Ex Parte Choi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2007

09908455 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BYUNG J. CHOI, S.V. SREENIVASAN,
C. GRANT WILLSON, MATTHEW COLBURN,
TODD BAILEY, and JOHN EKERDT
____________

Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 30, 2007
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and JEFFREY T. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 150-175 and 178-181.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants invented methods for forming pattern layers on a substrate
that minimize the trapping of ambient gases during the patterning sequence
(Br. 3). Claim 174, as presented in the Brief, appears below:
174. A method of forming a layer on a substrate, said method
comprising:

disposing a liquid on said substrate as a plurality of spaced-apart
droplets;

contacting said liquid with a patterning area of a template to spread
said liquid in said plurality of spaced-apart droplets such that adjacent
droplets of said plurality of spaced-apart droplets merge together to form a
continuous layer of said liquid over a region of said substrate in
superimposition with said patterning area, with said plurality of spaced-apart
droplets being arranged in a predetermined pattern to minimize trapping of a
gas in said contiguous layer as said droplets merge to form said contiguous
layer; and

solidifying said liquid in said contiguous layer to form a solidified
layer.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Donges US 6,234,379 May 22, 2001
Nebashi US 6,646,662 Nov. 11, 2003

The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 150-156, 159-162, 165-171, 174, 175, 178, and 179 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Donges. Claims 159-162, 174,

1 In rendering this decision we have considered Appellants’ arguments
presented in the Brief, filed July 21, 2006.
2
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

178, and 179 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Nebashi. Claims 157, 158, 163, 164, 172, 173, 180, and 181 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Donges. Claims 163, 164, 175,
180, and 181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Nebashi.
I. The Rejections over Donges
The Examiner finds that Donges describes a method for forming a
pattern on a substrate that comprises disposing a pattern of liquid on a
substrate through the use of a template (Answer 3-6).
Appellants contend that the claimed invention is directed to forming a
patterned layer of material on a substrate that requires the superimposition of
a template on a precursor liquid. Appellants contend that Donges is
unrelated to the present invention and that Donges fails to teach or suggest a
template of any kind (Br. 8).
The issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 150-156, 159-162, 165-171, 174, 175,
178, and 179 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether the
Examiner has established a reasonable belief that the method described by
Donges produces a patterned layer of material on a substrate that requires
the superimposition of a template on a precursor liquid, and whether the
Appellant has adequately rebutted the Examiner’s position by showing that
the patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the process of
Donges does not comprise a device that functions as a template which is
superimposed on a precursor liquid. Specifically, the issue is: Does the
patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the process of Donges
comprise a material that is capable of functioning as a template which is
3
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

superimposed on a precursor liquid? We answer this question in the
affirmative.
The Examiner correctly finds that Donges describes a method for
forming a pattern on a substrate that comprises disposing a pattern of liquid
underfill (flux) on a substrate using a template (the under surface of chip 40)
(Answer 3-4). The Examiner correctly finds that the liquid in the pattern is
spread to cover the entire region and form a continuous layer while
maintaining the template apart from the substrate (Answer 4). The
Examiner correctly finds that the ambient air is displaced when the
continuous layer is formed using the template (Answer 4).
Appellants contend that Donges is unrelated to the present invention
and that Donges fails to teach or suggest a template of any kind (Br. 8).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Specification discloses
the techniques of the present invention may be used for a number of devices
including semiconductor devices (page 6). Appellants have not disputed that
Donges, like Appellants’ Specification, describes a semiconductor device.
The Specification discloses that when a template is positioned proximate to
the substrate the patterning liquid is dispersed to fill the gaps between the
template and the substrate (p. 5). Appellants have not argued that the chip
component of Donges (i.e. template) does not function to disperse the under-
filled liquid to fill the gaps between a substrate and the chip component.
The rejection of claims 150-156, 159-162, 165-171, 174, 175, 178, and 179
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Donges is affirmed.
Claims 157, 158, 163, 164, 172, 173, 180, and 181 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Donges. We affirm.
4
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

Appellants rely on the same arguments presented in the discussion of
the rejection under §102 over Donges (Br. 9). Appellants further contend
that the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to vary the
viscosity of the liquid (underfill) of Donges is tenuous at best (Br. 9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
above and in the Examiner's Answer (Answer 18-19). Donges discloses the
viscosity of the underfilled material should be sufficient to hold the chip in
place until the heating step is complete. (See col. 5, ll. 26-39). Appellants
have not argued that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
sufficient basis to modify the viscosity of the underfilled material of Donges
based upon the disclosures of the reference.
II. The Rejections over Nebashi
The Examiner finds that Nebashi describes a method for forming a
pattern on a substrate that comprises disposing a pattern of liquid on a
substrate through the use of a template (Answer 7-8).
Appellants contend that Nebashi fails to teach or suggest the method
by which spaced-apart droplets are positioned on a substrate so as to expel
gas and/or minimize the trapping of the same (Br. 9).
The issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 159-162, 174, 178, and 179 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether the Examiner has
established a reasonable belief that the method described by Nebashi
produces a continuous patterned layer of material on a substrate formed by
merging together spaced apart droplets through the use of a template, and
whether the Appellants have adequately rebutted the Examiner’s position by
showing that the patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the
5
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

process of Nebashi does not comprise a device that functions as a template
which expels gas from between the template and the substrate. Specifically,
the issue is: Does the patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by
the process of Nebashi comprise a material that is capable of functioning as
a template which expels gas from between the template and the substrate?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner correctly finds that Nebashi describes a method of
forming a pattern layer on a substrate that provides the reduction of gas
disposed between a template and the substrate (Answer 5-6). The Examiner
correctly finds that the liquid droplets merge together to form a contiguous
layer while maintaining the template apart from the substrate (Answer 5-6).
The Examiner correctly finds that the ambient air is displaced when the
contiguous layer is formed using the template (Answer 6).
Appellants argue that Nebashi fails to teach or suggest the method by
which spaced-apart droplets are positioned on a substrate so as to expel gas
and/or minimize the trapping of the same (Br. 9). Appellants further argue
that Nebashi teaches away from positioning droplets in such a way, by virtue
of their positioning, that facilitate the removal of gas from between a
substrate and a template (Br. 9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Appellants have not
disputed that Nebashi describes methods for forming liquids on a substrate
that include the use of a template. The claimed subject matter does not
distinguish the method of application of the liquid on a substrate as
described by Nebashi from the claimed invention. That is, the claimed
subject matter does not exclude the liquid from being applied to the substrate
through the template. There is no indication in Nebashi that air/gas is not
6
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

displaced upon convergence of the liquid droplets. The claimed subject
matter requires the air/gas to be expelled. This does not prevent the air/gas
from being removed through the template.
The rejection of claims 159-162, 174, 178, and 179 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Nebashi is affirmed.
Claims 163, 164, 175, 180, and 181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Nebashi. We affirm.
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented in the discussion of
the rejection under §102 over Nebashi (Br. 10).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
above and in the Examiner's Answer (Answer 9-10). The Examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the viscosity of the liquid in Nebashi. The Appellants have
failed to challenge the Examiner's position.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 150-156, 159-162, 165-171, 174,
175, 178, and 179 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Donges has
been affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 157, 158, 163, 164, 172, 173, 180,
and 181 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Donges has been
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 159-162, 174, 178, and 179 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Nebashi has been affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 163, 164, 175, 180, and 181 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nebashi has been affirmed.
7
Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455

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

sld/ls

KELLY K. KORDZIK
WINSTEAD SECHREST AND MINICK P.C.
P.O. BOX 50784
DALLAS. TX 75201

8