Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
the at least two die in the stack to be successively thinner. In other words,
for a two die stack, the die are required to have thicknesses that differ from
one another; that is, the thicknesses of each die of a two die stack are not
identical.
As explained by the Examiner (Answer 13), Pai teaches that it is
known to combine chips having differing functions, such as processor,
memory, and logic chips in a single package (Pai, col. 1, ll. 13-20). The
Examiner additionally refers to Hakey to evidence that semiconductor chips
that are used together in a package are known to have differing sizes,
including thicknesses (Hakey, col. 2, ll. 31-40). Based, on those disclosures,
the Examiner has reasonably found that, while Pai does not expressly teach
that the chips combined in a stack have identical or non-identical
thicknesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
stack die of differing thicknesses in the package of Pai.
Appellants maintain that Hakey arranges chips in a co-planar fashion
rather than stacking the chips. Hence, Appellants assert that Hakey teaches
away from ’ppellants' claimed stacking arrangement such that it would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Pai and Hakey (Br. 26).
Have Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 69 and 70 by the asserted “teaching away”
contention presented in the Brief? We answer this question in the negative
and affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 69 and 70.
As to the specific question of "teaching away," our reviewing court in
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
stated:
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013