Appeal 2007-1862
Application 10/722,652
Claims 1 through 8, 14, 15, and 17 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Taylor.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Because we affirm only the rejection of independent claim 19, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20.
Independent claim 20 reflects the recitation of “wire bonding the at
least one peripheral bond pad to the at least one internal bus.” In a
corresponding limitation, independent claim 1 recites a “bond wire”
connecting at least one of the recited bond pads with at least one of the
internal buses. Claim 19 specifies that “the plurality of bond pads and the at
least one internal bus are connectable by at least one bond wire.”
In considering Taylor, we note initially that the prior art showing in
Figure 1 illustrates the use of wire bonds 104 to connect integrated circuit
die 102 to its package 110. Figure 2 illustrates the prior art use of C4
technology to mount an integrated circuit die 202 to a package 210.
Taylor’s contribution in the art is best shown in figure 3C, which permits
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013