Ex Parte Leedy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2011

10379820 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2011)

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.
10/379,820 03/03/2003 Glenn J. Leedy ELM-2 DIV. 5 8447
30232 7590 03/29/2011
MICHAEL J. URE
10518 PHIL PLACE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
PHAM, THANH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GLENN J. LEEDY
____________

Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
88-96, 102-106, 110-112, 123-129, 131, and 146-153.1 (Ans. 2.) Claims
107-109, 113-122, 130, and 132-145 have been withdrawn. (Id.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The disclosed invention includes a “3DS (Three Dimensional
Structure) memory device.” (Spec. 5:26-27.) The structure includes a stack
of integrated circuit layers and an inter-layer vertical interconnect that
“functions to bond together the various circuit layers.” (Spec. 5:27-6:3;
Figure 1b.)
Exemplary claim 88 follows:
88. Circuitry comprising:
first, second and third substrates, each substrate having integrated
circuits formed thereon and each substrate having a first substantially planar
surface, the second substrate having a second substantially planar surface;
a first thermal diffusion bond comprising a first metal bonding layer
between a majority of the first surfaces of the first and second substrates;
and
a second thermal diffusion bond comprising a second metal bonding
layer between a majority of the first surface of the third substrate and a
majority of the second surface of the second substrate.

1 Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed December 6, 2008) (“App. Br.”) and
Reply Brief (filed April 28, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
April 3, 2009) (“Ans.”) are referenced and/or considered here.
Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Leedy US 5,354,695 Oct. 11, 19942

The Examiner rejected claims 88-96, 102-106, 110-112, 123-129,
131, and 146-153 as anticipated by Leedy under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or in
the alternative, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Leedy.
ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue: Does Leedy, in light of known bond pad structures, render
obvious a bond “between a majority of the first surfaces of the first and
second substrates,” and “between a majority of the first surface of the third
substrate and a majority of the second surface of the second substrate,” as
recited in claim 88 and as similarly recited in claim 123?
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Leedy
Leedy discloses a three dimensional circuit structure comprising two
or more circuit membranes and a vertical bond:
3. The vertical bonding of two or more circuit membranes to
form a three dimensional circuit structure, as shown in FIG. 8.
Interconnection between the circuit membranes 160a, 160b,
160c including SDs 162, 1654, 166 is by compression bonding
of circuit membrane surface electrodes 168a, 168b, 168c, 168d
(pads).
(Col. 16, ll. 38-43.)

2 It appears that the inventor of Leedy and applicant here is the same person,
Glenn J. Leedy.
Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

4

ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that “Leedy does not teach or suggest the features of
claim 88 and 123, nor would those features be obvious from the same.”
(App. Br. 13.) Each of independent claims 88 and 123 require a bonding
layer on or between “a majority of the first surfaces of the first and second
substrates,” and a similar bonding layer on or between another substrate
surface and the second surface of the second substrate. Appellant argues
that the bond pads of Leedy “could be expected to occupy at most about
25% of the die area, since they are spaced apart from one another.” (App.
Br. 12.) Appellant explains that adjacent bond pads in Leedy are spaced
apart by an area equal to that of a bond pad so that every other row and
every other column of the surface of the die area is vacant. (Id.)
Appellant does not provide evidence for these assertions. In any
event, Appellant’s position that these bond pad features would not have been
obvious is inconsistent with a position taken in an earlier office response, in
which (then) Applicant states that “the term conventional is used to describe
features such as the I/O bond pads” as depicted in Figure 1A. (See Reply to
Office Action 23, Feb. 17, 2004.) Applicant also states that Figure 1B
represents a cross-sectional view of the “three dimensional structure (3DS)”
which is depicted in Figure 1A. (Id.; accord Spec. 5.) Under these
circumstances, where Figures 1A and 1B depict conventional bonding pads
and according to Appellant, Figure 1B supports the “majority of the first
[substrate] surface” limitation in claim 88 (and supports similar limitations
in claims 88 and 123, see App. Br. 7, citing Fig. 1b, 1a, elements 105a and
Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

5
105b; Spec. 6:2-11),3 Appellant’s argument effectively reduces to the
assertion that a conventional bonding pad feature patentably distinguishes
over the prior art structures of Leedy.
Contrary to this assertion, such a known bonding pad feature, in
which the bonding pad areas occupy a majority of the surface area of a
substrate, would have been obvious in similar devices such as those of
Leedy, which employ similar “conventional” bond pads, for the purpose of
using (instead of wasting) most of the surface area of a substrate and also to
make as many bonding pad connections as the substrate surface area allows.4

3 Contrary to the Brief, the cited sections on page 6 of the Specification fail
to mention, much less describe, any amount of bonding relative to the
surface area of the substrate – thus, if any support exists for the limitation, it
exists by virtue of the conventional bond pads as depicted in Figures 1A and
1B. (Figure 1B represents a cross-sectional view of the substrate surface
area at issue, thus, given the lack of textual support in the Specification, any
support for a “majority” of substrate surface area at issue must exist by
virtue of Figure 1A – depicting the “conventional” bond pads according to
Applicant’s remarks as bolstered by the Specification (Spec. 5).)
4 The claim 88 recitations related to the “majority,” e.g., “a . . . bond
comprising a first metal bonding layer between a majority of the first
surfaces of the first and second substrates,” as currently recited in
independent claim 88, and as similarly recited in independent claim 123,
were added by amendment (see Reply to Office Action, Amendments to
Claims, Feb. 27, 2007). A Preliminary Amendment (filed March 3, 2003)
introduces a related limitation in (then) new claim 88 which recites “the
bonding layer being formed by first and second substantially planar surfaces
having a bond-forming material throughout a majority of the surface area
thereof.” This Preliminary Amendment is unaccompanied by a new oath
and thereby fails to provide support for any new matter, and in any case, the
related limitation there is materially different than the one at issue here.
(That is, this related limitation corresponds to a majority of the surface area
of the bonding layer itself, not the substrate surface at issue in present claim
Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

6
Accordingly, while the Examiner reasoned that Leedy discloses the
recited limitation in dispute (Ans. 14) (but alternatively rejected the claims
based on obviousness), since Appellant/Applicant describes the disputed
feature as conventional, and presented evolving amendments (supra note 4)
to capture the claimed conventional feature, the Examiner’s finding that
Leedy discloses the same conventional pads as claimed, is reasonable, and
any case, the record supports the finding of obviousness.
Therefore, we will sustain Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
88 and 123, and claims 89-96, 102-106, 110-112, 124-129, 131, and 146-153
dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Leedy, in light of conventional features, renders obvious a bond
“between a majority of the first surfaces of the first and second substrates,”
and “between a majority of the first surface of the third substrate and a
majority of the second surface of the second substrate,” as recited in claim
88 and as similarly recited in claim 123.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 88-96, 102-106,
110-112, 123-129, 131, and 146-153.

88.) Whether there is original written description support for the argued
limitation is not before us. (See supra, note 3.)

Appeal 2009-014015
Application 10/379,820

7

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ak