Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

14305560 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/305,560 06/16/2014
112165 7590 12/28/2018
STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YaojianLin
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.
2515.0470 2937
EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AOJIAN LIN
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 20, 21, 23-27, 29, 31, and 32 under 35
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of June 16, 2014
(Spec.), Final Office Action of January 27, 2017 (Final), Appeal Brief of
July 26, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of October 23, 2017 (Ans.),
and Reply Brief of December 26, 2017 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellant is the applicant, ST ATS ChipP AC Pte., Ltd., which, according to
the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pagaila3 in view of Saitou, 4 adding Ke 5 to
reject claims 14--19 and 30, and adding Hashimoto 6 to reject claims 22 and
28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a semiconductor device. The device
includes a groove formed partially through an insulating layer as a pattern.
See, e.g., claims 14, 20, and 26. Claim 26 is illustrative of the broadest
claimed embodiment:
26. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate;
a first insulating layer formed over the substrate with a
first groove formed partially through the first insulating layer
as a first pattern; and
a first conductive layer formed over the first insulating
layer and into the first groove.
Appeal Br. 21 ( claims appendix) ( emphasis added).
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments under three headings, each heading lists
one of the three independent claims, claims 14, 20, and 26, and the claims
dependent thereon. Appeal Br. 7-17. Under each heading, Appellant
focuses the arguments on limitations found in the independent claim. Id.
3 Pagaila et al., US 8,133,762 B2, issued Mar. 13, 2012.
4 Saitou et al., US 2012/0211269 A2, published Aug. 23, 2012.
5 Ke et al., US 2007/0075423 Al, published Apr. 5, 2007.
6 Hashimoto et al. US 2005/0067707 Al, published Mar. 31, 2005.
2
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
Appellant further discusses various dependent claims, but does not address
the Examiner's findings and conclusions directed to the limitations of the
dependent claims. Id. Thus, the issues arising for each of the dependent
claims is the same as the issues arising for the claim it depends from. We
select the independent claims, claims 14, 20, and 26, as representative for
resolving the issues on appeal.
Claim 26
We begin with claim 26, as that claim is the broadest claim on appeal.
The Examiner rejects claim 26 as obvious over Pagaila in view of Saitou.
Final 11.
There is no dispute that Pagaila teaches a semiconductor device as
shown in Figure 8 that has a substrate (semiconductor die 228), an insulating
layer (235) over the substrate, and a conductive layer (236) over the
insulating layer. Compare Appeal Br. 14--15, and Reply Br. 1-3, with Final
11. The Examiner acknowledges that Pagaila does not disclose the groove
formed partially through the insulating layer required by claim 26 and turns
to Saitou as evidence that including such a groove would have been obvious
to the ordinary artisan to improve adhesion. Final 6, 11.
The portion of Saitou cited by the Examiner is directed to the third
embodiment of a method of using sub bumps ( 62 in Figs. 14(b) and 14( c)) in
copperplate 200 to form grooves (wiring-layer-side convex portions 64 in
Fig. 15) in insulating layer 10 of Figure 15. Final 11; Saitou Figs. 14(a)-
14(c), Fig. 15, ,r,r 97-102.
Appellant contends that a person skilled in the art would find no
reasonable rationale to substitute Saitou' s copperplate 200 and sub bumps 62
3
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
disposed in convex portions 64 in insulating resin layer 10 for Pagaila's
insulating layer 235 and conductive layer 236. Appeal Br. 14--15.
The issue is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the
Examiner's finding of a reason to modify Pagaila's insulating and
conductive layers by including convex portions 64 as taught by Saitou to
promote adhesion of those layers to each other?
Appellant has not identified such an error.
First, Saitou conveys that forming concavities and convexities in the
boundary between the insulating layer and conductive wiring layer improves
adhesion between the layers and increases the reliability of the device.
Saitou ,r,r 59, 102. Saitou discloses that the shape and pattern of the concave
and convex portions can take various forms including conical, truncated-
conical, and groove shapes in patterns. Saitou Figs. 1-5, 14, 15; ,r,r 54--60,
101, 102.
Second, we do not agree with Appellant that the method Saitou
discloses for making the concavities and convexities negates the more
general teaching of using concavities and convexities in the shape of a
pattern of cones, truncated-cones, or grooves between an insulating layer
and a conductive layer to increase adhesion between the layers. As the
Examiner explains in the Answer through the use of evidence uncontested
by Appellant, structures similar to Saitou's convex portions 64 that appear to
perform similar functions of improving adhesion and relieving stress may be
formed by first patterning the insulating layer and then overlaying the
conductive material rather than through the process set forth by Saitou. Ans.
7. Thus, in the words of the Examiner, "the structural context of convex
portions 64 may be understood outside of the manner in which Saitou
4
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
specifically proposes forming these structures using a copper plate." Ans. 7,
18.
Moreover, Saitou alone suggests a semiconductor device with the
required substrate (semiconductor substrate 310), first insulating layer with
first groove formed partially through it as a pattern (wiring-side-portions
64), and first conductive layer (wiring layer 20).
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding of a reason to modify Pagaila's insulating and conductive layers to
including a pattern of grooves to promote adhesion of those layers to each
other.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is the next broadest independent claim. Thus, we tum to it
next. The Examiner also rejects claim 20 over Pagaila in view of Saitou.
Appellant again contends that a person skilled in the art would find no
reasonable rationale to make the combination. Appeal Br. 13. For the
reasons we stated above, we disagree.
Appellant also contends that Saitou does not disclose the first
conductive layer structure recited in claim 20. This portion of claim 20
reads:
a first conductive layer formed over the first insulating
layer and into the first groove, wherein the first groove is
arranged as a pattern to form a first dampening structure with
the first conductive layer disposed in the first groove around
portions of the first insulating layer within the first dampening
structure.
Appeal Br. 19-20 ( claims appendix).
5
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
According to Appellant, Saitou's convex portions 64 are individual
and separate indentations in insulating layer 10. Id. Appellant urges that
"[ c ]on vex portions 64 in insulating resin layer 10 are not arranged as a
pattern to form a first dampening structure with the first conductive layer
disposed in the first groove around portions of the first insulating layer
within the first dampening structure." Id at 13.
Appellant has not persuaded us that Saitou' s convex portions 64 are
different from the structures required by claim 20. We agree with Appellant
that Saitou teaches convex portions 64 that are individual and separate
indentations in insulating layer 10. However, Appellant does not explain
why these individual and separate indentations fail to be arranged as
required by the claim. Our review of the claim language indicates that it is
broad enough to encompass what is taught by Saitou.
As to arranging the first groove as a pattern to form a first dampening
structure, Saitou suggests arranging grooves 64 in a pattern. See Fig. 14( c)
and ,r 100 ( explaining that sub bumps 62, which form conductive material
filled grooves 64, "have a pattern of triangular poles."); see also Figs. 2-5
(showing patterns of cones and truncated-cones, which provides a
suggestion to use various shapes and configurations). What's more, the
dampening structure language of claim 20 does not differentiate the structure
of claim 20 from the structure of Saitou. Appellant's Specification indicates
that the grooves are the first dampening structure. See Spec. ,r 41 ( equating
the dampening structures to grooves 164 ). Because Saitou teaches or
suggests the grooves, Saitou necessarily teaches the dampening structure.
Saitou also suggests disposing the conductive layer in the grooves 64
"around portions of the first insulating layer within the first dampening
6
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
structure" as required by claim 20. See Saitou Fig. 15 (showing portions of
insulating layer 10 between conductive-material-filled grooves 64).
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that Saitou suggests arranging sub bumps 62 to obtain a conductive-
material-filled first groove 64 arranged as a pattern to form a first
dampening structure around portions of the first insulating layer.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is the narrowest of the independent claims. It is similar to
claim 20, but it further requires the first groove be "arranged as a continuous
pattern to form a first dampening structure" and further requires the
conductive layer be disposed in the first groove "around separate portions of
the first insulating layer within the first dampening structure." Claim 14
( emphasis added).
Appellant again argues against the Examiner's combination of the
teachings of Pagaila with those of Saitou. Appeal Br. 8-9. For the reasons
we discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in
making the combination.
Appellant argues Saitou's "[c]onvex portions 64 are individual and
separate indentations in insulating resin layer 1 O" and "are not arranged as a
continuous pattern to form a first dampening structure with the first
conductive layer disposed in the first groove around separate portions of the
first insulating layer within the first dampening structure." Appeal Br. 8
( emphasis added). But, again, Appellant does not further explain how the
language structurally differentiates the device of the claim from that of
Saitou. We determine that it does not for reasons similar to those we
discussed in addressing claim 20.
7
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
The Specification indicates that the pattern can take many forms, from
a network of conductive grooves 164 in a honeycomb structure that defines
octagonal or other shaped portions of the insulating layer 160 (see Fig. 3g,
Spec. ,r 42) to a pattern of separate conductive grooves 164 that define
separate ring-shaped portions of the insulating layer 160 (see Fig. 3h, Spec.
,r 43). The Specification does not differentiate between the various patterns
as continuous or non-continuous. We interpret each of these patterns of
conductive-material-filled grooves 164 as in a continuous pattern. Given the
breadth of the claim language when interpreted in light of the Specification
and Appellant's lack of explanation, we are not persuaded that the language
fails to encompass the pattern suggested by Saitou.
We are cognizant of the fact that the Examiner relied on Ke to
support a finding of a suggestion to form the insulating layer corrugation in a
continuous manner. Final 6. Claim 14 does not require the groove be
continuous, only that the groove be arranged in a continuous pattern. Saitou
suggests repeating grooves in a continuous pattern. Thus, Ke was not
necessary to the rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
8
Appeal2018-002236
Application 14/305,560
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
9