, 9, 24, and 29.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 9, 24, and 29, we note
that the Examiner has relied on the Huang reference solely to
teach serpentine resistors. The Huang reference in combination
with the Lach reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Lach
noted above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons as set forth above.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007