Ex Parte Ahn et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2011

11372597 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/372,597 03/10/2006 Byung Hoon Ahn AMKOR-040C 5771
7663 7590 05/09/2011
STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
EXAMINER
CLARK, SHEILA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BYUNG HOON AHN, JAE HUN KU, YOUNG SUK CHUNG,
SUK GU KO, SUNG SIK JANG, YOUNG NAM CHOI, and
WON CHUL DO
____________

Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 21, 24-26, 28, and 35-40. Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 29-34 have been allowed, and claims 22, 23, and 27 have been
Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597

2
indicated to contain allowable subject matter, but are objected to as being
dependent on rejected claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Brief (filed April 3, 2008), the Answer (mailed July 9, 2008),
and the Reply Brief (filed August 29, 2008) for the respective details. We
have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a thin semiconductor package
including a lead frame in which the leads are exposed at a bottom surface of
an encapsulant material. The encapsulant material is provided under one or
more portions of the leads, thereby locking them to the encapsulant material.
(See generally Spec. 2:9-16).

Claim 21 further illustrates the invention and reads as follows:
21. A semiconductor package comprising:
a chip pad;
a plurality of leads each including an inner end adjacent to the chip
pad, an opposite outer end, a first surface, a second surface opposite the first
surface, and a third surface which is opposite the first surface and extends
between the second surface and the outer end;
Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597

3
a semiconductor chip mounted on the first surface of the chip pad and
in an electrical connection with the first surface of at least some of the leads;
and
a package body of a hardened encapsulant material over the chip,
wherein the third surface of each of the leads is covered by the encapsulant
material, the second surface of each of the leads and the second surface of
the chip pad are exposed in a plane of a first exterior surface of the package
body, and a portion of the first surface of each of the leads which begins at
the outer end is exposed in a plane of a second exterior surface of the
package body.

The Examiner’s Rejections

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art reference:
Nakayama US 6,208,023 B1 Mar. 27, 2001

Claims 21, 24-26, 28, and 35-40, all of the appealed claims, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama.

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 21 and 35 focus on the contention that Nakayama does
not disclose the particular lead surface structure as claimed. In particular,
Appellants contend (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-4) that Nakayama does not
disclose a third lead surface “which is opposite the first surface and extends
between the second surface and the outer end.” According to Appellants
Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597

4
(App. Br. 8), the first and third lead surfaces in Nakayama are not opposite
each other but, rather, are in an elevated relationship with respect to each
other. Appellants also contend (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-4) that the third
lead surface in Nakayama does not extend between the second lead surface
and the outer end of the lead but, rather, is disposed inward of the outer end
of the lead because it is separated from the outer end by the second surface.
We do not agree with Appellants. We find no error in the Examiner’s
interpretation (Ans. 5-6) of the lead surface construction described by
Nakayama as exemplified by the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure
6(b) of Nakayama included at page 6 of the Answer. Initially, we agree with
the Examiner that the inner bottom surface of the groove 14C, i.e., the third
surface, is clearly opposite the top surface of the groove 14C, i.e., the first
surface (Fig. 6(b)). As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 5-6), there is no
flat or planar lead construction recited in the claims and, accordingly, there
is no claim language which precludes elevated surfaces.
We also find unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 3-4) that Nakayama does not disclose that the third lead surface
extends between the second lead surface and the outer end of the lead.
Initially, we find no error in the Examiner’s identification of the portion of
the bottom surface of the lead 12 that extends to the right of the groove 14C
in Nakayama as corresponding to the claimed second surface. Accordingly,
Nakayama’s third surface, i.e., the inner bottom surface of groove 14C, is
located between the second surface and the outer end of the lead, and is not
separated from the outer lead end by the second surface as argued by
Appellants.
Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597

5
Lastly, we disagree with Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 4) that,
even under the Examiner’s interpretation, the fact that Nakayama’s third
lead surface is located between the second lead surface and the outer end of
the lead does not mean that the third surface extends between the second
surface and the lead outer end as claimed. There is no claim language which
requires that the third lead surface extend completely or entirely between the
second lead surface and the lead outer end as urged by Appellants’
arguments.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 21 and 35, as well as claims 24-26, 28, and 36-40 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 21, 24-26, 28, and 35-40 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21, 24-26, 28, and
35-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-007922
Application 11/372,597

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk