Appeal 2007-0828
Application 10/456,455
teach or suggest that any of the bond pads 20 disposed on
the upper surface of the semiconductor die 42 are
electrically connected to one another through the die 42.
Moreover, Lin 999 and Lin 203, when combined, make
no such teaching or suggestion.
(Reply Br. 5-6.)
Appellant seems to acknowledge the unpatentability of the invention
set forth by instant claim 1. If, for example, the two labeled bond pads 20
shown in Figure 3 of Lin ′999, and a terminal pad 32 connected to one of the
two bond pads 20, are at ground potential, then the bond pads 20 are
“electrically connected” by the ground plane within semiconductor die 42.
If the three pads all supply power voltage, then the two labeled bond pads 20
are also “electrically connected” by internal (shorting) connections within
semiconductor die 42. The artisan would recognize that the terms of claim
1, even using Appellant’s unduly narrow meaning of “electrically
connected,” would be met in a normal course of supplying ground and a
power voltage to the die 42. Claim 1 does not require that all pads be
“electrically connected,” but requires only that a minimum of three pads be
so connected. “What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)).
Moreover, Appellant does not point to any definition from the
Specification, nor provide any extrinsic evidence of the artisan’s
understanding, to indicate that “electrically connected” is limited to
electrical shorts between components; i.e., connection by means of
conductive paths without any other intervening elements between the
components. Even if the bond pads 20 depicted in Figure 3 of Lin ′999 were
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013