Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
In this regard, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly grasp that
the so-called “dummy die” of Pai are merely substitutes/additions to the
adhesive bonds formed between electrically connected stacked die of a
packaged device, as disclosed in the Background portion of the disclosure of
Pai. While Pai may disclose that prior art dummy die –free packages are
assembled with some difficulty, Pai does not teach that eliminating a dummy
die would render the integrated circuit package device inoperative or
substantially alter the function or mode of operation thereof.
Appellants argue that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest a
shingle stack arrangement for the stacked die as called for in claims 48 and
66 (Br. 20). However, the artisan is presumed to have some capability in
combining the die into a stack form. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1739,
82 USPQ2d at 1395. The question to be asked is “whether the improvement
is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id.
Stacked chip packages, which are the subject matter of Pai’s U.S.
Patent and Appellants’ Specification and Claims, are clearly known by one
of ordinary skill in the art as an integrated circuit package arrangement that
allows chip combinations in an integrated circuit package, while saving
space as evidenced by a review of the “Background of the Invention”
Section of Pai’s disclosure. Compare Appellants’ “Description of the
Related Art” (Specification 1-4). The question before us with respect to
Appellants’ claimed “shingle stack” arrangement is: Would one of ordinary
skill in the art have recognized that chips or die, to be stacked, may come in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013