Ex Parte Hayata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

14284644 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/284,644 05/22/2014 Kazunori Hayata TI-74501 1053
23494 7590 01/18/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
SUN, YU-HSI DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2895
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUNORI HAYATA,
YOHEI KOTO, and DAN OKAMOTO
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—3 and 5—9. We has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
Independent claim 1 generally illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A semiconductor package assembly comprising:
a substrate having an upper surface with a die
attachment area thereon;
a layer of die attachment material on top of said die
attachment area;
an integrated circuit (“IC”) die having:
a laterally extending top wall surface;
a plurality of generally vertically extending wall
surfaces extending downwardly from said top wall surface;
a metallized bottom portion connected to said
plurality of generally vertically extending wall surfaces, said
metallized bottom portion comprising at least two laterally
extending metallized wall surfaces and at least one
metallized connecting wall surface connecting said at least
two laterally extending metallized wall surfaces to form an
inverted double pedestal shape;
said layer of die attachment material interfacing
with at least one of said at least two laterally extending
metallized wall surface and said at least one metallized
connecting wall surface.
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner maintains the rejection
of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. See Ans. 2 and
cover page of Advisory Action.
2
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
Appellant1 does not dispute this rejection. See generally Appeal Brief
and Reply Brief. We also find no indication in the prosecution record that
this rejection was withdrawn by the Examiner. Given the Examiner’s
statement in the Answer that every ground of rejection set forth in the Office
action dated January 21, 2016 from which the appeal is taken is being
maintained (Ans. 2), we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) (Rejection I).2
Appellant (see generally Appeal Brief) requests review of the
Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA),
as represented by Figure 1 of the instant application and paragraph 16 of the
Specification, and Goh (US 2014/0291812 Al, published October 2, 2014).
App. Br. 4; Final Act. 3.3
With respect to the prior art rejection, Appellant presents separate
arguments for all claims on appeal. See generally App. Br. We note,
however, that Appellant repeats arguments presented when discussing
independent claim 1 in addressing the subject matter of independent claim 6.
1 Texas Instruments Incorporated is the Applicant. Texas Instruments
Incorporated is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Mar.
2014, Rev. November 2015) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
[Ejxaminer is not addressed in the [Ajppellanf s brief, [Ajppellant has
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the [Ejxaminer subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the [Ejxaminer’s [Ajnswer.”). See also 37 C.F.R. 41.39(a)(1).
3 The statement of rejection in the Final Action includes claim 4 as one of
the rejected claims. Final Act. 3. Appellant indicates that claim 4 has been
cancelled. App. Br. 2. Accordingly, claim 4 is not before us for review on
appeal. See also Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
Cf. App. Br. 8—9 with App. Br. 12—13. Further, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for claims 1 and 6 to address the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, and 7—9. App. Br. 10-11, 13—15. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before us for
review on appeal. Claims 2, 3, and 6—9 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments for claim 5 will be addressed separately.
OPINION
Prior Art Rejection
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—3 and
5—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant addresses a problem of poor adhesion between the
metallized bottom surface of an integrated circuit (IC) die and a substrate.
Spec. 115 and Application Figure 1. Appellant solves this problem by
shaping the metallized bottom surface of the IC die to, in effect, increase the
surface contact area for improved adhesion between the IC die, the adhesive
and the substrate. Cf. Application Figures 1 (metallized flat bottom surface
14) and 6 (metallized bottom surfaces 62, 64, 66); see also Spec. H 15, 22,
23. Thus, the subject matter of independent claim 1 is directed to a
semiconductor package comprising an integrated circuit die where the
bottom surface of the integrated circuit die is metallized and shaped.
The Examiner finds that the prior art embodiment of Figure 1
(hereinafter Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art or AAPA) teaches a
4
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
semiconductor package that differs from the claimed invention in that the
prior art IC die does not have the claimed shaped metallized bottom. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Goh, who also deals with the problem of IC
die delamination from substrates, to establish as known in the art to shape
the bottom surface of an IC die by providing it with a recess such that an
adhesive material can fill the recess to improve adhesion between the IC die
and the substrate. Final Act. 4; Goh || 4, 24, 25 and Figure 3. The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the IC die of the AAPA to incorporate a recess for the
reasons taught by Goh. Final Act. 4.
Appellant does not contest that AAPA discloses a semiconductor
package comprising an integrated circuit die having a metallized bottom
surface attached to a surface of a substrate. See generally App. Br. Instead,
with respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would not
arrive at the claimed IC die having a shaped metallized bottom surface from
the combined teachings of the prior art absent impermissible hindsight. Id.
at 6—8. According to Appellant, applying the shape taught by Goh to the
metallized bottom surface of the AAPA’s IC die does not yield the claimed
IC die because Goh does not teach or suggest anything about metallization
or a metallized layer and neither Goh nor the AAPA teaches metallizing a
grove before dicing the die. Id. Thus, Appellant argues the combined
teachings of the cited art would yield an IC die having only the two laterally
extending wall surfaces (Application Figure 6, walls 62, 66) metallized and
not the wall (Application Figure 6, wall 64) connecting the two laterally
extending metallized walls. App. Br. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons given by the
Examiner. As shown by the AAPA (Application Figure 1), it is known to
cover the entire bottom surface of an IC die with a metallized coating prior
bonding to a substrate. Spec. 116. In view of this, and as noted by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected to
cover the entire bottom surface of an IC die with a metallized coating
regardless of the shape applied to the bottom surface. While Appellant
asserts that the combined teachings of the cited art would leave portions of
the bottom surface without a metallized coating (App. Br. 6—8), Appellant
has not provided an adequate explanation or directed us to any objective
evidence in support of this assertion. Appellant has not adequately
explained why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity,
would not have been capable of providing a metallized coating over the
entire shaped bottom surface of the IC die resulting from the combined
teachings of the cited art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.”); see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art).
With respect to claim 5, Appellant argues the cited art does not teach a
bottom shape having an inverted double pedestal shape with identically
shaped front, back and opposite side portions. App. Br. 11.
We find this argument unavailing for the reasons presented by the
Examiner. Final Act. 5. As noted by the Examiner, Appellant has proffered
no objective evidence of the criticality of a bottom surface of an IC die
having the claimed shape. Id.
6
Appeal 2017-004751
Application 14/284,644
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—9 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
7