Appeal No. 2005-2724
Application No. 10/236,005
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, giving due
weight to Appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs in favor of affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5
and 10-15. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed.
Regarding claims 3, the Examiner asserts that “Hershey et al teach that
the use of a multi-chip modulating packaging providing the capability to place
integrated circuit components or chips in close physical proximity on a
substrate, the substrate and components or chips being overlaid with one or
more layers (col. 11, lines 30-65). Thus, Hershey et al encompass
embodiments employing film configurations. Addition, Figure 4 above illustrates
that the battery 210 is part of the shell structure.” (Answer, pp. 3-4). We
reverse.
Claim 3 specifies that the power supply is a film generating material. We
agree with Appellants, Brief page 12, that there is no correlation between the
multi-chip packaging arrangement and a power supply in the form of a film as
described in claim 3. Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 3 and dependant
claim 4.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007