Ex Parte Hochstenbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12670484 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/670,484 01125/2010
65913 7590 03/30/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hendrik Pieter Hochstenbach
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.
00 8169 us 2991
EXAMINER
INGHAM, JOHN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2819
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENDRIK PIETER HOCHSTENBACH and
WILLEM DIRK VANDRIEL
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,4841
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's final
rejections of 1-22. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
1 Appellants identify NXP Semiconductors as the real party in interest and NXP,
B.V., headquartered in Eindhoven, the Netherlands as assignee of record.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to structures for reinforcing a stack of layers in
a semiconductor component. Claims 1, 6, and 19 are independent. Claims 1, 6, 8,
19 are representative of the subject matter appeal and are reproduced below.
1. A reinforcing structure for reinforcing a stack of layers in
a semiconductor component, the structure comprising:
at least one reinforcing element having at least one integrated
anchor-like part in an interconnect structure of metallization layers
and dielectric layers, the at least one reinforcing element being
configured and arranged to mitigate delamination of the metallization
and dielectric layers.
6. A semiconductor component comprising:
a stack of layers, and
at least one reinforcing structure having at least one integrated
anchor-like part in an interconnect structure of metallization layers
and dielectric layers, the at least one reinforcing element being
configured and arranged to mitigate delamination of the metallization
and dielectric layers.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App.).
8. A semiconductor component as claimed in claim 6, the
stack of layers comprising at least one metal layer and at least one
dielectric layer,
characterized in that at least one metal layer is connected to at
least one dielectric layer by the at least one reinforcing structure.
Id. at 17.
19. A method of manufacturing a reinforcing structure for
reinforcing a stack of layers, wherein at least one reinforcing element
having at least one integrated anchor-like part, for a stack of layers in
a semiconductor component, the method comprising,
providing at least one hole having a first diameter in a first layer
of the stack of layers to prepare a first part of a reinforcing element
the first part being parallel to the first layer; and
2
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
providing at least one hole having a second diameter in the first
or in a second layer of the stack of layers to prepare a second part of a
reinforcing element the second part being integral with the first part
and being about perpendicular to the first layer;
characterized by making the first diameter bigger than the
second.
Id. at 19.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ellis-Monaghan et al. (US 6,495,917 Bl, issued Dec. 17,
2002, "the '917 patent"). Final Act. 2.
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the '917 patent and Matsubara (US 2005/0173806 Al, pub. Aug. 11, 2005).
Final Act. 7.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the '917 patent, ~v1atsubara, and Kurokawa (US 2005/0040531 Al, pub. Feb. 24,
2005). Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the '917 patent discloses:
at least one reinforcing element [or structure] having at least one
integrated anchor-like part in an interconnect structure of
metallization layers and dielectric layers, the at least one
reinforcing element being configured and arranged to mitigate
delamination of the metallization and dielectric layers
as set forth in independent claims 1 and 6?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated when none of the '917 patent's embodiments relied
3
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
upon by the Examiner disclose all of the limitations recited in the claims?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the '91 7 patent discloses a
method of providing holes in the stack of layers as required by claims 19 and 20?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding motivation to combine the cited art to
arrive at the claimed subject matter of claims 9 and 16-18?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the '917 patent discloses a
reinforcing structure capable of mitigating delamination of metallization and
dielectric layers as required by independent claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 4-6. First,
Appellants contend the '917 patent does not disclose a metallization layer as
required by these claims. Id. at 6-7. This argument is not persuasive. The
Examiner found that cap layer 51 as shown in Figure 5 is the claimed metallization
layer. See Final Act. 3. Appellants then assert that because the Specification
describes cap 51 as "between the base 13 and head 11 of the rivet," cap 51 does not
refer to the entire layer between layers 14 but only to that portion between 11 and
13. App. Br. 6. Therefore, Appellants contend, the '917 patent does not disclose a
metal layer. Id. We disagree, as Figure 5 shows that element 51 refers to the
entire layer that extends between dielectric layers 14 as well as portions 11 and 13.
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating
there is no "legal significance whether the disclosure is found in the specification
or in the drawings so long as it is there").
Appellants also contend the '91 7 patent does not discloses a structure that
mitigates delamination of the metallization and dielectric layers as required by
independent claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 4-6, 14-15. Specifically, Appellants assert
4
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
that because the stated purpose of elements 11-13 (the reinforcing structure) of the
'917 patent is to prevent compression, "nothing in the record supports the
Examiner's assertion that the component would be 'capable' of mitigating an
opposite (expansive) delamination." Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 4-6.
