Appeal No. 2007-0068
Application No. 10/230,452
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must
focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject
matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’ something disclosed
in the prior art reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” See also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.,
190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium
Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir.
1985)).
As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 11), since the wires are in
contact with the upper semiconductor chip, the upper chip actually rests
upon the wires. Similarly, we remain unconvinced by Appellant’s argument
that Figure 4 of Wu lacks sufficient detail related to the elements positioned
between the upper chip and the lower chip and fails to show the claimed
structure. We find depicted in Figure 3, in sufficient details, 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013