Appeal No. 2006-1901
Application No. 10/742,436
where reliability is not of the same concern as dies area or
speed. Here, the relevant inquiry is whether there is a reason,
suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the
references, and that would also suggest a reasonable likelihood
of success (In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). After weighing the arguments
presented by Appellants and the Examiner and the disclosure of
Calin, Zhang and Jamshidi, we find that the combination of the
prior art, as a whole is sufficient to establish obviousness
based on increasing reliability even though the die area may be
larger.
Therefore, we remain unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that any error in the Examiner’s determination regarding the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter has occurred.
Accordingly, as the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claim 1, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 7-9 and
11, argued as one group, over Calin and Jamshidi.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6, we note
that Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability of these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007