Appellants further assert that the Examiner erred in ignoring the limitation directed
to mitigating delamination. App. Br. 14-15.
These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner did not ignore the
limitation, but rather found the structure disclosed by the '917 patent is the same or
substantially the same as the claimed structure and is therefore capable of
functioning as claimed. See Final Act. 2-4, 10; Ans. 2-3.2 Where, as here, the
claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, the PTO can
require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or
inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (stating "the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not
make a claim to that old product patentable"). This policy is grounded in the
PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products. Id.
Other than the argument regarding element 51 set forth above, Appellants do
not present any argument or evidence that the structure shown in Figure 5 does not
have the same structure as that claimed. Nor do Appellants provide any persuasive
argument or evidence that the structure disclosed in the '917 patent is not capable
of functioning as claimed. Appellants argue because the prior art structure is
2 The Answer lacks page numbers. We refer to the Answer as if its pages were
consecutively numbered starting with the first (cover) page.
5
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
designed to mitigate compression or crushing of layers, the prior art structure
cannot mitigate delamination of the layers. See e.g., App. Br. 4-6, 12-14. This
argument is not persuasive as Appellants have not provided a technical reason that
a structure that mitigates compression could not also mitigate delamination.
Indeed, Appellants' Specification states the claimed invention can both prevent
compression and mitigate de lamination. See, e.g., Spec 3:29--4:10 (stating one
advantage of the invention is to make the interconnect structure 108 "harder" to
reduce deformation (i.e., compression) of the stack comprising the soft low-K
dielectric material).
Similarly, Appellants' argument the '917 patent encourages delamination of
layers (App. Br. 5) is not persuasive because Appellants have not directed us to
evidence to support this assertion. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements
that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Examiner found,
and Appellants do not persuasively rebut, that the '917 patent does not encourage
delamination of the layers because delamination of the layers would prevent the
reference structure from operating. Ans. 3. Thus, we disagree the Examiner erred
in finding the '917 patent discloses the reinforcing structure capable of mitigating
delamination of metallization and dielectric layers as required by independent
claims 1 and 6.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and
6, as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 21, and 22, for which
Appellants do not raise arguments for separate patentability.
Issue 2
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by relying upon multiple, disparate
embodiments in rejecting claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
6
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
§ 102(b ). App. Br. 7-11.
We agree with Appellants. For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it
must disclose all of the limitations of the claim, "arranged or combined in the same
way as in the claim." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding invention was not anticipated by a prior art reference that
disclosed all the components of the invention but in separate embodiments).
Unless a reference discloses within the four comers of the document "not only all
of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in
the same way as recited in the claim," it cannot be said to prove prior invention of
the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Id. at 1371.
Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed
invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it
includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to
achieve the claimed invention. Id. However, a reference can anticipate a claim
even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in
the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would "at once
envisage" the claimed arrangement or combination. Blue Calypso, LLC. v.
Groupon Inc.,_ F.3d _, 2016 WL 791107 (Fed. Cir. March 1, 2016) (citing In re
Petering, 301F.2d676, 681(CCPA1962)).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, the semiconductor component of claim 6 wherein
a metal layer is connected to a dielectric layer by the reinforcing structure. As
noted above, the Examiner relies upon Figure 5 as teaching stack of metal ( 51) and
dielectric (14) layers and a reinforcing structure having at least one integrated
anchor like part (11) as recited in claim 6. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 2 (stating
items 11, 12, 13 constitute the integrated anchor-like part). Figure 5 of the '917
7
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
patent is reproduced below.
__ __._ _ f _: -, - .. --:--~~=~~
----...---_.....-\, ........ -,-..--------1.f
\ ' \.12 '-· 13
FIG.S
Figure 5 depicts an embodiment of the '917 patent.
The Examiner does not rely upon Figure 5 as teaching the limitations of
claim 8, instead finding that Figure 6 discloses a stack of layers (items 11, 14)
comprising at least one metal layer (item 11) connected to a dielectric layer (14) by
the at least one reinforcing structure (60). Final Act. 4. Figure 6 of the '917 patent
is reproduced below.
,,.11 ( 61
I I / I ) !
f IG.6
Figure 6 depicts an embodiment of the '917 patent.
