Ex Parte Park

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11162622 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SEUNG WOOK PARK
____________________

Appeal 2012-007016
Application 11/162,622
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–
10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We REVERSE.

The claims are directed to a method for singulating individual
integrated circuit chips from a substrate or wafer (Claims 1 and 6; see also
Spec ¶ 26 (“The terms ‘wafer’ and ‘substrate’ are used interchangeably
herein”). Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2012-007016
Application 11/162,622
2
1. A method for an integrated circuit singulation system
comprising:
scribing a substrate using a plurality of passes along each
path of laser cutting through an active layer of the substrate;
and
dicing the substrate using a plurality of passes along each
path of mechanical cutting.
(Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 24.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Peng1 in view of Patterson2 and Biegelsen.3
Peng teaches a two-pass cutting procedure for singulating a wafer in
which the first pass involves scribing by a laser and the second pass involves
dicing with a mechanical cutter (Peng ¶ 32). As acknowledged by the
Examiner, Peng does not disclose making a plurality of passes along each
cutting path with either the laser or the mechanical cutter (Ans. 5–6).
In order to support the obviousness of using multiple passes of a
mechanical cutter to dice the substrate wafer, the Examiner relies upon
Biegelsen (Ans. 5-6).
Biegelsen teaches forming a T-shaped support 102 having a base 104
and protruding spacer 106 by micro-machining (Biegelsen, col. 4, ll. 14–41;
Fig. 3). According to Biegelsen:
The support 102 may be micro-machined using multiple
passes of a single diamond-charged saw blade, or it may be
machined using a single pass of a properly shaped saw blade or
grinding tool. The goal is to produce a vertical spacer 106
having flat sides and a flat top surface.

1 Peng et al., US 2003/0047543 A1, pub. Mar. 13, 2003.
2 Patterson et al., US 6,313,434 B1, patented Nov. 6, 2001.
3 Biegelsen et al., US 5,521,931, patented May 28, 1996.
Appeal 2012-007016
Application 11/162,622
3
(Biegelsen, col. 4, ll. 37-41.)
According to the Examiner, Biegelsen inherently discloses making
multiple passes along each path of mechanical cutting because “the cuts are
made along a path, see column 4, lines 37-41” (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that Biegelsen does not teach a plurality of passes
along each path (Appeal Br. 10–11). According to Appellants,
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret
Biegelsen's col. 4, lines 37-41, supra, to mean forming the
Biegelsen vertical spacer 106 by multiple passes of a saw blade,
wherein each pass removes small adjacent slivers of the support
102 (i.e., the material of support 102 is removed by off-setting
the saw blade to a path adjacent the preceding path and not by
performing multiple passes “along each path.”)
(Appeal Br. 11.)
We agree with Appellants’ interpretation of Biegelsen. Biegelsen
discloses the process as one of micro-machining. One of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood Biegelsen to be describing removing material
from a starting structure, such as a block of starting material, using the saw
until the T-shape of the support 102 was formed. This would involve
making a pass with the saw blade to remove a sliver of material, moving the
saw blade horizontally, and making another pass in a new path until only the
base 104 and protruding spacer 106 remained. The Examiner has not
established that the saw blade makes a plurality of passes in each path in the
micro-machining process of Biegelsen. Nor has the Examiner established
that given the combined teachings of Peng and Biegelsen, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that making a plurality of passes along
each path of mechanical cutting would have been desirable to dice the
substrate of Peng.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2012-007016
Application 11/162,622
4

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

lp