Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

13324397 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/324,397 12/13/2011
112165 7590 02/24/2016
STATS ChipPAC/PATENTLAWGROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jen Yu Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2515.0380 7823
EXAMINER
SWAN, GARDNER W.S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEN YU, CHIEN CHEN LEE,
YI WEN HUANG, and KE JUNG YEN
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
Technology Center 2800
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to semiconductor devices. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
providing a semiconductor die;
forming a plurality of composite bump structures including a fusible
portion and non-fusible portion over a surface of the semiconductor die;
providing a substrate;
forming a conductive layer over the substrate by,
(a) forming a patterning layer over the substrate with openings
in the patterning layer separated by a central region of the patterning layer,
(b) depositing a conductive material in the openings
of the patterning layer as the conductive layer, and
( c) removing the patterning layer including the central region to
leave a channel in the conductive layer previously occupied by the central
reg10n;
melting the fusible portion of the composite bump structures;
pressing the semiconductor die toward the substrate to enable the
melted fusible portion of the composite bump structure to flow into the
channel of the conductive layer if the composite bump structures make
connection to the conductive layer; and
detecting electrical continuity between the composite bump structures
and conductive layer by a presence of the fusible portion of the composite
bump structure in the channel of the conductive layer.
Higashiguchi
Kirby
Otremba
Matsumoto
References and Rejections 1
us 5,828, 128
US 7,271,482 B2
US 2010/0078784 Al
US 2011/0316154 Al
Oct. 27, 1998
Sept. 18, 2007
Apr. 1, 2010
Dec. 29, 2011
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Higashiguchi and Kirby.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higashiguchi, Kirby, and
Matsumoto.
1 The Examiner withdrew the double patenting rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9,
12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25. See Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Higashiguchi, Kirby, and Otremba.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8--43), and agree
with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 2-15 of
the Answer as our own. 2 Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following
points for emphasis.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
First, Appellants contend Higashiguchi does not teach "forming a
plurality of composite bump structures including a fusible portion and non-
fusible portion over a surface of the semiconductor die," as recited in claim
1. See App. Br. 8-10. In particular, Appellants assert:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would view forming
a composite bump structure including a fusible portion and
non-fusible portion as fundamentally different than depositing a
solder paste on the pad of a wiring board, as shown in
Higashiguchi. A composite bump structure including a fusible
portion and a non-fusible portion is understood to be more than
any fusible interconnect structure formed on a contact pad of a
wiring board. By that reasoning, every bump formed on a
2 Except we do not adopt "The Free Dictionary defines a channel as 'a
trench, furrow, or groove,' and a slit as 'a long, straight, narrow cut or
opening"' and "in light of these definitions," on page 12, first complete
paragraph of the Answer. However, we do agree with, and adopt, the
Examiner's claim construction on page 12 that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a channel encompasses a slit. Additionally, we understand
the Examiner means "claim 1" (instead of "claim 7") in the first complete
paragraph on page 11 of the Answer.
3
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
contact pad would be a composite bump structure including a
fusible portion and a non-fusible, which is counter to
conventional logic and the plain meaning of the term
"composite bump structure including a fusible portion and non-
fusible portion." In addition, footprint 16 and solder fillet 58 in
Higashiguchi are not formed over a surface of a semiconductor
die ... In support of the distinction, [Appellants cites
Specification examples for the claim limitation].
App. Br. 9-10.
Second, Appellants contend Higashiguchi does not teach:
[F]orming a conductive layer over the substrate by,
(a) forming a patterning layer over the substrate
with openings in the patterning layer separated by a central
region of the patterning layer,
(b) depositing a conductive material in the openings
of the patterning layer as the conductive layer, and
( c) removing the patterning layer including the
central region to leave a channel in the conductive layer
previously occupied by the central region.
1A .. pp. Br. 10-12. In particular, Appellants contend:
The Office Action identifies soldering bump 51 in
Higashiguchi as the conductive layer of claim 1, package 50 as
the substrate, mold 56 as the patterning layer, and core 55 as
the conductive material. In Higashiguchi, core 55 is not
deposited in openings in mold 56 .... Appellants submit a
person of ordinary skill in the art would view depositing a
conductive material in the openings of a patterning layer as
fundamentally different than pressing mold 56 into core 55,
i.e., pressing a mold into conductive material that has already
been deposited into through hole 53, as shown in Higashiguchi.
In support of the distinction, [Appellants cites Specification
examples for the claim limitation]. ... [A] person of ordinary
skill in the art would view openings in a patterning layer, e.g.,
openings 174 in patterning layer 172 in FIG. 4c of the subject
application, as fundamentally different than a curved mold, as
shown Higashiguchi. In addition, Appellants submit that a
4
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
person of ordinary skill in the art would view forming a
pattering layer over a substrate as fundamentally different than
providing a mold 56 and pressing the mold into conductive
material 55, as shown in Higashiguchi. In support of the
distinction, [Appellants cites Specification examples for the
claim limitation].
App. Br 10-12.
Third, Appellants contend Higashiguchi does not teach:
[M]elting the fusible portion of the composite bump structures,
pressing the semiconductor die toward the substrate to enable
the melted fusible portion of the composite bump
structure to flow into the channel of the conductive layer if
the composite bump structures make connection to the
conductive layer; and detecting electrical continuity between
the composite bump structures and conductive layer by a
presence of the fusible portion of the composite bump structure
in the channel of the conductive layer.
App. Br. 12-14. In particular, Appellants assert:
As discussed above, a person of ordinary skill the art would not
view a solder fillet connected to a footprint, i.e., a pad, on a
wiring board as a composite bump structure including a fusible
portion and a non-fusible portion. Without the composite bump
structure as defined by claim 1, Higashiguchi does not show
melting [claim limitations.]
Without the semiconductor die as defined by claim
1, Higashiguchi does not show pressing the semiconductor die
toward the substrate. In support of the distinction, [Appellants
cites Specification examples for the claim limitation].
App. Br. 13-14.
Fourth, with respect to the secondary reference Kirby, Appellants
argue:
5
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
The Kirby reference does not teach or suggest providing
a semiconductor die, and forming a plurality of composite
bump structures including a fusible portion and non-fusible
portion over a surface of the semiconductor die .... Solder balls
1586 in Kirby do not include a fusible portion and a non-fusible
portion, and thus are not composite bump structure as defined
by claim 1.
[N]or solder balls 1586 in Kirby formed over microelectronic
device 151 Oa would be viewed by one of ordinary skill in the
art as a composite bump structure including a fusible portion
and a nonfusible portion. In support of the distinction,
[Appellants cites Specification examples for the claim
limitation].
The Kirby reference does not teach or suggest pressing
the semiconductor die toward the substrate to enable the melted
fusible portion of the composite bump structure to flow into the
channel of the conductive layer if the composite bump
structures make connection to the conductive layer. ... Kirby
does not show external contacts 1534 or terminals 1532
including a channel extending beyond a width of solder balls
1586[, as recited in claim 2]. In support of the distinction,
[Appellants cites Specification examples for the claim
limitation].
App. Br. 14--16.
In response to Appellants' contentions, the Examiner provides
comprehensive findings showing how Higashiguchi and Kirby collectively
teach the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 2-9. Appellants fail to
adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show specific fault
in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
6
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Further, it is well established that during examination, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, but without importing limitations from the specification. See
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d
870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we decline to import limitations from
Specification examples into the disputed claim terms. As a result, many of
Appellants' arguments are unsupported attorney arguments, which are
unpersuasive of error.
Finally, because the Examiner relies on the combination of
Higashiguchi and Kirby (and Matsumoto with respect to claim 2) to teach
the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness
by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, the Examiner cites Kirby-
not Higashiguchi-for teaching "providing a semiconductor die." See Ans.
6-7. And the Examiner cites (i) Higashiguchi-not-Kirby for teaching
"composite bump structures including a fusible portion and non-fusible
portion," and (ii) Higashiguchi and Matsumoto-not Kirby-for teaching
"the channel extends beyond a width of the composite bump structures."
See Ans. 7-9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
corresponding dependent claims for similar reasons.
7
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
For similar reasons discussed above and for the reasons stated by the
Examiner (Ans. 9-15), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 14,
and 21, and corresponding dependent claims.
Appellants' argument that the combination of Higashiguchi and
Matsumoto would have changed the principle operation of Higashiguchi
(App. Br. 22-24, 29-31, 36-38) is unpersuasive for several reasons:
It is well settled that "a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a
secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner has provided
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in
the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
Higashiguchi and Matsumoto (Final Rej. 6, 8-9), and Appellants fail to
show specific fault in such reasoning.
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007).
Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements
are "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418-19.
8
Appeal2014-005139
Application 13/324,397
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that because Higashiguchi
and Matsumoto teach prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions
to predictably result in the disputed claim limitations, the proposed
combination would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. Combining the teachings of Higashiguchi and Matsumoto would
have predictably used prior art elements according to their established
functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17-23, and
25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9