Ex Parte Lian et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2009

11385086 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEAN LIAN, VIVIAN RYAN,
and
DEBRA LOUISE YENCHO
____________

Appeal 2009-001794
Application 11/385,086
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 20, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-001794
Application 11/385,086

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an integrated circuit
including at least one height-sensing pad electrically isolated from die
circuitry (Spec. 4:4-10).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An integrated circuit comprising:

an integrated circuit die;

at least one height-sensing pad disposed on a top surface of the
integrated circuit die and electrically isolated from the die
circuitry;

at least one bond pad disposed on a top surface of the integrated
circuit die and electrically connected to the die circuitry,
wherein the at least one bond pad is configured for wire-
bonding to a lead of a leadframe utilizing a height coordinate of
the at least one height-sensing pad;

wherein the at least one height-sensing pad is substantially
dimensionally identical to the at least one bond pad.

REFERENCES
Ogura JP 02168638 Jun. 28, 1990
Sakurai JP 06132347 May 13, 1994

The Examiner rejected claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Sakurai and Ogura.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 11-13 as being “product by
process” claims.
Appeal 2009-001794
Application 11/385,086

3
Although the Examiner relies on the language in the claim that “at
least one bond pad is configured for wire-bonding to a lead of a leadframe
utilizing a height coordinate of the at least one height-sensing pad” as a
product-by-process limitation, it is the structural components that are relied
upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. As discussed below, these
structural limitations are not found in the prior art as discussed above.
The Examiner finds that Sakurai teaches all the features of
Appellants’ claimed invention except that “at least one height-sensing pad is
substantially dimensionally identical to the at least one bond pad” (Ans.4).
The Examiner then cites Ogura to show that functional pads 3a and non-
functional pads (dummy/unused) pads are dimensionally identical (Ans. 5).
Appellants have shown that neither Sakurai nor Ogura, alone or in
combination, teaches at least one height-sensing pad electrically isolated
from die circuitry (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2). First, Appellants assert, the
pads 25a, alleged by the Examiner to be height-sensing pads, are detection
pads (App. Br. 4). The detection pads recognize where a semiconductor
chip 25 is mounted on a lead frame 21 (Sakurai Fig. 2; ¶ [0023]). Further,
the detection pads determine the x-y positioning of the semiconductor chip.
Even assuming arguendo that the detection pads of Sakurai are height-
sensing pads, the Examiner has not shown where in Sakurai’s Specification
the detection pads are electrically isolated from the die circuitry.
Ogura teaches dummy/unused electrode pads. However, as
Appellants contend, the electrode pads of Ogura are not electrically isolated
(App. Br. 5). Although the electrode pads in Ogura are substantially
dimensionally identical (according to the figures), the pads are not
Appeal 2009-001794
Application 11/385,086

4
electrically isolated from the die circuitry as shown in Figure 1 (more than
one electrode pad 3b is connected along with electrode pad 3a to the lead 4).
Since neither Sakurai nor Ogura teaches or suggests the features
alleged by the Examiner, combining these references would not result in
Appellants’ claimed invention.
Appellants separately argue dependent claim 7. Since this claim
depends from claim 1, it too is unobvious over the combination of Sakurai
and Ogura.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560