However, claim 6, from which claim 8 depends, requires the reinforcing
structure to have an anchor-like part. The Examiner does not explain where Figure
6 discloses an anchor-like part of a reinforcing structure. Nor does the Examiner
explain how item 11 can be both the metallization layer as well as the anchor-like
part of the reinforcing structure that prevents delamination of the metallization
layer. As such, we agree with Appellants that neither Figure 5 nor Figure 6, cited
in the Final Rejection, identify a single embodiment that discloses all of the
8
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
limitations of claim 8.
In the Answer, the Examiner states the claimed reinforcing structure is also
shown in Figures 4-9 and 24-26. See Ans. 3 (stating "the reinforcing structures,
shown in detail in Figs. 4-9 and comprising metal layers (11, 12, 60, 70, 80, 90)
and dielectric layers (14), are used in stacked bond pad supports, such as illustrated
in Fig 24-26 (i.e. item 250 is a reinforcing structure such as those previously
illustrated)"); see also Ans. 3 citing 1 :64-67, 2:3-10 (stating the support structure
can include patterned metal layers), and Fig. 25. However, the claim does not
recite a reinforcing structure comprising metal and dielectric layers. Rather, claim
6 recites a stack of layers and a reinforcing structure. Claim 8 requires the stack of
layers to comprise a metal layer. The Examiner does not clearly distinguish
between which elements constitute the reinforcing structure and which constitute
the metal layer.
The Examiner also states the '917 patent describes "adhesion properties"
that show the reinforcing structure can mitigate delamination. Final Act. 3 (citing
'917 patent, 1 :50, 4: 1, and 8:5-8). However, the Examiner does not precisely
identify, nor is it otherwise apparent, what in these sections of the reference
correspond to the claimed reinforcing structure that mitigates delamination.
The Examiner also states the embodiments of the various figures can be
combined because "each of the embodiments" of the '917 patent "have a direct
bearing to one another as alternative embodiments of support structures, used in a
stacked fashion to form a bond pad support." Ans. 3. We disagree with the
Examiner as the claims do not simply recited support structures (reinforcing
structure/elements) but also require the reinforcing structure/element be configured
to mitigate delamination of metallization layers. Other than Figure 5, the
Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the various embodiments provide for
9
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
a reinforcing structure that mitigates delamination of a metallization layer. Nor has
the Examiner adequately explained how one skilled in the art, reading the '917
patent, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination. As such,
we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 8.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 6 and further requires that at least two of the
reinforcing elements of the reinforcing structures are arranged in a staggered
layout. The Examiner finds Figure 9 discloses reinforcing elements (90) in a
staggered layout as required by claim 12. Figure 9 of the '917 patent is reproduced
below.
(11 (61
~~::_.------~~----.,,,~~~~~-· - ... ..___.,,,.
~~----------------------~· ·-
......... ;:: ..... ...._ -· -----........... 1-o--.................. ----·-., ~-------------·-·-·--·------ .
'-~-----~----·---------~-·-·
FiG.9
Figure 6 depicts an embodiment of the '917 patent.
However, similar to the rejection of claim 8, it is not clear where the cited art
discloses a reinforcing stn1cture having an integrated anchor-like part configured to
mitigate delamination of a metallization layer. Nor has the Examiner sufficiently
explained how one skilled in the art, reading the '917 patent, would at once
envisage the claimed arrangement or combination. As such, we do not sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 12.
Claims 11 and 14
Claim 11 depends from claim 6 and further requires, inter alia, the
reinforcing structure placed below the one edge of a stress buffering element.
10
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
Claim 14 depends from claim 6 and further requires that the density of reinforcing
elements in the stack of layers increases from one region to another. The Examiner
cites to Figure 5 as teaching the limitations of base claim 6 and to Figure 24 as
discloses a reinforcing structure (250) placed below the edge of a stress buffering
element as required by claim 11 as well as the density of reinforcing elements
recited by claim 14. Final Act. 5.
However, Appellants argue, and Examiner does not rebut, that Figure 24
does not disclose any layers, let alone a metallization layer. App. Br. 10. Nor does
the Examiner sufficiently explain how one skilled in the art, reading the '917
patent, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination. As such,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 14.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not demonstrated the '917 patent anticipates claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 and we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of these clams.
