Ex Parte Hasegawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10284105 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KIYOSHI HASEGAWA
____________

Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hasegawa (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appellant's invention relates to a semiconductor device having a
position reference portion at an outermost edge of the surface facing away a
mounting board. The position reference portion has an optical reflection
Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105

2
factor different from that of the mounting board. See generally Spec. 3:4-9.
Claims 1 and 12 are illustrative of the claimed invention, and they read as
follows:
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:

a first surface facing a mounting board when the semiconductor
device is placed over the mounting board;

a second surface opposed to the first surface; and

a position reference portion which is provided at an outermost edge of
the second surface, the position reference portion having an optical
reflection factor different from an optical reflection factor of the mounting
board so that the outermost edge of the second surface is opto-mechanically
detectable, and opto-mechanically distinguishable from the mounting board.

12. A semiconductor device, comprising:

a semiconductor substrate having a first main surface formed with
circuit elements and a second main surface substantially opposed to the first
main surface; and

a plurality of external terminals formed over the first main surface and
electrically connected to the circuit elements,

wherein the second main surface has a central area, and a peripheral
area including an outermost edge of the second main surface, and wherein an
optical reflection factor of the central area and an optical reflection factor of
the peripheral area including the outermost edge, are different from each
other, so that the outermost edge of the second main surface is opto-
mechanically detectable.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Coico US 6,278,193 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Glenn US 6,441,504 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105

3
Hikita US 6,476,499 B1 Nov. 05, 2002
(filed Feb. 07, 2000)
Dotta US 6,518,090 B2 Feb. 11, 2003
(filed Dec. 04, 2001)
Sakamoto US 6,531,370 B2 Mar. 11, 2003
(filed Aug. 31, 2001)
Higashi US 6,555,925 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
(filed Mar. 02, 2000)

Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Coico in view of Higashi.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Coico in view of Higashi and Glenn.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Coico in view of Higashi and Dotta.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Coico in view of Higashi and Hikita.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Coico in view of Higashi and Sakamoto.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Coico in view of Higashi, Sakamoto, and Glenn.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 30, 2006) and
to Appellant's Brief (filed August 30, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed January
29, 2007) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 1 through 20.

Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105

4
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Ans. 3-4) that Coico's alignment marks 21 near
the corners of the semiconductor chip 12 constitute a position reference
portion with an optical reflection factor different from that of the mounting
board. The Examiner asserts (Ans. 4) that, with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, 10,
12, 15, and 18, Coico discloses everything except the position reference
portion being at the outermost edge of the chip's surface, but that Higashi's
reference portion (alignment marks 33) is at the outermost surface. The
Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to put the alignment marks
at the outermost edge of the semiconductor chip "to accommodate the design
specification to improve the accuracy of the position determination." (Ans.
4).
Appellant contends (Br. 6-7) that there is no disclosure that Coico's
alignment marks have an optical reflection factor different from that of the
substrate nor that the edge of the chip is opto-mechanically detectable.
Further, Appellant contends (Br. 8) that Higashi's alignment marks are not
disclosed as having a reflectance factor different from that of a mounting
board, as Higashi discloses no mounting board. Also, Appellant contends
(Br. 8-9) that Higashi's marks would not make the edge of the chip opto-
mechanically detectable. The first issue, therefore, is whether a combination
of Coico and Higashi would provide alignment marks on the outer periphery
of the semiconductor chip with an optical reflection factor different from
that of the mounting board or the center of the chip.
Coico discloses (col. 3, ll. 23-24) alignment marks 21 may be
indentations, slits, or printed marks. Coico discloses (col. 4, ll. 1-6) that the
marks may be cross hair, bullseye, or other marks formed on the corners of
Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105

5
the chip and may be “sensed optically.” Marks 21 align with corresponding
marks 22 on the mounting substrate. Coico is silent as to an optical
reflection factor of the alignment marks. Although “sensed optically” could
mean by reflection factor, it could also mean by color or shape. Thus, it
would require speculation on our part to conclude that Coico's alignment
marks have a different reflection factor from the mounting board, as recited
in independent claim 1, or from the center of the chip, as recited in
independent claims 12 and 13.
Higashi discloses (col. 4, ll. 27-34) alignment marks 15 formed of
copper formed outside the cutting area between semiconductor chips.
Higashi discloses (col. 4, ll. 35-56) that the marks either overlap the edge of
the chip or do not reach the edge of the chip. Higashi, like Coico, makes no
mention of using different optical reflection factors for the alignment marks
and either the mounting board or the center of the chip, nor of placing the
marks at the outermost edge of the chip for opto-mechanically detecting the
edge of the chip. Accordingly, Higashi fails to cure the deficiencies of
Coico. Thus, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, 7,
10, 12, 15, and 18.
The Examiner adds Glenn, Dotta, Hikita, and/or Sakamoto to the
primary combination for rejecting each of the remaining claims. However,
none of the additional references cures the deficiencies of Coico and
Higashi. Specifically, Glenn uses ink alignment marks 462 that differ in
color from the rest of the surface, but are positioned with respect to a scribe
grid, not at the outermost edge of the semiconductor chip. See column 7,
lines 15-35. Dotta merely discloses an adhesive resin for attaching the
semiconductor chip to a circuit board, with no mention of position or
Appeal 2007-2012
Application 10/284,105

6
alignment marks. Hikita discloses (col. 15, ll. 14-20) a mirror-like surface
for the semiconductor chip and alignment marks 250 on the surface of the
chip to recognize the orientation and arrangement of electrodes. Hikita,
however, does not position the alignment marks at the edge of the substrate
for detecting the edge of the chip. Last, Sakamoto discloses (col. 7, ll. 61-67
and col. 11, ll. 34-38) alignment marks 67 inside frame-like pattern 66 or
integrated with frame 66 used for dicing. However, Sakamoto makes no
mention of optical reflection factors, and the alignment marks have no
relation to the edge of the semiconductor chip. Accordingly, none of Glenn,
Dotta, Hikita, and Sakamoto remedies the shortcomings of Coico and
Higashi. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of claims
2, 3, and 14 over Coico, Higashi, and Glenn, of claim 9 over Coico, Higashi,
and Dotta, of claim 11 over Coico, Higashi, and Hikita, of claims 5, 6, 8, 13,
16, and 17 over Coico, Higashi, and Sakamoto, nor of claims 19 and 20 over
Coico, Higashi, Sakamoto, and Glenn.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED
KIS

RABIN & Berdo, P.C.
1101 14TH STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20005