Appeal 2006-3357
Application 10/310,311
which Appellants concede are “semiconductor devices” (Appeal. Br. 5;
Reply Br. 3), as this would enable a more direct connection and would
shorten circuit paths. Therefore, according to the Examiner’s second
position, the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable over Bellomo. The
Examiner additionally applies the teachings of Richards (Answer 5) for
details of how Bellomo’s module latching and protecting mechanism 40
would be securely attached to module 36, but this aspect of the rejection is
not contested by Appellants. Accordingly, the sole issue in dispute in the
Examiner’s obviousness theory is whether it would have been obvious to
apply Bellomo’s edge card interconnection system (i.e., the module latching
and protection mechanism 40 and connector portion 32) to the mounting of
memory modules 38 on module 36.
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Appellants cite a definition of “semiconductor device” as “a
conductor made with semiconducting material” (Reply Br. 2, citing
WordNet®).
2. Appellants concede that Bellomo’s memory modules 38 are
“semiconductor devices” (Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3).
3. Appellants do not specifically define “semiconductor device” in their
Specification. Appellants characterize the present invention as
relating to “vertically mountable semiconductor device packages”
and, more specifically, to “minimally packaged semiconductor
devices which are vertically attached to a carrier substrate”
(Specification [0002]). Appellants refer to prior art sockets used to
connect a mother board and a daughter board, such as a single-in-line
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013