Appeal No. 2007-0068
Application No. 10/230,452
(Answer 8-9). The Examiner further asserts that the claims recite that the
second device rests upon at least some of the discrete conductive elements
and therefore, do not require the bond wires to be the sole element
supporting the upper device (Answer 9).
We agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 13 merely require that
the upper device be resting, among other things, upon the discrete elements.
The claims, although reciting that the upper device rests upon the discrete
conductive elements, do not preclude support by other elements in addition
to the conductive elements. In that regard, Wu does disclose in Figure 4 that
the plurality of wires 32 are located above overflow glue 50 and together
support upper chip 34 (col. 3, lines 36-40). Similarly, Figure 3 of Wu shows
in detail all the elements over the lower chip that would support the upper
chip, such as bond wires 32 and overflow glue 50 which form the dam-shape
bumps at the upper edges of chip 28 (col. 3, lines 18-24).
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013