Ex Parte Kapusta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13327333 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/327,333 12/15/2011 Christopher James Kapusta
62204 7590 07/28/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING)
ATTN: Brandon, 59W - 105U
1 RIVER ROAD
SCHENECTADY, NY 12345
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.
235401-3 (GEL8083.137) 7047
EXAMINER
HALL, VICTORIA KATHLEEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
vivian.brandon@ge.com
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JAMES KAPUST A,
GLENN FORMAN and JAMES SABATINI
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21, 23-29, 31-35 and 37--42. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method for fabricating an integrated circuit or
a multi-chip package. Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A method for fabricating an integrated circuit (IC)
package comprising:
providing an uncured first dielectric layer having a
non-conductive flexible liner coupled thereto, the uncured first
dielectric layer having a thickness defined between a first
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
contact side and a second contact side, the first contact side
having a contact portion and a noncontact portion, the second
contact side coupled to the non-conductive flexible liner;
attaching an active surface of a component to the contact
portion of the first contact side of the uncured first dielectric
layer using an adhesive property of the uncured first dielectric
layer, the adhesive property substantially uniform throughout
the thickness of the uncured first dielectric layer;
curing the uncured first dielectric layer to form a cured
first dielectric layer;
forming a first via through the thickness of the cured first
dielectric layer, the first via extending from the second contact
side of the cured first dielectric layer to the active surface of the
component;
forming a metallization layer on the second contact side
of the cured first dielectric layer, the metallization layer
comprising at least one metallized path extending from the
second contact side of the cured first dielectric layer through the
via to the active surface of the component; and
removing the non-conductive flexible liner of the cured
first dielectric layer to expose the second contact side of the
cured first dielectric layer prior to forming the first via.
Fillion
Haji
Ono
Davison
Hsu
Kurita
Foong
The References
us 5,353,498
US 6,350,664 Bl
US 2004/0115868 Al
US 2005/0116387 Al
US 2006/0049530 Al
US 2008/0079164 Al
US 2009/0001599 Al
The Rejections
Oct. 11, 1994
Feb.26,2002
June 17, 2004
June 2, 2005
Mar. 9, 2006
Apr. 3, 2008
Jan. 1, 2009
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 21
and 26-28 over Hsu in view of Ono and Haji, claim 23 over Hsu in view of
Ono, Haji, Fillion and Kurita, claim 24 over Hsu in view of Ono, Haji and
2
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
Davidson, claim 25 over Hsu in view of Ono, Haji and Foong, claims 29, 31,
32, 41 and 42 over Haji in view of Ono, claim 33 over Haji in view of Ono,
Fillion and Kurita, claim 34 over Haji in view of Ono and Fillion, claims 35
and 38--40 over Haji in view of Chen, Ono and Fillion, and claim 37 over
Haji in view of Chen, Ono, Fillion and Kurita. 1
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellants argue the claims in the following groups: 1) claims 21
and 23-28, 2) claims 29, 31, 32 and 34, 3) claims 33 and 37, and
4) claims 35 and 38--42 (App. Br. 4--30). We therefore limit our discussion
to one claim in each group, i.e., claims 21, 29, 33 and 35. The other claims
in each group stand or fall with the claim we address. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Claim 21
Hsu embeds a semiconductor chip ( 41) in an opening ( 420) in a
support plate ( 42) by mounting the semiconductor chip ( 41 )' s active surface
on a glass fiber-reinforced prepreg dielectric layer ( 40) having on its
opposite side an isolation layer ( 44) such as a film, and pressing the
semiconductor chip ( 41) into the opening ( 420) such that the dielectric
layer ( 40) fills the gap ( 421) between the semiconductor chip ( 41) and the
opening (420), and then removes the isolation layer (44) (i-fi-f 32-36;
Figs. 4A--4D). In another embodiment Hsu forms dielectric layer (30)
openings (300) which expose electrode pads (311) on a semiconductor
chip (31) embedded in a support plate (32), and then forms a conductive
1 A rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement is withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 4).
3
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
layer (51) on the dielectric layer (30)'s surface and in the openings (300)
(i-fi-f 40-41; Figs. 5A-5B).
Ono presses against a silicon wafer (10) having sprout-shaped
bumps (16) thereon an adhesive resin sheet (18) comprising a moderate
gel-state thermoplastic or thermosetting resin-sealing layer (22) on a
supporting film (20) such that the sprout-shaped bumps (16) penetrate into
the adhesive resin sheet (18) (iTiT 51-55; Figs. 2A-2D). "After the resin-
sealing layer 22 of the laminated adhesive resin sheet 18 is sufficiently
solidified, the film-like support element 20 is peeled and removed from the
resin-sealing layer 22 such that the resin-sealing layer 22 is left on the
surface of the silicon wafer 10 on which the sprout-shaped metal bumps 16
are arranged" (iT 58; Fig. 2E).
Haji forms electrodes (2) on a semiconductor wafer (1 ), applies over
the electrodes (2) a resin layer (3) which can be a B-stage epoxy resin sheet,
forms blind holes (4) through the resin layer (3) to expose the electrodes (2),
fills the blind holes (4) with solder paste (5), and mounts solder balls (6) on
the solder paste (5) (col. 2, 11. 57-59; col. 3, 11. 18-26; col. 4, 11. 15-19, 25-
28; Figs. l(a}-(c), 2(a}-(c)).
The Appellants acknowledge that Hsu and Haji attach a dielectric
layer to a semiconductor wafer, curing the dielectric, forming vias in the
dielectric layer, and form a metal layer on the dielectric layer and through
the vias (App. Br. 9). The Appellants argue that the applied references
would not have suggested removing Hsu's isolation layer (44) (which
corresponds to the Appellants' non-conductive flexible liner) after the
dielectric layer ( 40) has been cured but before applying a metallization layer
4
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
because Ono's sprout-shaped bumps (16) are present before the resin-sealing
layer (22) is cured (App. Br. 10-14).
Ono does not indicate that the metal bumps (16) affect the curing of
the resin-sealing layer (22) (i-f 58). Hsu's isolation layer (44) must be
removed either before or after the dielectric layer ( 40) is cured. In view of
Ono's disclosures that the resin-sealing layer (22) broadly can be a
thermoplastic or thermosetting resin and that the film-like support
element (20) is removable after the resin-sealing layer (22) has been
cured (i-f 58), one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary
creativity, would have removed Hsu's isolation layer (44) after the dielectric
layer (40) has been cured. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one "can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ"). See also In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903---04 (Fed. Cir.
1988) ("Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ....
For obviousness under§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation
of success.").
Claim 29
The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have used Ono's film-like support element (20) in Haji's method because
Haji "expressly teaches that such use of such sheets increases the probability
of damage to the semiconductor package and cause[s] waste treatment
problems. Haji, col. 4, 11. 52-60)" (App. Br. 18).
That portion of Haji discloses:
The process to remove the protective sheets after the
[semiconductor wafer] thinning process required in the
conventional methods is no longer necessary, therefore, the
5
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
semiconductor wafer 1 is free of damage caused by the external
force placed upon [it] during the removal of the protective sheet
as well as during cutting. Therefore, a semiconductor device
with superior reliability can be achieved. Further, since the
consumable protective sheets are not used, problems of waste
treatment caused by disposal of protective sheets after use do
not exist.
The protective sheet referred to by Haji is used to strengthen a
semiconductor wafer while it is thinned (col. 1, 11. 24--42), not to support a
dielectric layer. Ono's disclosure of supporting a dielectric layer
(resin-sealing layer 22) by a film-like support element (20) until after the
dielectric layer has been cured (i-f 58) would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to likewise achieve the
benefit of supporting Haji's dielectric layer (resin layer 3) with a film-like
layer until after the dielectric layer has been cured.
Claim 33
Claim 33, \vhich depends from claim 29, requires "encapsulating the
first die in an embedding compound; and curing the embedding compound."
Fillion discloses a chip (14) in a cured substrate molding material (24)
(col. 6, 11. 43-51; col. 8, 11. 25-30; Fig. l(d)).
Kurita discloses integrated circuit chips (32, 36) covered with an
encapsulating resin (52) (i-f 71; Fig. 1).
The Appellants assert that in view of Haji's background of the
invention disclosure that "[ s ]pecial focus has been put on the effort to make
semiconductor elements as thin as possible" (col. 1, 11. 19-21 ), one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have made Haji's semiconductor device
thicker by encapsulating the semiconductor wafer ( 1) in an embedding
compound (App. Br. 29).
6
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
That disclosure by Haji applies to semiconductor elements generally.
Thus, if the Appellants' assertion were correct, one of ordinary skill in the
art never would encapsulate a die in an embedding compound. However, as
acknowledged by the Appellants, "[ c ]hip scale packages or integrated
circuit (IC) packages are typically fabricated having a number of dies or
chips encapsulated within an embedding compound" (Spec. i-f 3). One of
ordinary skill in the art, therefore, through no more than ordinary creativity,
would have encapsulated Haji's semiconductor die (1) to obtain the benefits
of the encapsulation which is typical in the art.
The Appellants assert that encapsulating Haji's semiconductor
wafer ( 1) in an embedding compound is unnecessary because the
semiconductor wafer (1 ), while being thinned, is adequately reinforced by
the resin layer (3) (App. Br. 29).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have encapsulated Haji's
semiconductor die (1) as is typical in the art (Spec. i-f 3) not to reinforce the
semiconductor wafer (1) while it is being thinned but, rather, to obtain the
known benefits of that typical encapsulation.
Claim 35
Chen discloses release films (1, 3) on both sides of a heat conducting
functional resin (2) (i-f 17; Fig. 2).
The Appellants assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have considered Ono's single step of penetrating pre-adhered metal bumps
through an uncured dielectric layer and then curing the dielectric layer to be
interchangeable with Haji's and Pillion's two-step process of forming vias in
a cured dielectric layer and subsequently filling the vias with a metallization
layer (App. Br. 24--25).
7
Appeal2015-001931
Application 13/327,333
That argument is not well taken because the rejection is not based
upon those methods being interchangeable (Final Act. 31-36).
The Appellants assert that "one skilled in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Haji with a reference such as Ono or Chen that
teaches a manufacturing technique that includes removal of any type of
consumable protective liner layer based on the express disclosure of Haji
that teaches away from the use of 'consumable protective sheets.' See Haji,
col. 4, 11. 52-60)" (App. Br. 25).
That argument is not convincing for the reason given above regarding
the rejection of claim 29.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 21 and 26-28 over
Hsu in view of Ono and Haji, claim 23 over Hsu in view of Ono, Haji,
Fillion and Kurita, claim 24 over Hsu in view of Ono, Haji and Davison,
claim 25 over Hsu in view of Ono, Haji and Foong, claims 29, 31, 32, 41
and 42 over Haji in view of Ono, claim 33 over Haji in view of Ono, Fillion
and Kurita, claim 34 over Haji in view of Ono and Fillion, claims 35
and 38--40 over Haji in view of Chen, Ono and Fillion, and claim 37 over
Haji in view of Chen, Ono, Fillion and Kurita are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
8