Ex Parte Brennan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2013

11048968 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2013)

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.
11/048,968 02/02/2005 John McKenna Brennan 11-8-89-5-13 7826
47384 7590 02/15/2013
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
90 FOREST AVENUE
LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560
EXAMINER
KALAM, ABUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN McKENNA BRENNAN, PATRICK J. CARBERRY,
JOSEPH MICHAEL FREUND, GEORGE JOHN LIBRICZ, JR., and
RALPH S. MOYER
____________

Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 5, 2011), the Answer (mailed Feb.
29, 2012), and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 30, 2012) 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 an integrated circuit device including
an integrated circuit element and a leadframe disposed on a substrate. The
leadframe includes an encapsulant dam which has at least one chamfered
edge to provide clearance for a wire feed during a wire-bonding process.
(See generally Spec. 3:1-16).
Claim 12 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:1
12. A leadframe for use with an integrated circuit device
comprising at least one lead and at least one encapsulant dam disposed on
the at least one lead, the encapsulant dam being part of the leadframe,
wherein the at least one encapsulant dam has a cross-section with at least
two substantially perpendicular adjacent sides and at least one chamfered
edge between the two adjacent sides of the cross-section, and wherein the at
least one chamfered edge provides clearance for a wire feed during a wire-
bonding process.

1 The copy of independent claim 1 in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief is incorrect. This copy does not contain the language “the at least one
encapsulant dam being part of the leadframe,” which appears in the latest
version of the claims as submitted in the Amendment filed October 25,
2010.
Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:2
Sabyeying US 6,062,459 May 16, 2000
Houdeau US 6,288,904 B1 Sep. 11, 2001
Toya US 6,348,416 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Huang US 6,429,047 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Takase US 2004/0173877 A1 Sep. 9, 2004

Claims 1-5 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Houdeau in view of Sabyeying.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Houdeau in view of Sabyeying and Huang.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-13
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of each of
the appealed independent claims 1 and 12, Appellants’ arguments initially
focus on the contention that the Examiner has not provided a proper basis for
the proposed Houdeau/Sabyeying combination. Appellants recognize that it
has been held that if a known technique is used to improve one device, the
use of such a technique to improve similar devices in the same way would
have been obvious. Appellants, however, contend that Houdeau’s and
Sabyeying’s devices are not such similar devices (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2-
3). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). According to
Appellants, the wire bond clamp of Sabyeying is a tool which is used to

2 The Toya and Takase references are cited as evidence in support of the
Examiner’s rejection, but are not included as part of the statement of the
rejection.
Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

4
temporarily secure a leadframe to a heater block only for the duration of a
wire-bonding process while Houdeau’s stiffening frame, in contrast, forms
part of the completed chip module and is used during the encapsulation
process rather than the wire-bonding process (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. We find no error in the
Examiner’s determination that, while Houdeau’s stiffening frame and
Sabyeying’s wire bond clamp have different functions, both references
disclose analogous semiconductor devices in which wires are bonded to the
leads of a leadframe (Ans. 10).
Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find that the Examiner
(Ans. 4, 13, and 14) has provided an articulated line of reasoning with a
rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness for the
proposed combination of Houdeau and Sabyeying. KSR, at 418. We agree
with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized
and appreciated the obviousness of applying, to the stiffening frame support
structure of Houdeau, Sabyeying’s teaching (col. 5, ll. 37-39) of tapering the
walls of a support structure to facilitate access to the leadframe and thereby
improve the wire-bonding process.
We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12-13) that although
Houdeau’s explicit disclosure is directed to the use of the stiffening frame
during an encapsulation process as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 5-6;
Reply Br. 2-3), there is nothing in Houdeau’s disclosure that would exclude
the use of the stiffening frame during the wire-bonding process. As
explained by the Examiner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized and appreciated that attaching Houdeau’s stiffening frame 22 to
the leadframe 23 before the wire-bonding step would have improved the
Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

5
wire-bonding process since the leads would be firmly secured to the carrier
before the leads are wire bonded to the chip (Ans. 12-13).
We further find unpersuasive Appellants’ related argument that even
if Houdeau’s stiffening frame were attached prior to wire bonding,
chamfering a corner of the stiffening frame would not improve wire feed
clearance since the height of Houdeau’s stiffening frame is substantially
above the wire-bonding areas (App. Br. 6). As pointed out by the Examiner,
there is nothing in the disclosure of Houdeau that limits the stiffening frame
to any specific height or width, nor have Appellants provided evidence of
any such height or width limitation (Ans. 13). Accordingly, we find no error
in the Examiner’s determination that Houdeau’s stiffening frame would be
sufficiently modified to provide proper clearance for wire bonding in
accordance with the teachings of Sabyeying (id.).
Lastly, contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 6-7), we find no
error in the Examiner’s further rationale (Ans. 6) for the proposed
Houdeau/Sabyeying combination, i.e., chamfering the top corner of the
stiffening frame encapsulant dam of Houdeau would improve the bonding
between the encapsulant 24 and the encapsulant dam 22. The Examiner has
provided evidence in the form of the Toya and Takase references which
supports the Examiner’s position that chamfering the corner region of a
structure increases the surface area of the corner region, and such surface
area increase would improve the adhesion between an encapsulating material
and the side surface (Ans. 14). Appellants have not challenged the
Examiner’s proffered evidence in the Reply Brief.
Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

6
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12, as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 11, and
13 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Dependent claims 9 and 10
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the
combination of Houdeau and Sabyeying, of dependent claims 9 and 10.
With respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16-17) that
Appellants have provided no showing of the criticality of the 30 and 50
degree boundaries of the claimed wire feed angle range, nor any evidence
showing that the device of the Houdeau/Sabyeying combination would be
incompatible with the claimed wire feed angle range.
With respect to claim 10, we find no error in the Examiner’s
determination (Ans. 8) that the limitation directed to the matching of
chamfered edge angle to the wire feed angle of a wire-bonding process is a
product-by-process limitation and not entitled to patentable weight. As
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 18), even though claim 10 does not require
that the integrated circuit device be made using a wire-bonding process, the
claim nonetheless contains a process limitation which is not entitled to
patentable weight in a claim which is drawn to the structure of an integrated
circuit device.
Dependent claim 6
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6, in which
Huang is applied to the Houdeau/Sabyeying combination to address the
encapsulant dam lid features of the rejected claim, is also sustained.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-11) are not persuasive of any error in
Appeal 2012-008162
Application 11/048,968

7
the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 9) of the obviousness to the ordinarily
skilled artisan of substituting the art recognized equivalent lid and air cavity
chamber of Huang for the encapsulant filled cavity of Houdeau. As further
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 19), Huang provides evidence of the
equivalency of the two lid structures, as well as disclosing the two types of
lid structures, i.e., air cavity and encapsulant, combined in one
semiconductor package (Figs. 2 and 4; col. 5, ll. 7-11 and col. 6, ll. 51-58).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

gvw