Ex Parte MOCK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12698644 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/698,644 02/02/2010
22851 7590
Delphi Technologies, Inc,
P.O. Box 5052
MIC 483-400-402
Troy, MI 48007-5052
04/04/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ROGER A. MOCK
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.
DP-310331DIV2 4397
EXAMINER
CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
kandace.k. powell@delphi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER A. MOCK and
ERICH W. GERBSCH
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-7 and 9. Br. 2. Claims 8, 10, and 11 have been
withdrawn. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to a dual-sided
substrate integrated circuit package, and, more particularly, to a leadframe
included in a dual-sided substrate integrated circuit package." Spec. i-f 2.
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
Claims 1 and 9 are independent; claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing an integrated circuit lead
frame, comprising the step of:
forming a body portion and a plurality of members
extending from said body portion, each of said members having
a proximal end and a distal end,
wherein the proximal end of each of said members has a
first thickness,
wherein the distal end of each of said members is
undulated such that each distal end has an effective thickness
greater than said first thickness; and
wherein each said undulated distal end defines opposed
surfaces simultaneously bridging facing contact surfaces which
are separated by a dimension greater than said first thickness.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Sheesley US 3,945,808 Mar. 23, 1976
Akashi JP 62-254457 A Nov. 6, 1987
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Akashi.
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sheesley.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Akashi/Sheesley in view of Applicants' Admitted Prior Art
("AAP A"). 1
1 "[T]he Examiner took Official Notice of the fact that it is well known in
the art to use a progressive die to form lead frames. Since Applicants have
2
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 as anticipated by Akashi
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 together. Br. 8-10. Appellants
also present a separate argument with respect to dependent claim 4. Br. 9.
We select claims 1 and 4 for review, with claims 2, 6, and 9 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites a body portion having a plurality of members, with
"each of said members having a proximal end and a distal end." Claim 1
further recites "wherein the distal end of each of said members is undulated
such that each distal end has an effective thickness greater than said first
thickness" (i.e., the thickness of the proximal end). The Examiner
references figures 1 and 2 of Akashi as disclosing this limitation, and the
Examiner particularly identifies "distal end (2 ')" which is shown in figure 2
as being bent in a wave form. 2 Final Act. 2-3. Appellants contend that
Akashi "fails to disclose or suggest forming undulations at the distal (free)
end of each frame member" and consequently, Akashi does not disclose
effectively increasing the thickness of the distal end as recited. Br. 9. The
Examiner responds stating "that the claims do not require the distal end of
the frame members to be free." Ans. 8.
not challenged this statement, it is taken as admitted prior art" ("AAPA").
Final Act. 7. Appellants acknowledge that progressive dies are used in
forming lead frames, but qualify this acknowledgement by stating that
progressive dies "are not known for forming undulated (effectively locally
thickened) distal ends of the plurality of members." Br. 11.
2 Appellants' Specification states that "distal ends of leadframe member may
have multiple undulations" and also that "the undulations may be in the form
of a sinusoidal wave." Spec. i-f 73.
3
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), "the name of the game is the claim." Here, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require the distal end to be free as
Appellants assert. Instead, claim 1 simply recites "said members having a
proximal end and a distal end." This claim recitation is consistent with
Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i-fi-f 12-14. As such, Appellants are not
persuasive that figure 2 of Akashi fails to disclose the formation of
undulations at distal end 2 '. In view of such undulations, Appellants are also
not persuasive that Akashi fails to disclose effectively increasing the
thickness of the distal end as recited. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in relying on Akashi for disclosing the recited limitation.
Appellants also contend that Akashi fails to disclose undulations
having opposed electrical contact surfaces for "bridging (electrically
interconnecting) a pair of associated facing integrated circuit contact
surfaces." Br. 9. With respect to this "bridging" recitation, the Examiner
states that "this limitation is taken as an intended use of the completed lead
frame." Final Act. 6. In other words, the Examiner states that "the claims
are directed to a method of manufacturing an integrated circuit lead frame,
not to a method of using such a lead frame." Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 6.
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error on this point.
Appellants further contend that Akashi fails to disclose a lead frame
"wherein each member has a substantially constant nominal thickness." Br.
9. However, Appellants do not indicate where claim 1 incorporates such a
limitation. Claim 1 simply recites a proximal end having "a first thickness"
and a distal end having a "thickness greater than said first thickness." There
4
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
is no mention of "a substantially constant nominal thickness" as Appellants
assert.
