Ex Parte Pagaila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12822458 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/822,458 06/24/2010
112165 7590 09/16/2016
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.
2515.0234 5875
EXAMINER
HALL, VICTORIA KATHLEEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-30. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is ST ATS ChipP AC,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as relating to a method of
forming an anisotropic conductive film ("ACF") between a semiconductor
die and a build-up interconnect structure. Spec. i-f 1. The ACF serves to
reduce shifting of the semiconductor die during encapsulation. Spec.,
Abstract. Independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 26 are on appeal. Claims 1, 8,
14, and 26, reproduced below with emphases added, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a semiconductor wafer including a plurality of
semiconductor die comprising bumps formed over contact pads
on an active surface of the semiconductor die;
depositing an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) over the
bumps and active surface of the semiconductor wafer;
singulating the semiconductor wafer to separate the
semiconductor die;
providing a temporary carrier;
disposing the semiconductor die with the ACF oriented
to the temporary carrier;
compressing the ACF under the bumps to form a
conductive portion of the ACF electrically connected to the
bumps;
curing the ACF to form a cured ACF;
depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die and
temporary carrier;
removing the temporary carrier to expose the
conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps; and
forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor
die, cured ACF, and encapsulant with the interconnect structure
being electrically connected through the conductive
portion of the cured ACF to the bumps.
2
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
8. A method of making a semiconductor device,
compnsmg:
providing a semiconductor die including bumps formed
over contact pads on an active surface of the semiconductor die;
depositing an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) over the
bumps;
providing a carrier;
disposing the semiconductor die with the ACF oriented to
the carrier;
compressing the ACF under the bumps to form a
conductive portion of the ACF;
depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die and
carrier;
removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion
of the ACF; and
forming an interconnect structure on the encapsulant and
conductive portion of the ACF with the interconnect structure
being electrically connected through the conductive portion of
the ACF to the bumps.
14. A method of making a semiconductor device,
compnsmg:
providing a semiconductor die including contact pads;
disposing the semiconductor die over an anisotropic
conductive film (ACF);
compressing the ACF under the contact pads to form a
compressed ACF;
curing the ACF to form a cured ACF;
depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die
to leave the cured ACF under the contact pads exposed; and
forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor
die and encapsulant with the interconnect structure being
electrically connected through the compressed ACF to the
contact pads of the semiconductor die.
3
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
26. A method of making a semiconductor device,
compnsmg:
providing a semiconductor die;
disposing the semiconductor die over an anisotropic
conductive film (ACF);
compressing the ACF beneath the semiconductor die
to leave a conductive portion of the ACF opposite the
semiconductor die exposed; and
forming a conductive layer over the conductive portion
of the ACF.
Appeal Br.2 78, 80-81 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Pogge us 6, 110,806 Aug. 29, 2000
Choi et al. US 2007/0114661 Al May 24, 2007
(hereinafter "Choi")
Su US 2009/0020865 Al Jan.22,2009
Paik et al. US 2009/0029504 Al Jan.29,2009
(hereinafter "Paik")
Kim et al. US 2009/0039491 Al Feb. 12,2009
(hereinafter "Kim")
Yamano US 2010/0041183 Al Feb. 18,2010
Pagaila US 2011/0031634 Al Feb. 10,2011
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed April 24, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 1, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), and the
Examiner's Answer mailed November 20, 2014 ("Ans.").
4
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 29 and 30 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 2.
Rejection 2. Claim 6 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Id.
Rejection 3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Paik, in further view of Choi, Su,
and Yamano. Id.
Rejection 4. Claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of Pogge.
Id.
Rejection 5. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of
Pagaila. Id.
Rejection 6. Claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano, and further in view of Kim.
Id. at 3.
Rejection 7. Claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choi, Su, and Y amano. Id.
Rejection 8. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Choi, Su, and Yamano and further in view of Pogge. Id.
Rejection 9. Claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of Pagaila. Id.
5
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
Rejection 1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects Claims 29 and 30 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 2.
"[T]he test for [written description] sufficiency is whether the disclosure of
the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that
the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
date." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
Claim 29 recites, "The method of claim 26, further including forming
an interconnect structure over the conductive portion of the ACF." Appeal
Br. 85 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner maintains that claim 26 requires
"forming a conductive layer over the conductive portion of the ACF" and
that the Specification does not disclose having both a conductive layer and
an interconnect structure "over" the conductive portion of the ACF. Ans. 4--
5. In the Examiner's view, either the conductive layer or the interconnect
structure must be "under the ACF." Id. We disagree.
