Ex Parte Lim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2008

10745728 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SZU SHING LIM,
SHEOU HOOI LIM, and
YEW WEE CHEONG
____________

Appeal 2008-2799
Application 10/745,728
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 30, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12. Claims
13-21 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:

laminating an ultraviolet (UV) curable tape on die backside of a strip
of array of flip chips, the UV curable tape having an adhesive strength;
Appeal 2008-2799
Application 10/745,728

molding the strip with a mold film; and

irradiating the molded strip using UV radiation.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Lin 5,450,283 Sep. 12, 1995
Lim 6,331,737 B1 Dec. 18, 2001
Shin 6,515,356 B1 Feb. 4, 2003
Tandy 6,524,881 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Hembree 6,630,371 B2 Oct. 7, 2003
Ishinoda 6,698,488 B2 Mar. 2, 2004

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of packaging a
flip chip array. The method comprises laminating a UV curable tape on the
die backside of a strip of array of flip chips, molding the strip with a mold
film and irradiating the molding strip with UV radiation. The adhesive
strength of the curable tape is reduced upon exposure to UV radiation.
Appealed claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Tandy. The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-3, 5, and 6 over Lin in view of Lim and Shin,
(b) claim 4 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Ishinoda,
(c) claim 4 over Tandy in view of Ishinoda, and
(d) claims 7-12 over Lin in view of Lim, Shin, Hembree, and Tandy.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
the Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner's
rejections are not well-founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
2
Appeal 2008-2799
Application 10/745,728

We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under § 102 over
Tandy. We agree with Appellants that Tandy does not describe within the
meaning of § 102 molding a strip of an array of flip chips with a mold film.
While carrier tape 4 of Tandy supports the wafer 10 during dicing, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the carrier tape of Tandy molds the strips as
required by claim 1, and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. Also, the Examiner has not pointed out where Tandy describes
irradiating the carrier tape with UV radiation. It is the marking tape 1 of
Tandy that is UV sensitive.
We now turn to the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 6
over Lin in view of Lim and Shin. Lin discloses a semiconductor device
wherein a package body 40 is molded around the perimeter 24 of the die and
"[a] layer of tape 38 is placed inside the molded cavity so that the tape 38
makes contact with the inactive backside 22 of the semiconductor die 18"
(col. 4, ll. 21-23). The tape 38 prevents flashing of the molding compound
outside of the cavity 30 and the tape 38 adheres better to silicon than the top
of mold platen 32. Lin teaches that "[t]he tape 38 serves to prevent flash of
molding compound onto the edges of the inactive backside 22 of the
semiconductor die 18 to enhance the appearance of the finished product"
(col. 4, ll. 33-36). As recognized by the Examiner, Lin does not teach that
tape 38 is UV curable so that it can be removed by UV exposure, nor does
Lin teach the use of molding films.
Based on the Shin disclosure, we find no error in the Examiner's
reasoning that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to utilize a UV curable film for tape 38 of Lin. However, for molding with a
mold film, the Examiner relies upon Lim's disclosure of plastic films 19
3
Appeal 2008-2799
Application 10/745,728

which prevent contact between the walls of the mold cavity and the adhesive
encapsulation material. Hence, even assuming for the sake of argument that
the plastic films 19 of Lim can be fairly characterized as molding films, and
it would have been obvious to employ such plastic films between tape 38
and mold 32 of Lin, the Examiner has not explained how the references
would have taught or suggested the claimed step of irradiating the molded
strip with UV radiation. The Examiner has pointed to no teaching in Lim for
irradiating plastic films 19 with UV radiation. Consequently, the Examiner
has not set forth how the combined teachings of Lin, Lim, and Shin would
have rendered obvious the claimed step of irradiating the molded strip using
UV radiation.
The Examiner's reliance on Ishinoda for applying a tape using a roller
assembly, and on Hembree for applying the tape prior to singulating the
wafer, does not remedy the deficiency of the combined teachings of Lin,
Lim, and Shin set forth above.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED

cam

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR
& ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
4