Ex Parte Odegard

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2006

10444772 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CHARLES ANTHONY ODEGARD
____________
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-9.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a system and method to increase die stand-off height
in a flip chip. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for increasing die stand-off height in a flip chip, comprising:
a die;
a substrate positioned generally parallel with, and spaced apart from, the
die;
a plurality of separator pedestals disposed between a first face of the die
and a second face of the substrate;
the first face being opposite the second face; and
the plurality of separator pedestals being operable to selectively force the
die and substrate apart.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Dockerty et al. (Dockerty) 6,053,394 Apr. 25, 2000
Earnworth et al. (Earnworth) US 6,649,444 B2 Nov. 18, 2003
(filed Oct. 24, 2001)
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Earnworth.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Earnworth and Dockerty.
Claims 10-27 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
-3-
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Aug. 2, 2004) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Apr. 8, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Feb. 9, 2005) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant argues that the rejection of instant claim 1, the sole independent claim
on appeal, is in error because separator pedestals (spacers) 50 of Earnworth are not
“operable to selectively force the die and substrate apart.” In the examiner’s view,
Earnworth clearly discloses that the plurality of spacers 50 operate to separate die 10
and substrate 20 apart, referring to column 10, lines 15 through 25. Further, Earnworth
teaches that the spacers prevent the die tilting or tipping in contact with the substrate,
as shown in prior art Figures 2 through 7 of the reference. Since spacers 50 are
inserted between the die and substrate to prevent the tipping, since the spacers
maintain a substantially uniform distance between the die and substrate, and since the
die asserts an amount of weight on the spacers, the spacers are deemed to be operable
to selectively force the die and substrate apart. (Answer at 6.)
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed
limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). “An
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
-4-
essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, F.2d 893
at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
While we commend the examiner to the extent the rejection is based on an
expansive reading of the claims, in this case we must agree with appellant that the
claims avoid the prior art that is applied.
Earnworth teaches that spacers 50 are sized and configured to spread any
compressive forces applied to semiconductor device 10 or substrate 20, to have
sufficient strength and rigidity to maintain a substantially uniform minimum distance
between the device and substrate during bonding, and to prevent tipping or tilting of
device 10 relative to substrate 20 (e.g., col. 10, ll. 1-31). The reference provides, in
column 11, examples of suitable materials that may constitute the spacers. The
rejection does not point out, and we do not find, where Earnworth discloses or suggests
that the spacers are operable to selectively force the die and substrate apart.
As a concrete example of the scope of the claims, we refer to Figures 1A and 1B
of the instant disclosure. Instant claim 1 reads on the flip chip assembly of Figure 1A.
The claim does not read on the flip chip assembly of Figure 1B, because -- subsequent
to the disclosed process -- separator pedestals 17 are not (i.e., no longer) operable to
selectively force the die and substrate apart. There is structural similarity between the
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
-5-
assembly of instant Figure 1B and that of the reference applied against claim 1, but we
agree with appellant that the claim distinguishes over the assembly of the reference.
As the Dockerty reference does not remedy the deficiencies of Earnworth, we
sustain neither of the rejections on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Earnworth and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Earnworth and Dockerty are reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
-6-
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265