Appeal No. 2006-1901
Application No. 10/742,436
assertion that Calin teaches away from the combination (brief,
page 10), the reference actually recognizes the trade off between
reliability and die size and how each may have priority based on
the application.
We also agree with the Examiner (answer, page 8) that
reduction in die size, as suggested by Calin, although may
increase reliability at the expense of larger die size, does not
necessarily make the device inoperative. Although we recognize
that a reference teaches away from combination if combination
produces seemingly inoperative device, see In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127(Fed. Cir. 1984), the instant
combination merely presents different parameters needed for the
desired characteristics of the device. In fact, the combination
of Calin and Jamshidi produces smaller capacity in exchange for
more reliable performance where reliability is more important
than speed or die size without making the device inoperative.
We also find Appellants’ arguments based on increasing die
area (brief, page 11 & reply brief, page 2) to be unpersuasive,
if not irrelevant as no such limitations are recited, since
increasing the die size or power dissipation is also recognized
by both Calin (page 2874) and Zhang (col. 5,, lines 2-5) in cases
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007