Ex Parte Fogal et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2004

09422887 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte RICH FOGAL and MICHAEL B. BALL

Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887

ON BRIEF

Before KIMLIN, TIMM and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 7-17,
all the claims remaining in the present application. Claims 7
and 9 are illustrative:
7. A method of stacking a plurality of die, comprising
mounting an upper die on a lower die; and
defining a minimum angular offset with said mounting,
wherein said minimum angular offset allows access to a
bonding site on said lower die.
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
-2-
9. A method of manufacturing a multichip module including dies,
comprising:
stacking all of said dies in a manner such that
corresponding portions of any two of said dies define
respective axes, and wherein said axes define an offset
angle;
bonding wire to said dies; and
ensuring that said step of stacking all of said dies occurs
with no intervening bonding step.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies
upon the following reference:
de Givry 0,489,643 June 10, 1992
(European Patent Application)
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of
stacking a plurality of die of a semiconductor device. The
method entails defining a minimum angular offset for an upper die
mounted on a lower die which allows access to a bonding site on
the lower die. According to appellants, "[a] minimum angle is
especially preferable if it is desired to stack the maximum
number of dies while still ensuring clearance for the wire bonds
leading to each die" (page 2 of principal brief, first
paragraph).
Appealed claims 7-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by de Givry.
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
1 Page 5 of Reply Brief, third paragraph.
-3-
In accordance with the arguments set forth in appellants'
brief, the following groups of claims stand or fall together:
(I) claims 7 and 8; (II) claims 9-11; (III) claim 12; (IV) claims
13-16; and (V) claim 17.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter is described by
de Givry within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
de Givry, like appellants, discloses a method of stacking a
plurality of die wherein an upper die is mounted on a lower die
at an angular offset (see Figure 3 of de Givry). A principal
argument advanced by appellants is that the claimed term
"'minimum' connotes an absolute smallest value" that allows for
access to a bonding site on the lower die.1 According to
appellants, de Givry discloses the maximum, not minimum, angles
at which the upper and lower die are offset in order to ensure
adequate space for accommodating an auxiliary component on the
lower die. However, we concur with the examiner that appellants'
argument is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
-4-
claims on appeal. The claim 7 language "defining a minimum
angular offset" does not require any particular angle, let alone
an angle that only barely allows for access to a bonding site.
Rather, the claim language encompasses an angle that allows for
such access as well as for the placement of an auxiliary
component in keeping with the disclosure of de Givry.
Significantly, the appealed claims do not recite that the minimum
angle defined is not great enough for the placement of auxiliary
components.
Appealed claim 9 does not define such a minimum angular
offset but calls for stacking all the dies of a multichip module
with no intervening bonding step, which appellants and the
examiner interpret as stacking all the dies before any bonding of
wire to the dies. Here, we also agree with the examiner that
Figure 3 of de Givry is described in the reference disclosure as
being formed by first stacking the die and then "cabling" or
bonding wire to the dies. It is appellants' position that
reading de Givry in context, as a whole, "suggests that attaching
a set of four chips and then cabling will be followed by de Givry
stacking an additional set thereon and performing additional
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
2 Sentence bridging pages 8 and 9 of principal brief.
3 Page 9 of Answer, second paragraph.
-5-
cabling."2 Hence, appellants maintain that such a stacking of an
additional set of die would not result in de Givry stacking all
the die before bonding wire to the die. It is our view, however,
that although one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the
embodiment of de Givry's Figure 3 as allowing for the stacking of
additional die after the first set of four is bonded with wire,
one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that an
additional stacking of die is not necessary, i.e., a
semiconductor device comprising a multichip module comprising
only a set of four chips depicted in Figure 3 is also described
by de Givry. We agree with the examiner's reasoning that
"[s]ince de Givry never teaches a stack that comprises more than
four chips, it can also be said that the de Givry reference
suggests that no additional chip will be stacked on the set of
four chips shown in Fig. 3."3 In addition, we find that the term
"comprising" of claim 9 opens the claim to additional stacking of
die after all the die of one module are bonded.
As for separately argued claim 12, we find no substantive
distinction between the claimed steps of "marginally clearing a
line of sight" and "clearing a line of sight" and the angular
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
-6-
rotation of the reference die which also clears a line of sight
to underlying die.
The arguments presented by appellants for claims 13-16 and
17 are essentially the same as those discussed above. Also, we
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret Figure 3 of de Givry, which depicts no auxiliary
components, as possessing a minimum bond pad clearance. Also,
appellants have not established that the relative terminology
"minimum bond pad clearance" within the scope of claim 13 does
not allow for the accommodation of auxiliary components of the
same minimum dimension. Furthermore, appealed claim 13 does not
preclude the presence of auxiliary components and embraces within
its scope a minimum bond pad clearance that takes into account
the dimensions of the auxiliary components. Significantly,
claim 13 fails to specify any particular dimension for the
clearance.
Concerning claim 17, appellants have not explained how the
orientation of de Givry's Figure 3 embodiment does not define
less than the maximum underlying bond pad clearance. We find
that the die of reference Figure 3 could be reoriented to provide
greater clearance in some areas. Again, the relative terminology
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
-7-
used by appellants fails to provide a substantive distinction
from the multidie devices fairly described by de Givry.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
Appeal No. 2003-2104
Application No. 09/422,887
-8-
Charles Brantley
Micron Technology Inc.
8000 S. Federal Way
Mail Stop 525
Boise, ID 83716