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). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013