Ex Parte Saeki et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 22, 201814117624 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/117,624 11/13/2013 53080 7590 08/24/2018 McDermott Will and Emery LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tsubasa Saeki 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. 043888-0986 4380 EXAMINER GAMINO, CARLOS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2018 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): mweipdocket@mwe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TSUBASA SAEKI, YOSHIYUKI WADA, KOJI MOTOMURA, and TADAHIKO SAKAI Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4--8, and 12. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. Appeal Brief of March 21, 2017 ("App. Br."), 1. In this opinion, we also refer to the Final Action of October 13, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Examiner's Answer of May 19, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief of July 19, 2017 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electronic component mounting method comprising the steps of: providing a first electronic component having a principal surface provided with a plurality of bumps, the plurality of bumps including a set of bumps forming an outermost perimeter of bumps; providing a substrate having a plurality of first electrodes corresponding to the plurality of bumps; applying flux to the plurality of bumps; placing the first electronic component on the substrate such that the bumps land on the corresponding first electrodes via the flux; the flux being in contact with both the bumps and the first electrodes; dispensing a thermosetting resin onto only reinforcement positions on the substrate with the first electronic component placed thereon so as to maintain the contact between the flux and both the bumps and the first electrodes, the reinforcement positions corresponding to a peripheral edge portion of the first electronic component, the thermosetting resin dispensed so as to come in contact with the peripheral edge portion and only a portion of the set of bumps forming the outermost perimeter of bumps; and heating the substrate with the first electronic component placed thereon, to melt the bumps and cure the thermosetting resin, followed by cooling, thereby to join the first electronic component to the substrate. App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal are: Sakami Oshima Takizawa JP 08-298374 JP 11-274235 US 2008/0303145 Al Dec. 11, 1996 Aug. 10, 1999 Dec. 11, 2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--8, and 12 for failure to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph. Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--8, and 12 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Sakami, in view of Oshima and Takizawa. Final Act. 3-7. OPINION Written Description The Examiner finds claims 1 and 12, as well as claims 4--8 by virtue of their dependency from claim 1, 2 fail to meet the written description requirement because the specification lacks support for the limitation "dispensing a thermosetting resin onto only reinforcement positions on the substrate with the first electronic component placed thereon so as to maintain the contact between the flux and both the bumps and the first electrodes," as recited in claims 1 and 12. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds, 2 Appellants argue claims 1, 4--8, and 12 as a group based on the limitation at issue recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3--4. Claims 4--8 and 12 therefore stand or fall with claim 1 for the written description rejection. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 among others, that "[i]t is unknown [to] what environment this limitation applies and to what degree this maintaining of contact is intended." Ans. 3. Appellants cite Fig. 2(e) and paragraphs 5, 26, 49, 51, and 52 in the specification as support for the limitation at issue. App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that "the specification makes clear that the thermosetting resin functions to improve the joint strength of the connection formed by the bump, flux and first electrode" but do not explain how improvement of the joint strength relates to the claim limitation at issue. Id ( emphasis in original). Appellants argue that the written description requirement is met because "claim 1 only requires that the thermosetting resin 105 be in contact with the flux 206, the bumps 204 and the first electrodes 102a prior to the heating step so as to maintain the contact between the flux and both the bumps and the first electrodes." Reply Br. 2. These arguments, however, do not address the claim limitation at issue. Claim 1 does not recite any improvement to "the joint strength" or "the thermosetting resin ... be in contact ... prior to the heating step so as to maintain the contact" as argued by Appellants. See App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2. Nor do the arguments address the Examiner's finding that the written description is incomplete because it does not fully describe "the parameters" of this limitation. Compare Ans. 3, with Reply Br. 2. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 1 for failure to comply with the written description requirement. 