Appellants persuasively explain that Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the
Specification and Figure 9h disclose forming an interconnect structure (230)
over the conductive portion of the ACF and that the interconnect structure
includes a conductive layer (RDL 232). Appeal Br. 9. Because the
conductive layer may be part of the interconnect structure (as shown in
Figure 9h) both the conductive layer and the interconnect structure may be
"over the conductive portion of the ACF" as described in the Specification.
Spec. i-f 66 ("a bottom-side build-up interconnect structure 230 is formed
over ACF 204 . . . . The build-up interconnect structure 230 includes an
6
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
electrically conductive layer or RDL 232 .... ")(emphasis added). We
therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29.
The Examiner rejects claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
solely because of its dependency on claim 29. Final Act. 5. We thus also do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30.
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claim 6 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Final Act. 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which
depends from claim 1. Claim 6 recites, "The method of claim 5, wherein the
semiconductor component includes bumps which are compressed into the
cured ACF." Appellants do not appear to dispute the Examiner's rejection
and agree that "one skilled in the art would understand that when making the
device shown in FIG 11, the curing step needs to occur after compressing
semiconductor die 254 into ACF 136 .... " Appeal Br. 14. We therefore
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Rejections 3---6, Claim 1-7
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Paik in further view of
Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2-3. Appellants argue that none of these four
references teaches or suggests "removing the temporary carrier to expose the
conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps" as recited by claim
1. Appeal Br. 30.
The Examiner acknowledges that none of the references expressly
teaches this recited step. Final Act. 18. The Examiner concludes that this
recited step would have nonetheless been obvious in view of the teachings of
Choi, Su, and Yamano. Id. While the Examiner's underlying findings
might suggest that the recited step would be possible, the findings fail to
establish that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to implement
7
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
a method of making a semiconductor device where ACF is compressed (so
that it becomes conductive in the compressed area) under the bumps, cured,
and then exposed by removing a temporary carrier.
The Examiner's stated rationale for combining references also fails to
establish that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to reach this
missing step. In particular, the Examiner states that a semiconductor die has
two problems: a need for electricity and a need to protect the die. Ans. 19.
The Examiner acknowledges that "[t]here are a variety of ways to solve both
problems." Id. Appellants' explanation of the four prior art references
establishes that these references solve these problems in ways that do not
involve the missing step: "removing the temporary carrier to expose the
conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps." Appeal Br. 17-30.
The present record lacks adequate reasoning based upon the four cited
references or otherwise as to why a person of skill in the art would have
chosen, among the variety of ways to solve the identified problems, to
implement the missmg step. This is particularly true given that the step at
issue is not taught by any of the references.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner does not state that the additional three references applied to
dependent claims (Pogge, Pagaila, and Kim) further relate to the missing
step discussed above. See, e.g., Final Act. 28, 31, 34. Therefore, we also do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, which all depend from
claim 1.
Rejections 3-6, claims 8-13
The Examiner rejects independent claim 8 as obvious over Paik in
further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2. Independent claim 8 recites
"removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion of the ACF." Appeal
8
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
Br. 80 (Claims Appendix). "The conductive portion" refers back to the
portion of the ACF compressed under the bumps earlier in the claim. Id.
Thus, this recitation is very similar to the claim 1 recitation discussed above.
Appellants argue that none of the four applied references "teach[ es] or
suggest[s] removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion of the ACF
or forming an interconnect structure on the encapsulant and conductive
portion of the ACF .... " Appeal Br. 48. The Examiner again acknowledges
the missing step but concludes that the step would have been obvious. Final
Act. 22.
For the reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the
Examiner's conclusion is in error. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8 or its dependent claims 9-13.
Rejections 3---6, claims 14--20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 14 as obvious over Paik in
further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2-3. Independent claim 14
recites "depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die to leave the
cured ACF under the contact pads exposed .... " Appeal Br. 82 (Claims
Appendix). Appellants argue that none of the four references teaches this
step (Appeal Br. 63), and the Examiner again acknowledges the missing step
but concludes the step would have been obvious (Final Act. 26).
For the reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the
Examiner's conclusion is in error. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14 or its dependent claims 15-20.
Rejections 7-9, claims 26-30
The Examiner rejects independent claim 26 as obvious over Choi, Su,
and Yamano. Ans. 3. Independent claim 26 recites "compressing the ACF
beneath the semiconductor die to leave a conductive portion of the ACF
9
Appeal2015-002952
Application 12/822,458
opposite the semiconductor die exposed." Appeal Br. 84 (Claims
Appendix). Appellants argue that none of the references teaches this recited
step. Id. at 74. The Examiner's rationale for why this step would have been
obvious (Final Act. 36-37) is in error for the reasons explained above with
respect to claim 1. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 26 or its dependent claims 27-30.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 29
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-20 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRivIED-IN-PART
10