Appeal 2006-3123
Application 10/368,789
We will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 because we agree
with Appellants that Yu fails to disclose a via sufficiency rule that explicitly
or inherently defines a via per pad count for one layer of the electronic
design. While we agree with the Examiner that Yu suggests the limitations
of the claim, we note that our reviewing court has determined that
anticipation requires every element and limitation of the claimed invention
to be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten
Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286,
1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech,
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the
instant case, we find that Yu’s Rules 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 are silent with
respect to a specific via per pad count for one layer of the electronic design.
Claims 4-6, and 8-10
Because dependent claims 4-6 and 8-10 each include the limitations of
claim 3, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 3.
Claim 16
Appellants argue that Yu fails to disclose determining instances of
power and ground via sufficiency in a package design, as claimed. In
particular, Appellants argue that Yu does not disclose via sufficiency rules
for a package design (Br. 13).
The Examiner disagrees (Answer 5). See the Examiner’s response for
claim 1, supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013