Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
The integrated circuit of claims 45 and 47-49 requires a die stack of at
least two semiconductor die. The semiconductor die are coupled to each
other by an adhesive layer and the stack of die are coupled to a packaging
substrate. In addition, independent claim 45 requires that each die is
electrically functional whereas independent claims 48 and 66 require the die
to be stacked in a shingle stack arrangement.1 Like claim 45, independent
claim 63 and dependent claim 65 require the die to be electrically functional
but do not require the use of an adhesive layer or a shingle stack
arrangement in coupling the die.
Respecting rejected claims 45, 47-49, 63, and 65-67, Appellants
contend that Pai, taken alone or in combination with Huang, does not
disclose or suggest a die stack wherein each die is electrically functional
and/or the die are stacked in a shingle stack arrangement as variously recited
in these claims.
Thus, the principal issue before us with respect the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 45, 47-49, 63, and 65-67 is: Have
Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
any of claims 45, 47-49, 63 and 65-67 by the assertion that the applied
references would not have taught or suggested a die stack arrangement
wherein each die is electrically functional and/or the die are shingle stacked?
We answer the question in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 45, 47-49, 63, and 65-67 for reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer and as further explained below.
1 Appellants explain that die “shingle stacks” are die stacks wherein an edge
of a stacked die overhangs the edge of another die of the stack (Specification
p. 14, l. 9 - p. 15, l. 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013