Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
Here, the Examiner relies on Hakey for showing that it is well known
in the art that die come in different thicknesses. Hakey’s disclosure of a
non-stacked die packaging arrangement does not rise to the level of a
general teaching away from the use of stacked die, especially given the
known use of such an alternative packaging arrangement as taught by Pai.
Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art faced with the desire to conserve
space would have been led to consider the available option of stacking the
die, whether the die are of the same or differing thicknesses based on the
combined teachings of the references. The fact that non-stacked die
packaging options are available does not serve to detract from the Pai
teaching/suggestion of using stacked die packages.
It follows that, on this record, we shall affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 69 and 70 over Pai in view of Hakey.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 45, 47-49, 63, 65-67
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Huang;
and to reject claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pai in view of Hakey is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 35, 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pai in
view of Huang; and to reject claims 69 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pai in view of Hakey is reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013