Ex Parte Chow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2013

11610401 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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.
11/610,401 12/13/2006 Seng Guan Chow 27-294 2689
22898 7590 01/10/2013
ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
EXAMINER
CHEN, XIAOLIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2013 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 SENG GUAN CHOW and ANTONIO B. DIMAANO JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-006928
Application 11/610,401
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006928
Application 11/610,401

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a non-final
rejection of claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an integrated circuit
package system employing a support structure with a recess (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 11 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
11. An integrated circuit package system comprising:

an electrical interconnect system including a support
structure and a lead-finger system;

a recess along a top edge of the support structure at an
outermost periphery thereof for preventing mold bleed, the
recess bounded by a portion of the support structure below the
recess and surrounded by the leadfinger system; and

an encapsulation material encapsulating the recess and the
electrical interconnect system to interlock the encapsulation
material.

Appeal 2010-006928
Application 11/610,401

3
References
Lee US 2002/0140061 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Shirasaka US 2002/0149099 A1 Oct. 17, 2002

Rejections
(1) Claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shirasaka.
(2) Claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shirasaka and Lee.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 18
Appellants argue their invention as recited in independent claim 11 is
not anticipated by Shirasaka (App. Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 4-5). Specifically,
Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided a citation in Shirasaka for
the claimed “recess element” (id.).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shirasaka discloses “a
recess along a top edge of the support structure at an outermost periphery
thereof …, the recess bounded by a portion of the support structure below
the recess and surrounded by the leadfinger system” as recited in claim 11?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants. The Examiner cites to the top side
edge of the support structure 3 in Figure 1B as disclosing the recited recess
Appeal 2010-006928
Application 11/610,401

4
(Ans. 6). However, we are not persuaded the “top side edge of the support
structure” describes a recess.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding Shirasaka discloses the
invention as recited in independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12, 13,
15, 16, and 18, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Shirasaka.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 14, 17, 19, and 20
The Examiner has not shown Shirasaka discloses the invention recited
in claim 11 from which claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 depend. Nor do we find
Shirasaka teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 11.
Moreover, the Examiner has not shown Lee cures the deficiencies of
Shirasaka. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Shirasaka and Lee teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 14,
17, 19, and 20. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14, 17, 19,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Shirasaka and Lee.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shirasaka is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shirasaka and Lee is reversed.
Appeal 2010-006928
Application 11/610,401

5

REVERSED

tj