Ex Parte Camacho et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 7, 2010

11307128 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZIGMUND RAMIREZ CAMACHO, HENRY D. BATHAN,
ARNEL TRASPORTO and JEFFREY D. PUNZALAN
____________

Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,1281
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: June 8, 2010
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is STATS ChipPAC Ltd.
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an integrated circuit package system
manufactured by forming a lead tip hole in a lead finger, mounting an
integrated circuit die having a solder bump on the lead finger and reflowing
the solder bump on the lead tip hole of the lead finger. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An integrated circuit package system comprising:
forming a lead finger;
forming a lead tip hole through the lead finger;
mounting an integrated circuit die having a solder bump on the lead
finger; and
reflowing the solder bump on the lead tip hole of the lead finger.

Claims 1-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0089879 A1)
and Lin (U.S. Patent 6,440,835 B1).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Lee, Lin and Shiu (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2005/0156291 A1).

ISSUES
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly combined Lee
and Lin “because Lee teaches a flip chip package . . . and Lin teaches away
from the Lin invention being used with flip chip technology.” (App. Br. 12.)
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

3
Second, with respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that the
combination of Lee and Lin does not teach or suggest “forming a lead tip
hole through the lead finger.” (App. Br. 14.) In particular, Appellants argue
that “Lin does not teach or suggest deepening a hole [i.e., the second
concavity 312a of Lee] but instead Lin teaches depositing a trace 42 [sic, 32]
having a through-hole 44.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellants also argue that “Lin
cannot use a flip-chip bump for electrical conductivity because in Lin a
bump is not placed on a lead finger, the flip-chip is not placed on a bump,
and the lead finger and flip-chip are not bonded by reflow soldering.” (App.
Br. 14.) Independent claim 6 recites similar limitations.
Appellants’ arguments present the following dispositive issues:
1. Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining Lee and Lin?
2. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lee and
Lin teaches or suggests “forming a lead tip hole through the lead finger”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Lee
1. Lee “relates to a flip chip package.” (¶ [0002].) In one embodiment,
a flip chip package includes a lead frame 31, a chip 32 and a plurality
of bumps 33. (¶ [0025]; fig. 3.) The bumps 33 include first
bumps 331 and second bumps 332. (¶ [0025].) The lead frame 31 has
a plurality of leads 312 with a second concavity 312a. (¶ [0025].)
The active surface 321 of the chip 32 is electrically connected to the
lead frame 31 with the bumps 33 (¶ [0025]) using a reflow process
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

4
(¶ [0026]). The second bumps 332 reside in the second
concavities 312a to more securely attach the chip 32 to the lead
frame 31. (¶ [0028].)

Lin
2. Lin “relates to a semiconductor chip assembly, and more particularly
to a method of mechanically and electrically connecting a conductive
trace to a semiconductor chip.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-10.) Lin describes
techniques for connecting semiconductor chips to external circuits
(col. 1, ll. 13-15) including wire bonding, tape automated bonding and
flip-chip bonding, all of which are widely used (col. 1, ll. 17-20). Lin
further describes that although flip-chip bonding has “tremendous
advantages” over the other two techniques, some cost and technical
limitations include: the significant cost of forming bumps on pads;
the increased complexity of underfilling an adhesive between the chip
and support circuit to avoid thermal mismatch; the formation of cracks
and voids in the solder joint; and environmental concerns over lead-
based solders. (Col. 2, ll. 6-18.)

3. In one embodiment, a conductive trace 32 (i.e., a metallic layer
(col. 11, ll. 58-61) formed by electroplating (col. 5, ll. 12-13)) is
attached to an adhesive 46 and electrically connected to a conductive
pad 16 on a semiconductor chip 10. (Col. 3, ll. 5-13; fig. 1k.) A
through-hole 44 is formed through the conductive trace 32 and the
adhesive 46. (Col. 6, ll. 54-57; fig. 1j.) A wire ball 62 enters the
through-hole 44 and contacts the conductive trace 32 and the pad 16
(col. 7, ll. 53-56; fig. 4b) such that the wire ball 62 fills the through-
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

