Ex Parte Ball

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2001

08602503 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL B. BALL
____________
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, LALL, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 19, 21
through 23 and 25 through 34.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of fabricating a
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
Claim 19 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
19. A method of fabricating a multi-die assembly,
comprising:
providing a substrate including a plurality of conductors;
attaching at least one active face-down base die to said
substrate in electrical communication
with at least some of said conductors;
securing the back side of at least one active face-up stack die
to said base die; electrically connecting said stack die to at
least one of said conductors;
securing at least one discrete component to at least one of said
stack die, said base die, and
said substrate; and
electrically connecting said at least one discrete component to
at least one of said stack die,
said base die, and said substrate.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Fogal et al. (Fogal) 5,323,060 Jun. 21, 1994
Rostoker 5,399,898 Mar. 21, 1995
Takiar et al. (Takiar) 5,422,435 Jun. 6, 1995
Kuranaga et al. (Kuranaga) 63-104343 May 9, 1988
(Japanese Patent Application)
Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) 63-179537 Jul. 23, 1988
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
Claims 30 through 32 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on
Kuroda, Kuranaga, Fogal, Rostoker and Takiar.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 8),
the brief (paper number 12) and the answer (paper number 13) for
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 19, 21
through 23 and 25 through 34.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s assertions
(final rejection, page 2) that Kuroda discloses “mounting of a
chip 1, Fig. 1, onto a substrate 4 by flip chip bonding pads 4-
1,” bonding a second chip 2 “to the first chip in a back to back
fashion using a bonding agent 1-1,” and connecting the second
chip to the substrate via bonding wires 2-2 in a multi-die
assembly. The examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 2)
that Kuroda does not “specifically illustrate discrete
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
another substrate attached to the stacked chip.” Kuranaga, like
Kuroda, does not “specifically illustrate discrete components” in
the multi-die assembly (final rejection, page 2). Inasmuch as
chip 1a is merely described as an IC chip, and not a substrate,
we agree with appellant (brief, page 7) that “Kuranaga does not
teach or suggest the use of a substrate.” For this reason, we
will hereinafter limit our consideration of the rejection to the
teachings of Kuroda and Fogal.
The examiner relies on Fogal (Figure 5) for a teaching of
mounting discrete components on or adjacent a stacked multi-die
assembly (final rejection, pages 2 and 3). According to the
examiner (final rejection, page 3), it would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan to mount discrete components with the stacked
assembly of Kuroda for “the benefit of increased mounting
efficiency.” We agree. Notwithstanding the fact that Fogal does
not mount chips face down to the substrate (brief, page 7), he
nevertheless teaches (Figure 5) mounting discrete components 75,
76 and 78 on or adjacent a substrate mounted stacked assembly of
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
appellant’s argument (brief, pages 7 through 9) that Fogal
teaches away from the claimed invention is not convincing of the
nonobviousness of the claimed invention.
Appellant’s impermissible hindsight argument (brief, pages 9
and 10) is without merit because the examiner did not have to
resort to appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention to discover
the benefits of mounting discrete components with a substrate
mounted stacked assembly of chips via bonding wires. In summary,
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 19 is sustained. The
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 through 23 and 25
through 34 is likewise sustained because appellant has chosen to
let these claims stand or fall with claim 19 (brief, page 5).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 19, 21 through
23 and 25 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
JOSEPH A WALKOWSKI
TRASK BRITT & ROSSA
PO BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110