Ex Parte Gorczyca et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

12715450 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/715,450 03/02/2010
62204 7590 09/19/2018
GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION
GE LICENSING (62204)
901 MAIN A VENUE
NORWALK, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Bert Gorczyca
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.
241179-1 (GEL8083.044) 8786
EXAMINER
JONES, ERIC W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS BERT GORCZYCA,
RICHARD JOSEPH SAIA, and PAUL ALAN McCONNELEE
Appeal2017-011324
Application 12/715,450 1
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4--7, 9, 14--17, and 21-23. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to chip packages having
vias formed through dielectric and adhesive layers with the vias having
stress-resistant metal interconnects formed therein having an increased
thickness. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below with emphases
added to certain key recitations and formatting added for readability, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A chip package comprising:
an electronic chip having a plurality of die pads formed on
a top surface thereof;
a polyimide flex layer positioned on the electronic chip,
the polyimide flex layer having a plurality of vias formed therein
such that each of the plurality of vias corresponds to a respective
die pad;
an adhesive layer deposited between the electronic chip
and the polyimide flex layer; and
a plurality of metal interconnects formed on the polyimide
flex layer, each of the plurality of metal interconnects
compnsmg:
a cover pad covering a portion of a top surface of the
polyimide flex layer;
a sidewall extending down from the cover pad and through
the via along a perimeter thereof; and
a base connected to the sidewall and forming an electrical
connection with a respective die pad, with a void being formed
directly above the base and within the via that is free of a metallic
material;
wherein a thickness of each of the base and the sidewall is
equal to or greater than a thickness of the adhesive layer; and
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated October 4, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated July 6, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
September 5, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
wherein a thickness of the cover pad is greater than the
thickness of the base and the sidewall.
9. A method of forming a chip package comprising:
providing a silicon wafer having an integrated circuit
(IC) thereon and a plurality of die pads formed on a top surface
thereof;
applying an adhesive layer to the top surface of the
silicon wafer;
adhering the silicon wafer to a free-standing polyimide
flex layer by way of the adhesive layer;
forming a plurality of vias through the free-standing
polyimide flex layer and the adhesive layer, each of the
plurality of vias extending to a respective one of the plurality of
die pads; and
forming a plurality of metal interconnects on the free-
standing polyimide flex layer such that each of the plurality of
metal interconnects extends through a respective via to
electrically connect to a respective die pad, wherein forming the
plurality of metal interconnects comprises:
determining a desired metal interconnect thickness
based on a thickness of the adhesive layer;
depositing a metal material on the free-standing
polyimide flex layer and in the plurality of vias having the
desired metal interconnect thickness; and
patterning and etching the metal material to form the
plurality of metal interconnects having the desired metal
interconnect thickness;
wherein upon patterning and etching the metal material
to form the plurality of metal interconnects, a void remains
within each of the plurality of vias that is free of a metallic
material; and
wherein depositing, patterning, and etching each of the
plurality of metal interconnects comprises:
forming a cover pad covering a portion of a top surface
of the free-standing polyimide flex layer;
forming a sidewall extending down from the cover pad
and through a respective via along a perimeter thereof; and
3
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
forming a base connected to the sidewall and forming an
electrical connection with a respective die pad;
wherein the sidewall and the base are formed to have the
determined desired metal interconnect thickness, with the
sidewall and the base having an identical thickness that is equal
to or greater than a thickness of the adhesive layer; and
wherein forming the cover pad comprises forming a
cover pad having a thickness greater than the thickness of the
sidewall and base.
Appeal Br. 21-23 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Eichelberger et al. us 4,783,695 Nov. 8, 1988
("Eichelberger")
Saia et al. US 6,323,096 Bl Nov. 27, 2001
("Saia")
Robison et al. US 2004/0188239 Al Sept. 30, 2004
("Robison")
Zhang et al. US 2004/0211661 Al Oct. 28, 2004
("Zhang")
Itabashi et al. US 2005/0042366 Al Feb.24,2005
("Itabashi")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Robison. Final Act. 3.
Rejection 2. Claims 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Zhang. Id. at 5.
4
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
Rejection 3. Claims 17 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Saia, Robison, and Itabashi. Id. at
10.
Rejection 4. Claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eichelberger and Robinson further in view of Saia. Id. at
15.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t
has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error except where otherwise
explained below. Thus, where we affirm the Examiner's rejections, we do
so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1 and Rejection 4, claim 6. The Examiner rejects claims 1,
4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger in
view of Robison. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also rejects claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger and Robinson further
in view of Saia. Id. at 15. Appellants do not separately argue claims 4, 5, 6,
or 7. We therefore limit our discussion to claim 1. Consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), claims 4--7 stand or fall
with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
The Examiner finds that Eichelberger teaches most of the recitations
of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Eichelberger). The Examiner finds that
Eichelberger fails to disclose "wherein the thickness of the cover bad is
greater than a thickness of the base and the sidewall." Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds, however, that Robison teaches thickness of a cover pad
greater than thickness of a sidewall and relies on Robison Figure 2 and
paragraphs 48--49 for support. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to combine this teaching of Robison with the
teachings of Eichelberger "in order to form void-free continuous conductive
interconnect structures without excessive overhang along the top, side, and
bottom surfaces within openings with profiles of varying widths (Robison et
al.; ,r [0048])." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Robison does not teach thickness of the cover
pad greater than thickness of base and sidewall. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
emphasize Robison's teaching that, during the deposition process, metal at
the bottom becomes thicker than at the sidewalls. Id. (citing Robison ,r 48);
see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue that the Examiner improperly
relies on drawings as the basis for the rejection. Appeal Br. 7-10; Reply Br.
6-7.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Robison's
Figure 2 indicates that the top portion of metal film 10 is considerably
thicker than the base and sidewall. Ans. 4. Moreover, the thick metal
film 10 depicted in Robison Figures 1 and 2 is substantially the same
structure as "cover pad 31" depicted by, for example, Figure 4 of the
Specification. Appellants do not persuasively explain why the structures are
different.
6
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
Our reviewing court has stated, "it is well established that patent
drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not
be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent
on the issue." Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'!, Inc., 222 F.3d
951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The present situation is distinguishable because
the Examiner does not rely on precise proportions of Figure 2. Rather, the
Examiner is only relying on Figure 2 generally teaching that the top cover
pad is thicker than the base and sidewall.
Moreover, the Specification here is not "completely silent on the
issue." Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. The Examiner properly
makes use of Robison Figure 2 because the Examiner's position is supported
by Robison's specification in addition to the figure. In particular, Robison
states "[a]s metal ions 18 are deposited onto the wafer 12, the metal
deposition has a propensity to become thicker at the entrance causing an
overhang structure 14." Robison ,r 48. While Robison goes on to explain
how its process will re-sputter metal deposition 10 from the overhang
structure (Robison ,r 49), this subsequent processing does not affect
Robison's teaching that the upper portion (i.e., equivalent to the cover pad)
is thicker at an earlier stage of processing. Claim 1 does not specify that the
claimed product cannot undergo further processing. In sum, the combined
teachings of Robison Figure 2 along with Robison's text would have
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that, at least during some
point during production of the Robison product, the upper metal film 10 is
thicker than the base and sidewall.
Because Appellants' argument does not identify reversible error, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4--7.
7
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
Rejection 2 and Rejection 4, claim 16. The Examiner rejects claims 9,
14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger in
view of Zhang. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also rejects claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger and Robinson further
in view of Saia. Id. at 15. The Examiner finds that Eichelberger teaches
most of the recited steps of claim 9 including "determining a desired metal
interconnect thickness based on a thickness of the adhesive layer." Id. at 6
(citing Eichelberger 10:33--42).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error because
Eichelberger does not teach "determining a desired metal interconnect
thickness based on a thickness of the adhesive layer and forming the
sidewall and base to have the determined metal interconnect thickness."
Appeal Br. 12. We agree that, on the present record, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why this recitation would have been obvious to a
person have ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the portion of Eichelberger
cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6, Ans. 7-8) merely states the thickness of
the metal interconnect and the thickness of the adhesive layer. Claim 9,
however, is a method claim. The method requires that a particular
determination be made. The portion of Eichelberger cited by the Examiner
simply does not address how the thickness of the metal interconnect is
determined or whether the determination has any relationship to the
thickness of the adhesive layer. Moreover, the Examiner's position that, for
example, the thickness teachings of the art would not make a difference in
overall structure (Final Act. 18) are inapposite to whether the art teaches the
particular method recited by claim 9 including the recited determination.
8
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner does not find that the
additionally applied references teach or suggest this recitation. Final
Act. 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9
and claims 14--16, which depend from claim 9.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 21-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Saia,
Robison, and Itabashi. Final Act. 10. Appellants do not separately argue
claim 21. Appeal Br. 15-17. Consistent with the provisions of 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), claim 21 stands or falls with claim 17.
Independent claim 1 7 is similar to claim 1 in reciting "thickness of the
cover pad is greater than the thickness of the base and the sidewall." Appeal
Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appellants again argue that the cited art including
Eichelberger does not teach this recitation. Appeal Br. 15-17. This
argument is unpersuasive for the reasons explained above.
Appellants argue claims 22 and 23 separately from claim 1 7 but not
separately from each other. Appeal Br. 17-19. Consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), claim 23 stands or falls
with claim 22.
Claim 22 recites, "[t]he chip package of claim 17 wherein the
thickness of the base is equal to the thickness of the sidewall." Appeal
Br. 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Eichelberger and Itabashi
each disclose this recitation. Final Act. 14--15.
Appellants disagree with this finding and argue, with respect to
Itabashi, that Itabashi states that the inner sidewall surfaces "often become[]
substantially greater in value than the thickness 'b' of copper layer as plated
on the bottom face thereof." Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 14--15. Itabashi,
9
Appeal 2017-011324
Application 12/715,450
however, also teaches in the Summary of the Invention a method "enabling
fabrication of a continuous copper layer with an almost uniform thickness on
or over sidewall and bottom surfaces .... " Itabashi ,r 19. Reading Itabashi
as a whole, we agree with the Examiner that it would have provided a person
of skill in the art reason to reach "uniform thickness on or over sidewall and
bottom surfaces" even if specific embodiments of Itabashi did not meet this
goal precisely. Ans. 13-14. Accordingly, Appellants' argument does not
identify reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 22 and 23.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of (1)
claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Eichelberger in view of Robison, (2) claims 17 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Saia, Robison, and
Itabashi, and (3) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Eichelberger and Robinson further in view of Saia.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of (I) claims 9, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger in view of Zhang and
(2) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eichelberger and
Robinson further in view of Saia.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10