Ex Parte LinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 201814305560 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation