Appeal No. 2006-2833
Application No. 10/334,807
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 10, 11 and 12 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of McKee et al does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims
10, 11 and 12. Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
To determine whether claim 10 is anticipated by the references, we will
analyze the claim in view of the reference McKee, as indicated in the Examiner’s
Answer. McKee discloses a power shunt for use within a semiconductor device,
with the motherboard (in Figure 2, Column 4, lines 3-4) and an integrated circuit
package 10 (in Figure 3, with IC die 25) electrically coupled to the motherboard.
The package has a spaced portion, between package 10 and the motherboard.
A capacitor (item 50 in McKee) is taught to be placed in the spaced
portion for one of the same reasons as mentioned in the reference, namely to
save space on the motherboard or package.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007