Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310810965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YEN-MING CHEN, CHIA-FU LIN, SHUN-LIANG HSU, KAI- MING CHING, HSIN-HUI LEE, CHAO-YUAN SU and LI-CHIH CHEN ____________ Appeal 2010-011011 Application 10/810,965 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011011 Application 10/810,965 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 29-34 and 36-38. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to improving the height of an interconnect bump for small pad design. Specification 1. Illustrative Claim 29. A solder bump for interconnection of flip chip devices comprising: a semiconductor surface; at least one contact pad over said semiconductor surface; a passivation layer over said semiconductor surface, said passivation layer exposing said at least one contact pad; an Under-Bump-Metallurgy (UBM) layer over said layer of passivation and said at least one contact pad, lateral dimension of the UBM layer being limited to be within lateral dimension of the at least one contact pad; and at least one solder compound overlying the UBM layer, wherein the solder compound comprises a flat top surface, a flat bottom surface and convex sidewalls, and the flat top surface is greater than the flat bottom surface before connecting to other components. Appeal 2010-011011 Application 10/810,965 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 29, 31, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being either anticipated by Marrs (U.S. Patent Number 5,795,818; issued August 18, 1998) or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marrs. Answer 3-5. Claims 30, 32-34 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marrs and Beddingfield (U.S. Patent Number 5,977,632; issued November 2, 1999). Answer 5-6. Issue on Appeal Do Marrs and Beddingfield, either alone or in combination, disclose a solder bump for an interconnection structure wherein “at least one solder compound overlying the UBM layer” as recited in claim 29? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that: 1. Marrs’ “bump” is the same structure as Appellants’ “solder compound” because appellants use the term(s) “bump” or “solder bump” in many instances throughout the disclosure to refer to the same structure (see specification, page 19, lines 19-20 (..solder bump..); page 22, lines 10-12 (...more solder can be deposited to create a larger bump...”); page 23, line 3, line 4, lines 6-7, line 12 (..”bump...”); etc. 2. Marrs teaches a bonding contact using weld or welding. By using weld or welding, Marrs does not need to use additional solder or epoxy material to bond the bump 312 to an UMB layer 502 (col. 10, lines 15-20). However, the bonding contact in Marrs is NOT the same structure as the Appeal 2010-011011 Application 10/810,965 4 “solder compound” in applicants’ claim. Appellants’ claimed structure is essentially a bump, which is the same bump 312 in Marrs. Appellants’ bump is made of metal. Marrs’ bump is also made of metal. Applicants’ UMB layer is made of metal or gold. Marrs’ UMB layer is also a metal or gold. Answer 7. Appellants argue that: Marrs discloses an integrated circuit chip to substrate interconnection and method. Specifically, referring to col. 10, lines 14-17, and Figs. 7, 8, Marrs teaches that the resulting bond 801 is a direct gold to gold connection between coined ball bond bump 312 on chip 201 and metallization 502 on substrate bonding contact 501C on substrate 501. In this teaching, it is taught or suggested to those skilled in the art that the coined ball bond bump 312 is gold. Moreover, referring to col. 10, lines 20-31 of Marrs, the passage “the resulting weld is not as susceptible to melting as solder” teaches or suggests that the coined ball bond bump 312 is NOT made by solder. Appeal Brief 6. We agree with the Examiner that Marrs discloses a “bump” configuration in relation to an interconnect structure; however, Marrs does not disclose “at least one solder compound overlying the UBM layer” as recited in independent claims 29, 37 and 38. See Answer 7; see also Appeal Brief 6. Marrs discloses: Finally, according to the invention, coined ball bond bumps formed on the chip are attached directly to a metallization formed on a bonding contact of the substrate. By this method, good electrical connections are formed without the use of flux, solder or complex photolithographic processes. This means savings in time, material, and equipment and fewer incidents of corrosion. Appeal 2010-011011 Application 10/810,965 5 Marrs, column 4, lines 35-42. The Examiner findings are based on a comparison of the shapes of Marrs’ interconnection bump with the claimed invention’s interconnection bumps; yet the Examiner fails to indicate where Marrs employs the usage of solder as indicated in the claims. See Answer 4-8. Therefore we agree with Appellants’ arguments that Marrs teaches away from utilizing solder in conjunction with the interconnection bump. See Appeal Brief 6. We reverse both the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claims 29, 37 and 38, as well as claims 30-34 and 36 dependent therefrom. Beddingfield does not address the deficiency of Marrs. DECISIONS The anticipation rejection of claims 29, 31, 37 and 38 is reversed. The obviousness rejections of claims 29-34 and 36-38 are reversed. REVERSED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation