Ex Parte Martino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2008

10652847 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER MIGUEL MARTINO
_____________

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: May 30, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is to various embodiments of land grid array
(LGA) packages in which substrate reinforcement member(s) are employed to
reduce mechanical stress in the substrate and/or the adhesive material that attaches
the package lid to the upper surface of the die (Spec. 4:¶[0010]). The substrate
reinforcement member(s) may be attached to the upper surface of the substrate to
reduce mechanical stress (Spec. 4:¶[0010]). The substrate reinforcement
member(s) are not attached to the package lid. By separating the substrate
reinforcement member(s) from the package lid, these components may be
independently designed with appropriate thermal and mechanical properties (Spec.
4:¶[0010]). The coefficient of thermal expansion of the substrate reinforcement
member(s) may be advantageously matched with the coefficient of thermal
expansion of the substrate to reduce thermally induced stress (Spec. 4:¶[0012]).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A land grid array (LGA) package for clamping to an interposer socket on
a printed circuit board, the LGA package comprising:
a substrate;
a die attached to an upper surface of the substrate;

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

3
a lid attached to an upper surface of the die; and
a substrate reinforcement member attached to the upper surface of the
substrate and separated from the lid.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gungor US 5,944,097 Aug. 31, 1999

McCutcheon US 5,958,556 Sep. 28, 1999

Baba US 6,313,521 B1 Nov. 06, 2001

Toy US 6,333,460 B1 Dec. 25, 2001

Coffin US 2002/0079117 A1 Jun. 27, 2002

Alcoe US 2002/0135063 A1 Sep. 26, 2002

Kutlu US 6,472,762 B1 Oct. 29, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin and Kutlu.
2. Claims 2, 8, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin in view of Kutlu and further in view of Baba.
3. Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin in view of Kutlu and further in view of McCutcheon.
Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

4
4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Coffin in view of Kutlu and further in view of Toy.
5. Claims 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin in view of Kutlu and further in view of Gungor.
6. Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffin in view of Kutlu and further in view of Alcoe.

OBVIOUSNESS
Independent claims 1 and 16, were argued separately (Br. 13). Appellant
has presented no further arguments as to the additional references of Gungor,
McCutcheon, Baba, Toy, and Alcoe used in rejecting claims 2-10, and 17-20, but
instead relies on the arguments provided for claims 1 and 16 (Br. 8-13). Thus,
claims 2-10, and 17-20 will stand or fall with claims 1 and 16, respectively.1
There are two obviousness issues before us regarding whether Appellant has
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

1 Only arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief have
not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

5
The two issues are:
A. With respect to claim 1, does the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of
alleviating the necessity of matching the coefficient of thermal expansion possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness?
B. With respect to claim 16, does the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of
reducing mechanical stress in the substrate possess a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Kutlu teaches that when the stiffener 116 (i.e., substrate reinforcement
member) is joined to the substrate 106, the stiffener 116 may have a
coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) similar to the CTE of the substrate
(col. 3, ll. 60-64).
2. Kutlu teaches that the headspreader (i.e., lid) generally has a CTE that is
greater than the substrate (col. 3, ll. 3-5).
3. Kutlu describes as an advantage of his invention the reduction or elimination
of substrate cracking (col. 2, ll. 16-17).
4. Kutlu teaches the use of optional stiffeners/substrate reinforcement members
(i.e., separate substrate reinforcement members from the headspreader/lid)
(col. 2, l. 17 and Figure 4).
5. Kutlu acknowledges as prior art that stiffeners/substrate reinforcement
members are generally used to prevent excess warpage (col. 1, ll. 52-53).

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including
(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of
these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is
met, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988,
stated that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1741. However, “the analysis need not seek
Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

7
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “the lack of motivation is evidenced by the lack of
proper support as to where in the cited art reference the asserted benefits are
disclosed” (Br. 13). Appellant further states: “corresponding to claim 1, it is
alleged that the benefit of ‘separating a substrate reinforcement member from the
lid is eliminate of necessity to match the coefficient of thermal expansion.’ ([sic];
emphasis added) However, no support in any of the cited references for this
alleged benefit is provided in the FINAL Office Action” (Br. 13).
Appellant further states: “corresponding to claim 16, it is alleged that the
benefit of including in Coffin that a ‘substrate reinforcement member attached to
the upper surface of the substrate and being adapted’ is ‘to reduce mechanical
stress in the substrate.’ ([sic]; emphasis added). Again, no support in any of the
cited references for this alleged benefit is disclosed” (Br. 13).
The Examiner responds that the motivation statement to combine the
references is provided by Kutlu in col. 2, ll. 8-22, by stating:
Kutlu clearly discloses architecture for an enhanced package using a
high CTE heatspreader (lid) that may (i) match the coefficient of
thermal expansion (CTE) of the die and heatspreader combination and
the CTE of the substrate, make use of an optional (separate) stiffener
to reduce stress at the . . . . and increase the board level reliability of
solder joints under the die, and/or (x) increase the component and
board level reliability of the flipchip package (Kutlu, column 2, lines
Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

8
8-22) . And furthermore Kutlu teaches basically similar to Applicant'
LGA package structure for flipchip package structure, which has
experienced same problems as LGA package disclosed by Applicants
[sic] in application. Kutlu describe such problems in details in the
"Background of the invention" section (column 1, lines 43-59).

(Ans. 12).

Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set
out in the Answer and adopt them as our own. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.

A. Does the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of alleviating the necessity of
matching the coefficient of thermal expansion possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness?

Kutlu teaches that when the stiffener 116 (i.e., substrate reinforcement
member) is joined to the substrate 106, the stiffener 116 may have a coefficient of
thermal expansion (CTE) similar to the CTE of the substrate (Finding of Fact 1).
Kutlu further teaches that the headspreader (i.e., lid) generally has a CTE that is
greater than the substrate (Finding of Fact 2).
Thus, separating the substrate reinforcement member from the lid eliminates
the necessity of matching their coefficients of thermal expansion while allowing
the lid to have a greater CTE than the substrate CTE (Findings of Fact 1 and 2).
Therefore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning possesses a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (Findings of Fact 1
and 2). In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

9
B. Does the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of reducing mechanical stress
in the substrate possess a rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness?

Kutlu describes as an advantage of his invention the reduction or elimination
of substrate cracking (Finding of Fact 3) as well as the use of optional
stiffeners/substrate reinforcement members (i.e., separate substrate reinforcement
members from the headspreader/lid) (Finding of Fact 4). Furthermore, it is
acknowledged as prior art that stiffeners/substrate reinforcement members are
generally used to prevent excess warpage (Finding of Fact 5).
Thus, separating a substrate reinforcement member would reduce
mechanical stress in the substrate (Findings of Fact 3-5).
Therefore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning possesses a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (Findings of Fact 3-5).
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Finally, Appellant’s mere recitation of the rejections and motivation
statements used to reject claims 2-10, and 17-20, (Br. 8-10), is not considered an
argument of patentability. As stated supra, Appellant has not met his burden of
overcoming the prima facie case made by the Examiner with argument and/or
evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
For the foregoing reasons we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2008-0954
Application 10/652,847

10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 and 16-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P. O. BOX 272400,3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400