Ex Parte Khan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201411514917 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/514,917 09/05/2006 Rezaur Rahman Khan 1875.8410001 6339 26111 7590 12/23/2014 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER EVERHART, CARIDAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2895 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte REZAUR RAHMAN KHAN and SAM ZIQUN ZHAO ____________ Appeal 2012-0096151 Application 11/514,9172 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–16, 20–22, and 30–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing held November 20, 2014. 2 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ invention relates to an integrated circuit (IC) device package including an IC die having contact pads located at corresponding hotspots on the surface of the die and a thermally conductive interposer coupled to the IC die at the contact pads. Spec. Abstract. Appellants present separate arguments as to the patentability of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 30, reproduced below as they stand of record in the Amendment filed April 14, 2011: 1. An integrated circuit (IC) device package, comprising: an IC die having a set of contact pads located on a first surface of the IC die at one or more hotspots of the IC die, wherein a spacing between a contact pad of the set and a first adjacent contact pad of the set is different from a spacing between the contact pad and a second adjacent contact pad of the set, whereby a hotspot of the IC die is a location on the IC die that that is at a higher temperature than another location on the IC die during operation of the IC die; and a thermally conductive interposer having first and second surfaces, wherein the first surface of the interposer is thermally coupled to each contact pad of the set of contact pads. 30. The package of claim 1, further comprising: a substrate coupled to a second surface of the IC die, wherein the second surface of the IC die opposes the first surface of the IC die; wherein the set of contact pads is a first set, wherein the IC die further comprises a second set of contact pads arranged uniformly, and wherein contact pads of the second set are coupled to the substrate. Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 3 Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Khan US 2002/0109226 A1 Aug. 15, 2002 Li US 2003/0139071 A1 July 24, 2003 Bolken US 2003/0183950 A1 Oct. 2, 2003 Carlsgaard US 2005/0040539 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–16, 20–22, and 30–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: Claims 1–2, 4–12, 16, 21, 30, 32, and 33 over Li in view of Carlsgaard. Final Action 4–7; Ans. 5–8. Claims 3, 20, and 22 over Li in view of Carlsgaard and Bolken. Final Action 7–8; Ans. 8–9. Claims 13–15 and 31 over Li in view of Carlsgaard and Khan. Final Action 8; Ans. 9–10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of arguments advanced by Appellants in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, but are not persuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in concluding the claims are unpatentable for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 4 Examiner’s Answer.3 See Final Action 2–8; Ans. 5–13. We add the following for emphasis.4 The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Li discloses an integrated circuit device package meeting the limitations of the claims except that it does not explicitly disclose the contacts are non-uniformly distributed as required by the claims. Ans. 6-7 (citing Li ¶¶ 3, 28, 29, and 32). Specifically, the Examiner finds the semiconductor device includes an array of contact pads and these satisfy the limitation of a set of contact pads on at least one surface. Id. (citing ¶ 29). The Examiner finds Li discloses a thermally conductive interposer with the first surface thermally coupled to each contact pad of the sets of contact pads. Id. at 6. Importantly, the Examiner finds that Li discloses that because the “pads are locations of resistance heating . . . [they] “are locations of hotspots.” Ans. at 11; citing Li ¶ 29; see also id. at 6. And because contact pads themselves are hotspots, the Examiner reasons that when they are arranged non-uniformly, as contacts pads are arranged in Carlsgaard, the limitations of claim 1 are met. Ans. 8 (citing Carlsgaard ¶¶ 7, 29, 33; Fig. 3), 11 (“[t]he references have been cited to show in combination that the pads are locations of hostpots, so that the transfer of heat would take place at 3 Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action (mailed June 15, 2011), the Appeal Brief (filed January 30, 2012), the Answer (mailed April 11, 2012), and the Reply Brief (filed June 11, 2012). 4 We focus our discussion on the rejection of claims 1 and 30 over Li in view of Carlsgaard as Appellants limit their arguments to these claims, and this rejection. App. Br. 16-17 (arguing claims rejected over Li in view of Carlsgaard and Bolken and over Li in view of Carlsgaard and Khan are patentable because they depend from claim 1). Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 5 the location of the pads”). In other words, because contact pads are hotspots themselves due to resistive heating, modifying the integrated circuit device package of Li with the teaching of Carlsgaard that contact pads do not have to be distributed uniformly provides the invention recited in claim 1. Appellants argue that Li discloses uniformly distributing contact pads to allow heat “generated at these resistance ‘hot spots’ to be spread across the entire mass of LGA interposer 16.” App. Br. 11 (citing Li ¶ 29); Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that because they are uniformly located, the contact pads in Li are not located on a first surface at one or more hotspots of the IC die. App. Br. 11–12. In particular, Appellants argue that it is not inherent that the contact pads are located at hotspots, especially where their primary purpose is to provide electrical connections. Id. at 12. Appellants argue that Carlsgaard’s teaching does not remedy the shortcoming of Li to provide “a non-uniformly spaced set of contact pads located at one or more hotspots of the IC die” because it is directed to optimizing other features without concern for hotspots. App. Br. 13-14. Applicants argue “[n]owhere in the four corners of Carlsgaard . . . is any optimization related to heat spreading disclosed.” Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellants argue “the Examiner has failed to produce any information in the record that establishes that the resulting hypothetical package —having had its contact pads shifted for a purpose wholly unrelated to heat spreading— would have contact pads located at hotspots of the IC die.” Id. (original emphasis deleted). Having considered the record before us, we find the determinative issue is whether contact pads are hotspots themselves because if they are then Appellants’ arguments that the Li and Carlsgaard do not teach locating Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 6 contact pads at hotspots fall short. And with respect to this issue, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because Appellants define “hotspot” broadly as “a location on the IC die that that [sic] is at a higher temperature than another location on the IC die during operation of the IC die.” See, e.g., App. Br. 7 (quoting claim 1; citing Specification ¶¶ 44-50; Figs. 3A-3H). Further, regarding the Specification, we find no adequate basis for narrowing the meaning of the term from the broad definition Appellants themselves provide in the Appeal Brief. Id. (quoting claim 1). For example, while the Specification describes how “[h]igher power density blocks . . . lead to ‘hotspots,’ also known as ‘hot blocks,’ on the chip,” and notes that “[f]urther description of hotspots is provided in . . . [a document] incorporated by reference herein in its entirety” (Specification ¶ 5), we do not find these narrow the meaning of hotspots set forth in claim 1 where the term is explicitly defined. Nor does it establish the Examiner erred in relying on Li’s apparent usage of the term to include connections between contact pads where there is resistive heating. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.”). As to claim 30, the Examiner determines, inter alia, that “‘couple’ is defined as ‘to connect or to link or to join for combined effect’” (Ans. 12; citing Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. 1997) and points to Li’s disclosure of IC packages where the interposer has wings that are connected to a heatsink that is connected to contact pads on the second Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 7 surface of the IC die (Ans. 12-13). In particular, the Examiner determines that: In Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 it is shown that the wings can be connected to the second surface of the chip through the wings 60 which is connected to the heatsink 12 to the second surface of the die, so that the second surface is coupled to a substrate, the interposer 16 through the wings and through the heatsink 12. Id. at 13. Addressing the Examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 30, which relied on Fig. 4 of Li (Final Action 3, 6–7), Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because “LGA interposer 16 is not coupled to the second surface” (App. Br. 15). Appellants do not independently address the rejection of claim 30 in their Reply Brief. Having considered the record before us, including the unchallenged determinations by the Examiner as to what is disclosed in Figures 7 and 8 of Li, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in finding claim 30 obvious over Li in view of Carlsgaard. See Ans. 12–13. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Li, Carlsgaard, Bolken, and Khan would have suggested an integrated circuit package as recited in the claims on appeal within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-009615 Application 11/514,917 8 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–16, 20–22, and 30–33. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation