Ex Parte Pagaila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12870681 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/870,681 08/27/2010
112165 7590 10/03/2016
STATS ChipPAC/PATENTLAWGROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Reza A. Pagaila
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.
2515.0237 1308
EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REZA A. P AGAILA, Y AOJIAN LIN, and JUN MO KOO
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-44. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ST ATS ChipP AC,
Ltd. App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed August 27,
2010, the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed April 5, 2013,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed September 3, 2013, and the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed November 13, 2013.
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
The invention relates to a methods of forming a leadframe as a
vertical interconnect structure between stacked semiconductor die. Spec.
i-f 1. Appellants' Figure 7i is reproduced below:
i
L----"·~----
FIG. 7i
Appellants' Figure 7i depicting a cross section of stacked dies.
The method includes providing a leadframe having a plurality of conductive
leads 154 and bodies 156 extending from the conductive leads and mounting
the leadframe to a carrier 140 on which a plurality of first semiconductor
dies 124 are mounted with the conductive leads disposed over the first
semiconductor dies and the bodies disposed around the first semiconductor
dies. 3 Spec. i-f 12. A plurality of second semiconductor dies 160 may then
be mounted over the leadframe, after which an encapsulant 170 is deposited
over the first and second semiconductor dies. Spec. i-f 11. Then the carrier
140 is removed, an interconnect structure is formed over the encapsulant
electrically connected to the bodies of the leadframe, and the stacked dies
are singulated. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to Appellants'
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
providing a plurality of first semiconductor die;
providing a substrate including a plurality of conductive
leads and conductive bodies respectively extending from the
conductive leads;
disposing the substrate over the first semiconductor die
including a portion of the conductive leads of the substrate
mounted to the first semiconductor die;
disposing a plurality of second semiconductor die over the
substrate including an active surface of the second
semiconductor die oriented toward and electrically connected
to the portion of the conductive leads mounted to the first
semiconductor die; and
depositing an encapsulant over the first and second
semiconductor die.
26. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a first semiconductor die;
providing a substrate including a continuous conductive
lead and body extending from the continuous conductive lead; and
mounting a portion of the continuous conductive lead to the
first semiconductor die with the body disposed around the first
semiconductor die.
The Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request review of, the
following grounds of rejection:
3
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
A. Claims 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as anticipated by
LiU" 4
'
B. Claims 1-3, 8-11, 14--20, 26-31, 37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fuergut5 in view of Do '402, 6 Ma,7 and Liu; 8
C. Claims 4, 35, 38, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu, further in view of
Wang; 9
D. Claims 5, 36, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu, further in view of
Kim· 1°
'
E. Claims 6, 13, 32, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu, further in view of
Chu· 11
'
F. Claims 7, 34, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu, further in view of Do
'401·12 and
'
G. Claims 12, 33, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu, further in view of
Tsubosaki. 13
4 Liu et al., US 2009/0212405 Al, published August 27, 2009 ("Liu").
5 Fuergut et al., US 2006/0125042 Al, published June 15, 2006 ("Fuergut").
6 Do et al., US 2009/0224402 Al, published September 10, 2009 ("Do
'402").
7 Ma et al., US 5,677,567, issued October 14, 1997 ("Ma").
8 We note in the Examiner's statement of rejection B covering all of the
pending independent claims, Liu was not included. However, in the body of
this rejection, the Examiner made findings regarding Liu's teachings in
support of conclusions of obviousness. Final Act. 6-8. Moreover, the
Examiner's statements of rejections C---G covering dependent claims each
include Liu. Final Act. 8-10, 12-13. Appellants do not argue Liu in any of
rejections B---G. Accordingly, we hold the apparent inadvertent omission of
4
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
ANALYSIS
Rejection A: Anticipation of claims 26-30 by Liu
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 26-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Liu, we need only review the
rejection of claim 26. Claim 26 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to Appellants' Brief, with the limitations at issue italicized:
26. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a first semiconductor die;
providing a substrate including a continuous conductive
lead and body extending from the continuous conductive lead; and
mounting a portion of the continuous conductive lead to the
first semiconductor die with the body disposed around the first
semiconductor die.
The Examiner found that Liu discloses a method of making a
semiconductor device comprising providing first semiconductor dies 112,
114 and a substrate 116; 118 with a continuous conductive lead and body
extending therefrom, and mounting a portion of the continuous conductive
lead over the first semiconductor dies. Final Act. 3, citing Liu Figs. 6, 12,
15, 16, 20, 21. Figure 6 of Liu is reproduced below:
Liu from the statement of rejection B to be harmless error. As such, we have
included Liu in the statement of rejection B.
9 Wang et al., US 2005/0156296 Al, published July 21, 2005 ("Wang").
1° Kim, US 5,939,779, issued August 17, 1999.
11 Chu et al., US 2005/0082656 Al, published April 21, 2005 ("Chu").
12 Do et al., US 2009/0212401 Al, published August 27, 2009 ("Do '401").
13 Tsubosaki et al., US 2003/0162326 Al, published August 28, 2003
("Tsubosaki").
5
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
120
Figure 6 of Liu depicting a schematic exploded view of stacked dies.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Liu fails to teach a conductive
body extending from a continuous conductive lead that is mounted over the
die with the body disposed around the die. Br. 28. In response, the
Examiner reproduced Liu's Figures 11 and 20, annotated to clearly indicate
those structures corresponding to the continuous conductive lead and body
extending therefrom. Ans. 4--5; designating the extending body by an arrow
to leads 142 in Figure 11, and an arrow to leads 232 in Figure 20. The
Examiner found that these figures "explicitly show a plurality of continuous
leadframe with a source lead and a plurality of bodies extending from the
lead such that the body is capable of extending around at least one side of
the die." Ans. 3.
The dispositive issue before us on appeal of this rejection is whether
the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Liu's source leads 142 extend from
the continuous conductive lead and are disposed around the first
6
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
semiconductor die 112, 114. We answer this question in the affirmative and,
therefore, will not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
all features of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim is anticipated only where "each and every
limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
reference.") All words of a claim are to be given weight when evaluating
patentability. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450 (CCPA 1970) ("[E]very
limitation positively recited in a claim must be given effect in order to
determine what subject matter that claim defines."); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of the claim against the prior art.").
In order to determine whether the Examiner erred in finding Liu's
ieads 142, 232 are bodies within the context of ciaim 26, we must determine
if these bodies extend from a continuous conductive lead and, when the lead
is mounted over the first semiconductor die, are disposed around the die as
required by this claim. "[N]ot unlike a determination of infringement, a
determination of anticipation, as well as obviousness, involves two steps.
First is construing the claim, ... followed by, in the case of anticipation or
obviousness, a comparison of the construed claim to the prior art." Key
Pharms. v. Hereon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We
note in this regard that Appellants do not advance any special meaning to
"disposed around the die." The Examiner apparently considered that this
limitation is met by disposed "at least around one side of the die." See Ans.
3. It is therefore necessary for us to construe the phrase "disposed around"
7
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
to determine if the Examiner's finding regarding Liu's bodies as identified
by the Examiner is in error.
[A ]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of
the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We find "around" is
ordinarily defined to mean "about; on all sides; encircling; encompassing."
See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/around, last visited May 25, 2016.
As such, we construe "disposed around" to mean "disposed on all sides or
encircling." This construction is consistent with Appellants' Specification
(Spec. i-f 41 ("to position bodies 156 around a perimeter of semiconductor
die 124"); i-f 49 ("with conductive pillars 156 around a perimeter of
semiconductor die 124")). We note that the Examiner's finding that Liu's
leads 142, 232 are disposed at least on one side of the die fails to meet this
construction.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that Liu anticipates
each and every limitation of Appellants' claim 26. It follows that we will
not sustain the Examiner's Section 102 rejection over Liu.
Rejection B: Obviousness of claims 1-3, 8-11, 14-20, 26-31, 37, and 39
over the combination of Fuergut, Do '402, Ma, and Liu
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11, 14--20,
26-31, 37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fuergut,
8
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
Do '402, Ma, and Liu, Appellants argue each of the independent claims
separately, but do not argue any of the dependent claims separately. In
addition, as the Examiner noted, each of the independent claims differs from
the preceding one by providing fewer limitations, i.e., claim 1 is the most
comprehensive in scope, claim 8 recites the same method as claim 1 except
for an encapsulation step, claim 14 recites the same method as claim 1
except for a second die disposition step, and claim 26 recites the same
method as claim 1 except for both a second die disposition step and an
encapsulation step. As such, Appellants' arguments with regard to each of
the independent claims are substantially the same. Accordingly, our review
focuses on the limitations of independent claim 1. The remaining claims
will stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the appiied prior art, and Appeiiants' claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellants' arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1.
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm
the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer and the Final
Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner found that Fuergut discloses a method of manufacture
of a semiconductor device comprising providing a plurality of first
semiconductor die 24, providing a substrate leadframe having a plurality of
conductive leads and conductive bodies 11 extending therefrom, disposing
the leadframe over the first semiconductor die including a portion of the
9
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
conductive leads 8 mounted to the first semiconductor die, mounting a
plurality of second semiconductor die 4 over the leadframe including an
active surface of the second die oriented toward and electrically connected to
the portion of the leads 8 mounted to the first die, and depositing an
encapsulant 26 over the first and second semiconductor die. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner noted Fuergut fails to disclose forming an interconnect
structure or via over the encapsulant and electrically connected to the bodies
of the leadframe. Id. However, the Examiner found that Do teaches a
similar process of forming stacked die packages including forming
interconnects through the encapsulant to enable electrical connection
between additional semiconductor die and the leadframe. Id. at 5. The
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to include such an
additional step of forming an interconnect through the encapsulant in
Fuergut in order to form more complex stacked devices. Id.
In addition, the Examiner found Ma discloses a ieadframe with
integral conductive leads to increase package density. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner concluded it would have been an obvious design choice to replace
the wire leads of Fuergut for conductive leads integral with the leadframe in
order to increase package density and enable multi-die stacking. Id.
The Examiner next found that Liu discloses a similar manufacturing
process to Fuergut's, except that the lead to be mounted over the die is
electrically connected to the die. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to have modified Fuergut's process to electrically
connect the lead mounted over the die as taught in Liu. Id. at 7-8.
Initially, we note, as did the Examiner (Ans. 6), that Appellants'
arguments (Br. 9-13) challenge the references individually, whereas the
10
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
rejection is based on a combination of the references. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCP A 19 81). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants argue that Fuergut fails to teach leads mounted to the first
semiconductor die, and that the second semiconductor die are connected to
these leads. Br. 9. Moreover, Appellants assert that the active surface of
Fuergut's second semiconductor die is not oriented toward and electrically
connected to the portion of the conductive leads mounted to the first
semiconductor die. Id. Appellants note that Fuergut's second
semiconductor die is oriented away from the leadframe which itself does not
have conductive leads mounted to the first semiconductor die. Id.
In response, the Examiner notes ciaim 1 fails to require that the
conductive structure be in direct contact with the top surface of the first die
as Appellants' argument implies. Ans. 7. We agree. Claim 1 merely
requires that a portion of the conductive leads be mounted to the first die,
without specifying or requiring how this mounting occurs, whether direct or
indirect. In view of this interpretation, the Examiner finds that Fuergut's
conductive structure is mounted to the first dies because this structure is
physically attached to the first dies via the encapsulant and the lower
substrate. Id. Appellants fail to challenge the Examiner's finding in this
regard.
Further, while not necessary given this claim construction, the
Examiner also notes that Do '402 physically and electrically connects an
11
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
overlying conductive structure to an underlying first die. Id. at 8. The
Examiner further notes that Ma also provides support for electrically
connecting conductive leads to first dies, thereby further reinforcing the
conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 9--10. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to mount Fuergut's conductive structure over the
first dies so as to be physically and electrically connected together as Do
'402 and Ma teach. Id. at 8, 10. Again, Appellants fail to challenge either of
these findings or obviousness conclusion.
As for Appellants' argument that Fuergut fails to teach the active
surface of the second dies are oriented toward and electrically connected to
the portion of the conductive leads mounted to the first dies, we note that
Fuergut teaches conductive leads electrically connected to the top (active
surface) of the second dies. Given the interpretation above that the leads are
mounted to the first dies via the encapsulant, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Fuergut's active surface of the
second dies are oriented toward and electrically connected to the portion of
the conductive leads mounted to the first dies.
In addition, while again not necessary given the above claim
construction, the Examiner finds conductive structures over stacked chips
(dies) were well known for electrically connecting the chips, where the
active surfaces of the chips can be facing either towards or away from each
other, citing Do '402 in support of this finding. Id. at 8. In particular, the
Examiner finds Do '402, Figures 11 and 12, teaches both orientations of the
stacked chips whose selection is based on preference and/or design
constraints. Id. at 9. Moreover, the Examiner finds Ma, Figure 7, teaches
the orientation where the active surface of the second die is oriented toward
12
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
and electrically connected to the portion of the conductive leads mounted to
the first die. Id. at 9--10. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to select from these known alternative arrangements to modify
Fuergut to provide the active second die facing toward the active surface of
the first die. In re Kubin, 561F.3d1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting
KSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)) ("Where a skilled
artisan merely pursues 'known options' from a 'finite number of identified,
predictable solutions,' obviousness under§ 103 arises."); In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claimed embodiment was unpatentable
based primarily on a prior art reference that disclosed two alternatives, one
of which was the claimed alternative.)
Appellants next argue that Do '402 does not have a substrate as
recited in claim 1 because Do '402 's metal conduction layer 40 is deposited
over insulating layer 38 and, therefore, cannot mechanically support itself,
cannot be mounted over the first semiconductor die, and requires an
insulating layer for support during deposition. Br. 10. Appellants assert, in
contrast, that the recited substrate can be mounted without other materials
providing support. Id. In addition, Appellants urge that Do '402's metal
conduction layer does not have bodies extending from conductive leads. Id.
Appellants also argue that Do '402 fails to teach disposing a plurality of
second semiconductor die over the substrate. Id. at 11.
Appellants' arguments regarding Do '402 are not persuasive of
reversible error. We first note that Appellants' attempt to distinguish Do
'402 from the claimed method fails to address the combination of prior art
teachings as the Examiner presents in the rejection. While Do '402 teaches
forming a substrate or leadframe by deposition, the Examiner does not rely
13
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
on Do '402 's deposition method for forming the substrate, but rather Do
'402 's teaching that various stacked die arrangements were known to the
ordinary artisan including one in which the conductive substrate extends
over a first die with a second stacked die flipped over and electrically
connected to the substrate. Furthermore, because claim 1 fails to recite or
otherwise require that the substrate is mechanically self-supporting,
Appellants' arguments are not germane.
Turning to Ma, Appellants argue that Ma does not teach or suggest
disposing a substrate including a plurality of conductive leads and bodies
extending from the leads over first semiconductor die including a portion of
the leads mounted to the die. Br. 12. Appellants assert that Ma's leadframe
does not have conductive bodies extending from the conductive leads. Id.
In addition, Appellants urge that Ma's leadframe is technically incompatible
with Fuergut's leadframe because Fuergut's contact pillars 11 are integral to
the eiectricai interconnect between the opposite facing active surfaces of the
first and second semiconductor die 3, 4, whereas chip island 9 is electrically
isolated from the die. Id. at 12-13. Appellants argue "that a person skilled
in the art would not appreciate how to modify leadframe 22 in Fuergut based
on leadframe 400 in Ma and still have the opposite facing semiconductor
chips 3 and 4 connected as taught by Fuergut." Id. at 13.
Appellants' arguments regarding Ma are not persuasive of reversible
error. We note that Appellants' attempt to distinguish Ma from the claimed
method fails to address the combination of prior art teachings as the
Examiner presents in the rejection. Ma teaches disposing a second die over
a leadframe, which itself is over a first die, and mounts a plurality of lead
fingers to the first and second dies through bond pads. Ma, Fig. 7; 7: 1-61.
14
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's findings
regarding Ma. Furthermore, because claim 1 merely requires that the
substrate include "conductive bodies respectively extending from the
conductive leads," without specifying the form, shape, or even direction in
which the bodies extend, Ma's leadframe as depicted in Figure 4 (which is
the form of the leadframe for Figure 7 (Ma 7:38-39)) has conductive bodies
formed by the perimeter of the leadframe. Finally, regarding Appellants'
argument that Ma's leadframe is technically incompatible with that of
Fuergut, we note that this argument fails to recognize the modification to
Fuergut's process the Examiner proposes-to use integral conductive leads
which are electrically connected to facing active surfaces of stacked dies for
increased density. See Final Act. 6.
Accordingly, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection over the combination ofFuergut, Do '402,
Ma, and Liu. It foiiows that we win sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections.
Rejections C-G
Appellants do not advance any separate arguments directed to the
additional findings of fact and conclusions of law the Examiner makes in
Rejections C---G. For the reasons we discuss above, we determine that
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in these further rejections.
15
Appeal2014-003152
Application 12/870,681
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal Brief, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 26-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Liu is reversed.
However, for the reasons given above and in the Final Office Action
and Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fuergut,
Do '402, Ma, and Liu, alone or further in view of Wang, Kim, Chu, Do
'401, or Tsubosaki, 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
16