Appellants also contend that Akashi fails to disclose undulations that
"affect[] a localized thickness without actually increasing the incremental
thickness." Br. 9. On this point, the Examiner finds that "[a ]t 2' we see an
undulation" and that in "Fig. 2 of Akashi we see the effective thickness at 2'
is greater than the thickness of 2 near 1." Ans. 8. In view of the above, the
Examiner states that "[i]t is unclear why Appellant[s] argue[] Akashi does
not disclose forming undulations at the distal end ... when clearly 2' has
undulations and, inherently, these undulations increase the effective
thickness of the frame members at the distal end." Ans. 8. Appellants do
not persuade us of Examiner error on this point.
Appellants further contend that Akashi does not disclose "undulated
distal ends to match separation of opposed contacts in an associated
integrated circuit package." Br. 9. As discussed above, Appellants'
contention is directed to the usage of the lead frame, not its structure. See In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(stating that claims must
be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function).
Furthermore, the Examiner explains that "[ t ]here is no step of providing an
associated integrated circuit package" as Appellants assert. Ans. 8.
Appellants also contend that Akashi does not disclose "employing a
progressive die in forming the distal ends of the plurality of members." Br.
9. However, as stated by the Examiner, "this limitation is found in
dependent claim 3, which was not rejected as anticipated by Akashi." Ans.
9. Accordingly, Appellants' contention directed to a claim that is not subject
to this rejection is not persuasive of Examiner error.
5
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
Regarding claim 4 (which depends from claim 1 ), Appellants contend
that Akashi does not disclose the limitation "wherein each said distal end is
one of offset formed, squirt formed, corrugated formed, and embossed
formed." See Br. 9. On this point, the Examiner "compare[s] the corrugated
distal ends in Fig. 5E of the Application with the portion 2' in Akashi Fig. 2.
Also please refer to the Application Figs. 5A-5D." Ans. 9. The Examiner
states that in "[ c ]omparing these figures with feature 2' of Akashi, the
undulation 2 ' is a corrugation and, in that sense, it is corrugation formed."
Ans. 9. Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's analysis.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 as anticipated by Akashi.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 as anticipated by Sheesley
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9 together. Br. 10-11. We
select claim 1 for review with claims 2, 4--7, and 9 standing or falling with
claim 1.
In responding to this rejection, Appellants "hereby adopt[] all related
arguments set forth hereinabove" (i.e., presented with respect to Akashi).
Br. 10. First, Appellants do not address the teachings of Sheesley
"hereinabove" and hence, there are no previous arguments to be adopted that
indicate the Examiner erred in relying on Sheesley. Second, Appellants do
not indicate how the Examiner's correlation of "distal end (by 58)" as
depicted in figures 6-8 of Sheesley is improper or incorrect. Final Act. 4.
Instead, Appellants contend that Sheesley fails to disclose or suggest a lead
frame wherein "each member has a substantially constant nominal
thickness" and wherein the undulation of the distal end "affects a localized
thickness without actually increasing the incremental thickness." Br. 10. As
6
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
indicated above, claim 1 does not include a "substantially constant nominal
thickness" limitation and further, Appellants do not make clear how
Sheesley's undulation (i.e., distal end 58) fails to affect a localized thickness
without actually increasing the thickness of the first member as recited. See
also Ans. 10.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9 as anticipated by Sheesley.
The rejection of claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable
over Akashi/Sheesley in view of AAP A
Appellants argue claims 3 and 7 together. Br. 11. We select claim 3
for review with claim 7 standing or falling with claim 3. Appellants "hereby
adopt[] all related arguments set forth hereinabove." App. Br. 11. As
previously noted, an argument regarding claim 3 was presented
"hereinabove." Consistent with this earlier argument, Appellants
additionally state that "[ w ]hile Applicant acknowledges that progressive dies
are generally [used] in forming lead frames, they are not known for forming
undulated (effectively locally thickened) distal ends of the plurality of
members." Br. 11. In other words, Appellants acknowledge the use of
progressive dies, just that "they are not known" for forming undulations.
Addressing this acknowledgement, the Examiner states that it would
have been obvious "to produce the deformation seen in the primary
reference [i.e., Akashi/Sheesley] by means of progressive dies, since it is
known to use progressive dies to form lead frames." Ans. 10-11. In other
words, according to the Examiner, "[g]iven a certain shape, one of skill in
the art of progressive dies would know how to achieve that shape by means
of progressive dies." Ans. 11.
7
Appeal2014-002880
Application 12/698,644
Appellants do not indicate why this reasoning by the Examiner is
incorrect, or otherwise explain how one skilled in the art would not find it
obvious to employ the known use of progressive dies to create the
undulating shapes depicted in Akashi/Sheesley. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3 and 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 9 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8