4 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 Obviousness Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 for obviousness because, according to Appellants, a skilled artisan "would not be motivated to utilize the selected teachings of the prior art references ... without utilizing the Applicant's claim as a blue print." App. Br. 5 ( emphases removed). More specifically, Appellants argue that "Oshima teaches that the resin completely fills the space between the chip and the substrate without any void" and the skilled artisan would not have combined Oshima's teaching with Takizawa's teaching of locally applying the resin. Id. at 6; see Reply Br. 6. The portions of Oshima cited by Appellants- paragraphs 16, 18, 29, and 30--do not, however, application of the resin "without any void[s]" as argued by Appellants. See Oshima ,r,r 16, 18, 29, 30. Appellants argue that Oshima "discloses the resin being dispensed after the components are mounted" whereas Takizawa "discloses dispensing resin in a limited peripheral area prior to mounting the components," but do not adequately explain why the order in which the resin is applied in Oshima shows that the process in Oshima is one that applies the resin "without any void[s]." App. Br. 5 (emphases removed). Appellants also do not identify reversible error in the Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would find the recited process obvious because dispensing the resin both before and after mounting the components are known in the prior art and claim 1 "is nothing more than a rearrangement" of these prior art steps. Compare Final Act. 4, with_Reply Br. 3--4. To the extent that Takizawa discloses a process 3 Appellants do not present arguments separate from those for claim 1 for the obviousness rejection. App. Br. 8. Claim 12 and all remaining dependent claims, namely, claims 4--8 therefore stand or fall with claim 1 for the obviousness rejection. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 5 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 with an order of steps not entirely identical to those of Oshima, Appellants have not shown that such a rearrangement of steps is beyond "a predictable variation [ of a known work]" which is within the ordinary skill to implement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Moreover, Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner's finding that "Takizawa teaches that applying the thermosetting flux resin to fill the entire space between a rectangular chip and substrate, as Oshima does, can lead to the solder portions breaking." Compare Final Act. 5, with App. Br. 5 (asserting that the obviousness rejection is based on "selected" prior art teaching). Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner's finding that "Oshima also teaches the resin strengthens the bonding connection, an improvement in resin sealing reliability, and a shortened production time." Compare Ans. 5, with Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants also do not identify error in the Examiner's finding that given the prior art teaching in Sakami, Oshima, and Takizawa as a whole, which forms the basis of the obviousness rejection, the skilled artisan would necessarily combine the teachings of Oshima and Takizawa because "one could not directly apply the Takizawa process to Sakami since the application of resin prior to the application of flux would prevent the flux from being applied to circuit patterns." Compare Ans. 5, with Reply Br. 3- 4. That is, Appellants argue in favor of non-obviousness by reading the references in isolation instead of the teaching of all three references a whole. See Ans. 5; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must be read, not in 6 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole."). Lastly, Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not modify Oshima's process because Takizawa seeks to improve various characteristics of "a large-sized semiconductor package" which differs from the "small sized semiconductor chip" used in Oshima's process. App. Br. 7 (citing Takizawa ,r 9). It is unclear from Appellants' argument what size is considered "small" in semiconductor chips as opposed to "large" in semiconductor packages. See id. Appellants' argument is based on both "large sized semiconductor" and "large-sized semiconductor package" but does not clearly explain whether a skilled artisan would not combine the references because of the size differences or the differences between a "semiconductor" and a "semiconductor package." See id. Appellants' statement that "the electronic component disclosed in Oshima is not a large sized semiconductor but is a small sized semiconductor chip" whereas Takizawa "has been widely applied to small sized semiconductor chips of some millimeters square" does not support their argument that a skilled artisan would not combine the references based on the size difference in the prior art. App. Br. 7 .. Appellants' argument regarding the size difference of the semiconductor does not provide any citation to Oshima. See App. Br. 7. As the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, "Oshima gives no sizes." Compare Ans. 5, with Reply Br. 4. Appellants' argument that Oshima's process uses a particular size of semiconductor is therefore not supported by evidence in the record. For these reasons, Appellants' argument with regard to the size of the semiconductor does not show that it is beyond a skilled artisan's ability to implement a predictable variation of 7 Appeal2017-010051 Application 14/117,624 the prior art, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, nor does it identify reversible error in the Examiner's rationale that a skilled artisan would have combined the references because both "teach[] that applying the thermosetting flux resin to fill the entire space between a rectangular chip and substrate ... can lead to the solder portions breaking." Compare Final Act. 5, with App. Br. 7. DECISION The Examiner's decision 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation