Ex Parte Filipovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12101003 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/101,003
112449 7590
Roark IP
1438 Dahlia Loop
San Jose, CA 95126
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
04/10/2008 Zlatko Filipovic
08/19/2016
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.
MM103 7341
EXAMINER
YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 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 ZLATKO FILIPOVIC and WEIPING WANG
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 26-32, 35--40, and 42--44.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Micro Mobio
Corporation (Br. 3).
2 Claims 1-25, 33, 34, and 41 have been canceled. (Br. 32-35 - Claims
App'x.)
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to compact packaging for a power
amplifier module (Spec. Title). Exemplary claim 26 under appeal reads as
follows:
26. A power-amplifier device:
printed circuit board comprising an external circuit;
a die carrier, comprising:
upper electric pads on an upper carrier surface; and
lower carrier electric pads on a lower carrier
surface, wherein the upper electric pads are paired with the
lower electric pads, wherein each pair of the upper electric
pads and the lower electric pads is electrically connected
through the die carrier;
wherein the die carrier is configured to be mounted
on the printed circuit board to allow the lower carrier
electric pads to be electrically connected to the external
circuit of the printed circuit board; and
a semiconductor die, comprising:
a power amplifier configured to amplify an input
signal received at an input node and to output an amplified
signal at an output node;
upper electric terminals on an upper die surface,
wherein two of the upper electric terminals are
respectively electrically connected to the input node and
the output node; and
lower die electric terminals on a lower die surface,
where the upper electric terminals are paired with the
lower electric terminals, wherein each pair of the upper
electric terminals and the lower electric terminals is
electrically connected to carry RF signals through the
semiconductor die,
2
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
wherein the semiconductor die is configured to be
mounted on the die carrier to allow the lower die electric
terminals to be electrically connected to the upper electric
pads on the die carrier.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 26, 27, 29-32, 35--40, and 42--44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichitsubo (US 2006/0290421
Al; Dec. 28, 2006) and Hsieh (US 6,483,186 Bl; Nov. 19, 2002) (Final Act.
3-13).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ichitsubo, Hsieh, and Steddom (US 2004/0080917 Al;
Apr. 29, 2004) (Final Act. 13).
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
because:
(1) Claim 26 requires a die carrier, whereas Ichitsubo's substrate 520
is a semiconductor die with its own passive circuitry and cannot be
considered a die carrier (Br. 23-24).
(2) Ichitsubo's via holes provide grounding and heat transfer
functions, whereas claims 26, 43, and 44 require a connection between upper
and lower terminals to carry RF signals (Br. 24--26).
(3) The combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh does not teach upper and
lower terminals of a semiconductor die being electrically connected to carry
RF signals, because Ichitsubo teaches only ground vias through a
semiconductor die and Hsieh teaches only non-RF signal vias through an
3
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
insulating substrate (Br. 26-28). The Examiner has not articulated a
motivation to modify Ichitsubo to put RF signal vias through the
semiconductor die itself (id.).
( 4) The combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh is improper, because one
of ordinary skill in the art would be lead away from using the uneven,
crenelated active surface of Ichitsubo' s semiconductor die in the flip-chip
structure with a downward-facing active surface of Hsieh (Br. 28-29).
( 5) Ichitsubo' s via holes are designed for optimal grounding and heat
dissipation, and modifying Ichitsubo' s die structure as suggested by the
Examiner would change its principle of operation, thus the combination of
Ichitsubo and Hsieh is improper (Br. 29-30). 3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Br. 16----'30) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with
Appellants' above contentions (1}---(5). We adopt as our own 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-13) and 2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-5) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 27-32, 35--40,
and 42. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further.
4
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
Issue 1: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding Ichitsubo
teaches "a die carrier" as recited in claim 26?
Appellants' contention (1) that Ichitsubo's substrate 520 is not a die
carrier does not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellants' disclosure of "die carrier" does not preclude a
supporting substrate that contains passive circuitry, and therefore Ichitsubo's
substrate 520 is a die carrier that carries active semiconductor die 530 (Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3 (citing Ichitsubo Fig. 5; i-f 52)) (see In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim language is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution)).
Issue 2: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the
combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh teaches "each pair of the upper electric
terminals and the lower electric terminals is electrically connected to carry
RF signals through the semiconductor die" as recited in claim 26, and the
similar limitations of claims 43 and 44?
Appellants' contentions (2) and (3), regarding the purpose of the vias
in Ichitsubo and Hsieh, are not persuasive of Examiner error, because
Appellants are essentially attacking each reference individually where the
rejection is based on the combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh (see In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are
based on combinations of references.")). The Examiner finds Ichitsubo
5
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
teaches RF signals are sent from upper terminals of a power amplifier on the
top surface of semiconductor die 530 to lower terminals 538 on the bottom
surface of the die; however, Ichitsubo is silent as to how these electrical
connections are made (Ans. 3--4 (citing Ichitsubo Fig. 5; iii! 51, 55-57)).
The Examiner relies on Hsieh to teach the concept of vias passing through a
substrate to connect terminals on the top surface of the substrate to terminals
on the bottom surface (Ans. 4 (citing Hsieh Figs. 5 and 6; col. 4, 11. 13-23)).
When combining references, "a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would have recognized the ability to
use through-substrate vias, such as the vias of Hsieh, to form the required
electrical connections between the upper and lower terminals of Ichitsubo' s
active die 530. Further, we find the Examiner has provided "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness:" using through-vias to conduct the RF signals of
Ichitsubo would have avoided parasitic conductance and capacitance (Ans. 4
(citing Hsieh col. 4, 11. 13-23). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18 (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We observe that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the
Examiner's findings in response to Appellants' contentions (2) and (3).
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to
persuade us otherwise, in light of the discussion above, we find no error in
the Examiner's rejections.
6
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
Issue 3: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 26, 43,
and 44 over Ichitsubo and Hsieh because the references are not properly
combinable?
Appellants' contentions (4) and (5) that Hsieh teaches away from the
combination and would change the principle of operation of Ichitsubo are
not persuasive of Examiner error in the rejections, because Appellants have
mischaracterized the Examiner's rejection. The proffered combination of
Ichitsubo and Hsieh does not require Ichitsubo' s active die to be used in a
flip-chip configuration, rather the combination incorporates the concept of
Hsieh's through-vias to conduct Ichitsubo's RF signals through the die,
while maintaining the chip configuration of Ichitsubo (Ans. 4--5). Further,
the combination of Hsieh with Ichitsubo does not require changing or
removing Ichitsubo' s grounding or heat dissipation vias, rather it
incorporates additional vias to conduct the RF signals between terminals
(Ans. 3-5).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 26, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ichitsubo and Hsieh.
7
Appeal2015-004136
Application 12/101,003
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 26-32, 35--40, and 42-
44 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
8