Ex Parte Aleksov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612830547 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 12/830,547 07/06/2010 Aleksandar Aleksov P33692 001 POO17 1779 92265 7590 Winkle, PLLC 916 Hearthstone Drive Boise, ID 83702 12/22/2016 EXAMINER GOODWIN, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2817 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): winkle @ c ableone. net inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEKSANDAR ALEKSOV, ARNAB SARKAR, and HENNING BRAUNISCH, JERRY R. BAUTISTA Appeal 2015-003499 Application 12/830,547 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §6. Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a microelectronic device, wherein “modularity is enabled by using in-street die to die interconnects to facilitate signal routing between microelectronic dice” (Spec. 117, see 122). According to Appellants, however, illustrations provided in the disclosure are exemplary and the claims are not limited to the disclosed examples (Spec. 1141 and 46). Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below: Appeal 2015-003499 Application 12/830,547 1. A microelectronic device, comprising: a microelectronic module having an interconnect layer formed thereon; wherein the microelectronic module comprises a plurality of microelectronic dice comprising an integrated circuit formed in and on the microelectronic module, each of the plurality of microelectronic dice having at least one adjacent microelectronic die separated by an uncut dicing street; and at least one interconnect extending between each adjacent microelectronic die across the uncut dicing street connecting at least one active area communication route of each microelectronic die with an active area communication route of the at least one adjacent microelectronic die. App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims Wojnarowski et al. US 5,366,906 Nov. 22, 1994 Jeung et al. US 6,949,407 B2 Sept. 27, 2005 Adkisson et al. US 7,622,364 B2 Nov. 24, 2009 Do et. al. US 7,829,998 B2 Nov. 9, 2010 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do in view of Adkisson. Claims 1—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeung in view of Adkisson. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wojnarowski in view of Adkisson. After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification 2 Appeal 2015-003499 Application 12/830,547 disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only. Concerning each of the Examiner’s stated rejections, Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1, which is subject to all three rejections, as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal. Representative claim 1 is drawn to a device including a microelectronic module that comprises, inter alia, a plurality of microelectronic dice wherein each of the dice is separated from at least one adjacent die by an uncut dicing street with an interconnect extending between adjacent die across the dicing street. The Examiner has determined that each of the separately applied Do, Jeung and Wojnarowski teach or suggest a microelectronic device that comprises features corresponding to the module of representative claim 1 including plural die (dice) with at least one microelectronic die separated from an adjacent die by a feature/material corresponding to the uncut dicing street and having at least one interconnect extending between the adjacent die across the uncut dicing street as set forth in Appellants’ claim 1, wherein an integrated circuit is formed in and on the microelectronic module (Final Act. 2, 5, 8). 3 Appeal 2015-003499 Application 12/830,547 Additionally, the Examiner relies on Adkisson for teaching or suggesting the use of an interconnect layer formed on active area(s) of a microelectronic structure comprising die to provide a communication route between active areas of a microelectronic device (Final Act. 3,5,8). Based on the teachings of Do, Jeung and Wojnarowski, each taken with Adkisson, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to furnish each of Do, Jeung and Wojnarowski with an interconnect layer for purposes of operatively connecting the various devices (active areas) of the respective microelectronic devices of each of Do, Jeung and Wojnarowski (Final Act. 3, 6, 8; Ans. 3). Appellants do not address each of the particular structures of Do, Jeung, and/or Wojnarowski that the Examiner has found to correspond to certain claim features in each of the stated rejections. For example, Appellants do not specifically dispute the Examiner’s finding that at least some adjacent microelectronic dice (32) are separated by an element 48 in Figure 8a of Do which structures the Examiner finds correspond to the claim 1 requirement for at least one die separated from an adjacent die by an uncut dicing street (App. Br. 10-13; Final Act. 2). Rather, Appellants argue that paragraphs 19 and 20 of the subject Specification and Figures 1 and 2 of the drawings provide a definition for the claim term “module” that distinguishes claim 1 from the applied structure of Do (App. Br. 10-13). Appellants present a similar argument against the Examiner’s application of each of Jeung and Wojnarowski in the Examiner’s second and third stated obviousness rejections. The latter claim construction arguments are not persuasive of harm fill error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections because the cited portions of 4 Appeal 2015-003499 Application 12/830,547 the Specification and drawing Figures do not provide a definition for the claim term “module” as argued. Rather, these portions of the Specification employ permissive language in articulating the type of cutting step that may be employed in forming a microelectronic module and the types of structures that may be encompassed in a die. Moreover, the Specification makes it plain that the claims are not limited to the detailed descriptions set forth in the Specification and the illustrations presented (Spec. 40-46). Consequently, the premise for the argument (module definition provided) is faulty; hence, the argument based thereon lacks merit in establishing error in any of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Furthermore, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not furnished the requisite motivation for the proposed modification(s) of each of Do, Jeung and Wojnarowski (App. Br. 13—17). However, Appellants have not particularly articulated why the rationale for the modifications set forth by the Examiner is unreasonable and/or otherwise insufficient (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3, 6, 8). Accordingly, we shall sustain each of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation