Ex Parte Goh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 3, 2009

10881490 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUN SONG GOH and MOHD ERWAN BASIRON
____________

Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 3, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and KEVIN F.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ disclosure relates to integrated circuit packaging and
efforts to reduce the use of lead-based materials (Spec. ¶¶ [0001], [0003]).
The instant claims are directed to methods of forming contacts for circuits.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

2

1. A method comprising:

forming a first seed layer on a contact pad in a contact opening
of a circuit, the first seed layer confined to an area of the
contact pad and having a property to facilitate an
electrodeposition of a metal layer thereto; and

electrodepositing a second metal layer on the contact pad,
wherein the second metal layer protrudes from the contact
opening and has a width dimension greater than a width
dimension of the pad,

wherein the contact opening defines the width dimension of the
area of the contact pad.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Chow US 6,501,185 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
Hsieh US 7,098,126 B1 Aug. 29, 2006

Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chow and Hsieh.

ISSUE
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because,
while Hseih discloses a barrier layer 315, that barrier layer is not disclosed
to facilitate electrodeposition of a metal layer thereto and that the seed layer
in Hseih is not confined to an area of the contact pad, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 6-7). The Examiner finds that the
barrier layer in Hseih is composed of tin and may facilitate
Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

3
electrodeposition, and that Fig. 3A of Hseih clearly shows the seed layer
confined to an area of the contact pad (Ans. 6).
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Thus, the sole issue arising from the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner is:
Have Appellants shown reversible error in that Chow and Hseih fail to
teach or suggest a first seed layer or a first layer “confined to an area of the
contact pad” and “having a property to facilitate an electrodeposition of a
metal layer thereto” as recited in the independent claims?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The instant Specification details processes of forming contacts on a
die (110) having contact pads (210) in a passivation layer (220). A seed
layer (230) is deposited on the contact pads, and thereafter under bump
metal layer (240) and an adhesion layer (250) are also deposited.
Subsequently, solder material is deposited onto the adhesion layer (spec. ¶¶
[0016]-[0019]; Figs. 3-5).
2. Chow discloses processes for forming solder bumps on a
semiconductor wafer (2) having an under bump metal layer. An
adhesion/barrier/electroplating buss layer (8) is deposited over the
passivating layer (6) and the exposed areas over the bond pads (4). After
application of a photoresist (10) and patterning thereof, an under bump metal
(UMB) layer (12) is deposited on the metal layer (8). The UMB layer
Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

4
protrudes from the contact opening and has a width greater than the contact
opening (Col. 4, l. 2 – col. 6, l. 59; Figs 1(a) – 1(j)).
3. Hseih discloses a method of fabricating electroplate solder on an
organic circuit board. The method includes the deposition of a barrier layer
(315) to a contact pad (310), where Figure 3A illustrates is deposition being
confined to the contact pad area only (Col. 4, ll. 8-20).
4. Hseih also discloses that the “barrier layer 315 may also be made
of nickel, palladium, silver, tin, nickel/palladium, chromium/titanium,
palladium/gold, or nickel/palladium/gold, etc., which can be made by
electoplating, electroless plating, or physical vapor deposition, etc.” (Col. 4,
ll. 20-24).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . .
. . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the specification states the meaning that a term
in the claim is intended to have, the claim is examined using that meaning,
Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

5
in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's invention and its
relation to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because,
while Hseih discloses a barrier layer 315, that barrier layer is not disclosed
to facilitate electrodeposition of a metal layer thereto, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 6). The Examiner finds that the
barrier layer in Hseih is composed of tin and may facilitate
electrdodeposition (Ans. 6). Appellants counter that the use of a subsequent
seed layer in Hseih suggests that the barrier layer would not have been
viewed as facilitating electrodeposition of a metal thereto (Reply Br. 1-2).
We agree with the Examiner.
The barrier layer in Hseih is disclosed to be formed from several
materials (FF 4), where at least one composition may facilitate the
electrodepositon of a metal thereto. While Appellants suggest that the use of
a subsequent seed layer would negate this teaching, we find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the compositions and
functionalities of the disclosed barrier layer. Hseih need not teach what one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood. Since claims 1 and 7
only require that the layer has “a property to facilitate an electrodeposition
of a metal layer thereto,” we find that the barrier layer disclosed in Hseih
meets that limitation. As such, we do not find Appellants’ argument to be
compelling.
We also note that while Appellants argue that “[t]he Patent Office also
appears to be saying that even if the barrier layer 315 did not have a property
Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

6
to facilitate an electrodeposition of a metal layer thereto” (Reply Br. 2), we
can find no record of such a position. As discussed above, the Examiner has
taken the opposite position.
Appellants also argue that the seed layer of Hseih is not confined to an
area of the contact pad, as recited in independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 6-
7). Appellants acknowledge that Fig. 3A of Hseih shows the barrier layer
confined to an area of the contact pad (Reply Br. 2), as the Examiner also
points out (Ans. 6, FF 3). Given that the Examiner is relying on the barrier
layer in the rejection, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the seed layer
are unavailing.
Nonetheless, Appellants argue that in Hseih, the confinement of the
barrier layer to the contact pad occurs because a solder mask is subsequently
applied, whereas in Chow, the metal layer is formed on top of the
passivating layer. Thus, Appellants argue that there would be no need to
confine the UBM layer to an area of the contact pad in Chow (Reply Br. 2).
However, Appellants ignore the Examiner’s rationale for combining Chow
and Hseih, namely “to reduce the thickness of the bump structure” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner’s rationale supplies a reason for confining the UBM layer to
an area of the contact pad in Chow, where Appellants have failed to counter
such motivation, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 6). As such we do not find
Appellants’ argument to be compelling and Appellants have not shown
reversible error in the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11 as being obvious
over Chow and Hseih.

Appeal 2009-001504
Application 10/881,490

7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11 as
being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chow and Hsieh is affirmed.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11 before us on
appeal is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ack

cc:

INTEL/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040