Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
stack and coupled to a packaging substrate. See the Brief and the Reply
Brief in their entirety, and Pai, col. 1, ll. 5 - 63 and col. 2, l. 15 - col. 3, l. 56.
Rather, Appellants argue that Pai, alone or in combination with Huang, does
not disclose or suggest that each die in the stack in electrically functional, as
claimed (see, e.g., appealed claims 45, 47-49, 63, 65 and 67) and/or that the
die are not taught or suggested as being shingle stacked (see claims 48 and
66).
Regarding the claimed “electrically functional” feature, we give this
disputed claim term the broadest reasonable construction consistent with
Appellants’ Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, and the claim language should be read in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057,
1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Applying these principles to the disputed claim term, “electrically
functional,” we agree with the Examiner that this term is not defined in
Appellants’ Specification and is encompassing of any electrical
functionality, including an insulation, spacing or other auxiliary electrically
related function with respect to the integrated circuit package being claimed.
We note, for example, that Appellants did not limit these appealed claims to
require that all of the die in the stack are electrically coupled to the substrate
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013