5
hole 44 and deforms into a mushroom-shaped ball bond 70 (col. 7, l.
66 to col. 8, l. 2; fig. 4c). Lin further describes that this process is
flexible enough to accommodate the flip-chip bonding technique.
(Col. 15, ll. 47-51.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8 and 10
We are not convinced by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11-14; see
also Reply Br. 3-6) that the combination of Lee and Lin does not teach or
suggest “forming a lead tip hole through the lead finger” and that Lin has
been improperly combined with Lee.
The Examiner found that Lee teaches or suggests all the limitations of
claim 1 (Ans. 3; FF 1) except “forming a lead tip hole through the lead
finger” (Ans. 3). The Examiner cited to Lin for the disclosure of a ball
bond 70 that fills a through-hole 44 in a conductive trace 32 and an
adhesive 46. (Ans. 3-4.) The Examiner found that it would have been
obvious “to have modified the hole taught by Lee to have a hole through the
finger to provide a low cost highly reliable connection as taught by Lin.”
(Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Lee relates to flip chip packages including electrically connecting a
chip 32 to a plurality of leads 312 using second bumps 332. (FF 1.) Lin
relates to a semiconductor chip assembly including bonding a conductive
trace 32 (i.e., a metallic layer formed by electroplating) and an adhesive 46
to a semiconductor chip 10. (FF 3.) Lin teaches that a ball bond 70 fills a
through-hole 44 formed through the conductive trace 32 and the
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

6
adhesive 46, bonding the conductive trace 32 and the adhesive 46 to the
semiconductor chip 10. (FF 3.)
Combining Lee and Lin is no more than the simple substitution of
Lin’s known method of bonding the conductive trace 32 and the adhesive 46
to the semiconductor chip 10 (i.e., filling the through-hole 44 with the ball
bond 70) for Lee’s known method of electrically connecting the lead
frame 31 to the chip 32 with a plurality of bumps 33, with no unexpected
results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants have not presented any convincing arguments or evidence that
the Examiner erred in combining Lee and Lin.
Appellants’ argument that “Lin teaches away from the Lin invention
being used with flip chip technology” (App. Br. 12) is not convincing. Lin
teaches that the inventive process is flexible enough to accommodate the
flip-chip bonding technique (FF 3) and that flip-chip bonding has
“tremendous advantages” over the other two known techniques of wire
bonding and tape automated bonding (FF 2). However, flip-chip bonding
also exhibits cost and technical limitations. (FF 2.) Thus, Lin describes that
some characteristics of flip-chip bonding as “somewhat inferior,” rather than
“teaching away” from the use of flip-chip bonding. See In re Gurley,
27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Next, Appellants’ argument that “Lin does not teach or suggest
deepening a hole [i.e., the second concavity 312a of Lee] but instead Lin
teaches depositing a trace 42 [sic, 32] having a through-hole 44” (App. Br.
14) is not convincing. As discussed previously, the rejection of claim 1 is
based on the simple substitution of one known bonding method for another,
rather than “deepening” the second concavity 312a on the leads 312 of Lee.
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

7
Finally, Appellants’ argument that “Lin cannot use a flip-chip bump
for electrical conductivity because in Lin a bump is not placed on a lead
finger, the flip-chip is not placed on a bump, and the lead finger and flip-
chip are not bonded by reflow soldering” (App. Br. 14) is not convincing.
As discussed previously, the Examiner cited to Lee for the disclosure of
these features. (Ans. 3; FF 1.)
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in combining Lee and Lin and
has not erred in finding that the combination of Lee and Lin teaches or
suggests “forming a lead tip hole through the lead finger.”
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellants have not presented separate
arguments regarding dependent claims 2-5, we affirm the rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as for claim 1, from which they depend.
Independent claim 6 recites limitations similar to those discussed,
with respect to independent claim 1, and we conclude that the Examiner has
not erred in rejecting this claim, as well as claims 7, 8 and 10, which depend
from claim 6, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

Claim 9
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 9 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants state that “this dependent claim
depends from independent claim 6 and stands and falls with the independent
claim from which it depends.” (App. Br. 15.) Thus, claim 9 falls together
with claim 6.
Appeal 2009-007820
Application 11/307,128

8
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude that the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bim

LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 330
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087