Issue 3
Independent method claim 19 recites inter alia,
providing at least one hole having a first diameter in a first layer
of the stack of layers to prepare a first part of a reinforcing element
the first part being parallel to the first layer; and
providing at least one hole having a second diameter in the first
or in a second layer of the stack of layers to prepare a second part of a
reinforcing element the second part being integral with the first part
and being about perpendicular to the first layer;
characterized by making the first diameter bigger than the
second.
The Examiner found the '917 patent discloses providing a hole (Fig 5, the
hole is occupied by item 13) having a first diameter in a first layer (14) of the stack
of layers, and providing at least one hole (occupied by 12) having a second
11
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
diameter in the first or in a second layer of the stack of layers, the second part
being integral with the first part and being substantially perpendicular to the first
layer (14); characterized by making the first diameter (of 13) bigger than the
second (of 12). Final Act. 6.
Appellants assert Figure 5 merely discloses a resulting structure and not how
that structure was manufactured, and thus does not disclose the method of claim
19. App. Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive. The '917 patent discloses using
damascene or other similar etching processes for forming the metal layers into the
dielectric layer. Ans. 4. The Examiner found, and Appellants do not persuasively
rebut, that a damascene process consisting of etching a trench in layers 51 and 14
and then filing the trench with metal would provide the first and second holes as
recited in claim 19. Id.
Appellants further argue that there is no need to prepare holes, because layer
14 is formed after layer 11. App. Br. 11. This argument is also not persuasive as
the Examiner did not find the space occupied by element 11 in the last (upper)
layer 14 to constitute a hole. Rather, the Examiner found the spaces occupied by
element 12 and element 13 in the lower layers to constitute the recited holes. Final
Act. 6.
Finally, Appellants argue that the '917 patent does not disclose "a
reinforcing element extending perpendicular to a first layer as claimed" as it
appears that the each of the alleged elements have a greater width than height.
App. Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive as the shorter side of one structure
can still be perpendicular to another structure.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not convincing of error and we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 19, as well as claim 20, which was not argued
separately.
12
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
Issue 4
Appellants also assert the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 16-18
because Examiner did not provide sufficient motivation to combine the cited art.
With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue the Examiner's stated motivation "to
increase the mechanical strength of low-k dielectric layers" is already achieved by
the primary '917 patent and that the proposed modification involves adding high-k
and low-k layers to the '917 patent, and there is no motivation to make that
combination. App. Br. 12-13. This argument is not persuasive because the
Examiner's reasoning is based on using the reinforcing structure of the '917 patent
in the low-k layers of Matsubara. The Examiner found that Matsubara teaches
low-k dielectric layers having a reinforcing structure c,-i 54, elements 115, 116) that
is similar to the reinforcing structure of the '917 reference. Final Act. 7-8. The
Examiner stated it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the
reinforcing structure of the '917 patent in the low-k dielectric layers of Matsubara
in order to increase the mechanical strength of Matsubara's low-k dielectric layers.
Final Act. 8.
With respect to claim 16, Appellants assert the alleged motivation "to mount
and electrically connect" the cited structure of the '917 patent to a board, such as
that taught in Matsubara, to "decrease the size of the component" does not support
the proposed combination because adding a board to the structure in the '91 7
patent would increase the increase, not decrease the size. Id. at 13. This argument
is not persuasive, as the Examiner also found that each of the claimed elements
was known and combining the prior art elements according to known methods
would yield predictable results. Ans. 5. Appellants do not persuasively challenge
these findings. See Reply Br. 11-12. As such, Appellants have not shown the
13
Appeal2013-002983
Application 12/670,484
Examiner's stated motivation for combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive
at claim 16 is in error.
Claims 17 depends upon claim 16, and is directed to, in general, an audio
circuit comprising the assembly of claim 16 and further comprising an electrical
element that receives and amplifies an audio signal. Claim 18 recites an electronic
device comprising the audio circuit of claim 17.
Appellants assert the alleged motivation "to create a functional circuit ...
with decreased area and power requirements" does not support the proposed
combination to arrive at the invention of claims 17 and 18 because the circuit of
the '917 patent is already functional and adding the audio circuit of Kurokawa
would increase the increase, not decrease its size. App. Br. 14. This argument is
not persuasive because the Examiner's reasoning is based on decreasing the area
and power requirement of the audio circuit taught by Kurokawa, not decreasing the
circuit of the '917 patent.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9
and 16-18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, and 15-22 are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14