Ex Parte Purushothaman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2014

12615175 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/615,175 11/09/2009 Sampath Purushothaman YOR920080504US2
(14-19-2)
1046
68397 7590 12/09/2014
THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. EICHELBURG
HODAFEL BUILDING, SUITE 200
196 ACTON ROAD
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403
EXAMINER
BRADFORD, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAMPATH PURUSHOTHAMAN, MARY E. ROTHWELL,
GHAVAM GHAVAMI SHAHIDI, and ROY RONGGING YU

____________

Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a structure comprising two device
layers joined together to form an electronic system. The Examiner has
rejected the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 20–
35. The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Morrow,1 Miyakawa,2 and
Pogge ’690.3 Answer 3.
2. Claims 21, 22, 27, 29, 29, 30, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Morrow, Miyakawa, Pogge ’690,
Kirby,4 and Pogge’959. 5 Answer 3.
3. Claims 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
view of Morrow, Miyakawa, Pogge ’690, and Law.6 Answer 4.
Claim 20 is the only independent claim on appeal. Claim 20
reads as follows (emphasis added to highlight the disputed limitation):
20. A structure comprising two device layers joined together to
form an electronic system and further comprising:
a first device layer disposed on a first substrate and
comprising a first circuit layer and a first interconnection wiring
layer;
a second device layer disposed on a second substrate and
comprising a second circuit layer and a second-interconnection
wiring layer;
said first and said second device layers further connected
using two sets of via connections comprising a first via

1 Morrow, US 2007/0145601 A1, published Jun. 28, 2007.
2 Miyakawa et al., US 2009/0160050 A1, published Jun. 25, 2009.
3 Pogge et al., US 2006/0121690 A1 (hereinafter ’690), published Jun. 8,
2006.
4 Kirby et al., US 2006/0043598 A1, issued Mar. 2, 2006.
5 Pogge et al. US 7,344,959 B1 (hereinafter ’901), issued Mar. 18, 2008.
6 Law et al., US 2010/0225002 A1, published Sept. 9, 2010.
Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

3
connection that extends from the top surface of said first
interconnection wiring layer of said first device layer to the top
surface of said second interconnection wiring layer of said
second device layer; and a second via connection that extends
from said top surface of said first interconnection wiring layer
of said first device layer through said second device layer, and
connecting to a third set of connections comprising
interconnection wires and input output terminals disposed on
the back side of said second device layer.

1. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF MORROW, MIYAKAWA, AND
POGGE
Issue
The Examiner found that Morrow describes a “structure comprising
two device layers,” as recited in claim 20. Answer 6. The Examiner further
found that Morrow describes a first via connection that “extends from the
top surface of said first interconnection wiring layer of said first device layer
to the top surface of said second interconnection wiring layer of said second
device layer” and a second via connection that “extends from said top
surface of said first interconnection wiring layer of said first device layer
through said second device layer.” Id. The Examiner acknowledged that
Morrow does not disclose “a third set of connections comprising
interconnection wires and input output terminals disposed on the back side
of said second device layer.” Id. at 8. For this feature, the Examiner
asserted that Morrow “contemplates metal layers in different positions in the
substrate, including, it would seem, both sides of the device layer.” Id.
Miyakawa and Pogge were further cited by the Examiner for their teaching
of input output terminals and interconnections, as claimed. Id.
Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

4
Appellants contend that Morrow does not describe the claimed second
via connection that extends (1) from the top surface of the first
interconnection wiring layer of the first device layer through (2) the second
device layer, and (3) connecting to a third set of connections comprising
interconnection wires and input output terminals disposed on the back side
of the second device layer. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contend that the
Examiner misconstrued “via connection” to include connections in addition
to the via, such as interconnect 128 and the unnamed and unnumbered
elements in Fig. 1K of Morrow. Id. at 10. The rejection thus turns on the
proper interpretation of “via connection.”

Claim interpretation
The issue in this appeal involves the interpretation of “via connection”
as recited in the claims. During patent prosecution, claim terms are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Buszard,
504 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The term “via connection” is not defined in Application No.
12/615,175 (“the ’175 Application”), the application in this appeal. The
Examiner interpreted “via connection” to “include [ ] connections that are
formed in part by a via,” permitting the inclusion of bonding pads and
interconnect structures. Final Office Action 4. However, the Examiner did
not identify evidence to support this interpretation, but appeared to have
based this interpretation on the recitation of “via connection,” rather than
App
App

just “
inste
broa
posit
joini
uses
sepa
joini
comp
comp
conn
this c
eal 2012-0
lication 12
via.” Be
ad of “via
der than si
Appellan
ion that “v
ng devices
a “single v
rate ‘interc
ng devices
The ’175
rising a fi
rising a s
ections. ’
onfigurat
10834
/615,175
cause the t
,” the Exam
mply a “vi
ts challen
ia connec
. Appeal
ia that pa
onnects’ a
.” Id.
Applicat
rst device
econd dev
175 Appli
ion (labels
erm “via c
iner appa
a.” Answ
ge the Exa
tion” exclu
Br. 11. Ap
sses from
nd withou
ion describ
layer and
ice layer, w
cation ¶ 42
added to i
5
onnection
rently pre
er 14.
miner’s in
des multi
pellants a
substrate to
t joining t
es a via w
passes thro
here it is
. Fig. 4(K
dentify the
” was used
sumed tha
terpretatio
-componen
rgue that t
substrate
o separate
hich starts
ugh a sec
connected
), reprodu
structure
in the cla
t “via conn
n, taking t
t structure
heir own a
without jo
substrate
at a first s
ond substr
another s
ced below
s more cle
ims
ection” is
he
s having
pplication
ining to
to substrat
ubstrate
ate
et of
, shows
arly).

e
Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

6
Fig. 4(K) shows via 2431 extending from the top surface of the
first device layer (“1000”) and through the second device layer
(unnumbered but annotated with the label “second substrate with
device layer”). ’175 Application ¶ 43. This is the same configuration
that is claimed. The figure also shows connecting stud 1401 at one
end. Id. at ¶ 58. Fig. 4(K) does not show the “third set of connections
comprising interconnection wires and input output terminals disposed
on the back side of said second device layer.” However, the second
substrate is shown to be modified in Figs. 4(M) through 4(Q) to
contain such a feature.
The ’175 Application describes the through via approach
depicted above as inventive and says that, if this “new method” is
used, metal to metal connections made by bonding can be
significantly reduced. Id. at ¶¶ 12 and 43. Consistently, there do not
appear to be any via connections with intervening structures between
them.
The term “via connection” appears in the ’175 Application. For
example, the application states: “It is desirable, therefore, to form face
to face connections and through wafer via connections at the same
time and with very high density and yield.” Id. at ¶ 12 (emphasis
added). The ’175 Application also specifically identifies “via
connections 1215,” which as shown in Fig. 4(K) above, to be a single
via with no intervening structure in it. Id. at ¶ 55.
Based on the disclosure in the ’175 Application, we interpret
“via connection” to mean a conventional via – with no intervening
Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

7
structures – but not excluding a connecting stud at either end. The
Examiner did not point to persuasive evidence that “via connection”
would be construed by the ordinary skilled worker to be broader than
the term “via.”

Morrow
The Examiner found that Morrow describes “a second via
connection that extends from said top surface of said first
interconnection wiring layer of said first device layer through said
second device layer. For this feature, the Examiner reproduced Fig.
1K from Morrow, in which the Examiner added labels to identify the
disputed features. Annotated Fig. 1K is reproduced below. We have
added the gray shading to highlight the structure which the Examiner
contends corresponds to the claimed “second via connection.”

Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

8
The Examiner identified the structure comprising 128 (shown
with cross-hatching) and 104 (shown with no cross-hatching) as a “via
connection.” Answer 6–8 (see region shaded with gray in Fig. 1K
above). This via connection, as show in Fig. 1K, comprises 104/128
(hatched)/rectangular element/rectangular element/104/128 (hatched).
The Examiner labeled the “first interconnection” wiring layer of
the first device layer, but did not label the “second device layer” of
claim 20. However, the Examiner identified the second device layer
as “(layer containing 102) disposed on a second substrate (154) and
comprising a second circuit layer (layer containing active devices
102) and a second interconnection wiring layer (104).” Id. at 6.
Substrate 154 shown in Fig. 1K.
The structure which the Examiner identifies as the “second via
connection” (104/128/rectangular element/rectangular
element/104/128; grey shaded region) is interrupted by two
rectangular shaped elements before passing into the second device
layer. These two rectangular elements are “un-named and un-
numbered” as noted by Appellants. Appeal Br. 10. Thus, there are
intervening rectangular elements in the second “via connection.” We
interpreted “via connection” to mean a conventional via with no
intervening structures. Because there are intervening structures
between the via connections in Morrow that connect the first and
second device layers, Morrow’s structure (104/128/rectangular
element/rectangular element/104/128) does not meet the claimed
“second via connection” limitation of claim 20. The obviousness
Appeal 2012-010834
Application 12/615,175

9
rejection of claim 20, and dependent claims 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, and
34, is reversed.

REJECTIONS 2 AND 3
Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 29, 30, 33, and 35 stand rejected
under rejections 2 and 3. Each of these claims depend from claim 20.
The secondary references cited in the rejections do not make up for
the deficiency in claim 20 described for Morrow. Consequently, we
are compelled to reverse these rejections, as well.

REVERSED

lp