Ex Parte Shim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 4, 2010

11382983 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 4, 2010)

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.
11/382,983 05/12/2006 Il Kwon Shim 27-174 6965
22898 7590 08/04/2010
LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 330
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087
EXAMINER
YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2826
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IL KWON SHIM, SENG GUAN CHOW, JEFFREY D.
PUNZALAN, BYUNG JOON HAN, and
KAMBHAMPATI RAMAKRISHNA
____________

Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 3, 2008), the Answer (mailed August
5, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed October 6, 2008) for the respective
details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an integrated circuit package to
package stacking system which includes a first integrated circuit package
having a configured lead frame and a second integrated circuit package
having a gull-wing or J-lead leadframe. The integrated circuit package is
formed by electrically connecting the configured leadframe of the first
integrated circuit to the gull-wing or J-lead leadframe of the second
integrated circuit package. (See generally Spec. 4:27-5:15).

Claim 1 further illustrates the invention and reads as follows:
1. An integrated circuit package to package stacking system
comprising:
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

3
providing a first integrated circuit package, having a configured
leadframe;
providing a second integrated circuit package, having a gull wing or J-
lead leadframe; and
forming an integrated circuit package pair by electrically connecting
the configured leadframe of the first integrated circuit package to the gull
wing or J-lead leadframe of the second integrated circuit package.

The Examiner’s Rejections

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Mahulikar US 5,608,267 Mar. 4, 1997
Harnden US 2003/0062601 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
Crowley US 6,605,866 B1 Aug. 12, 2003

Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crowley in view of Harnden.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crowley in view of Harnden and Mahulikar

ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ contentions, as well as the findings and
conclusions of the Examiner, the pivotal issues before us are as follows:
a) did the Examiner err in finding that Crowley discloses an
integrated circuit package stacking system including first and second
integrated circuit packages having configured leadframes; and
b) did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the J-lead and gull-wing
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

4
leadframe teachings of Harnden with the package stacking system teachings
of Crowley.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19
Appellants’ arguments focus on the alleged deficiency of the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Crowley and Harnden in disclosing a
first integrated circuit package with a configured leadframe and a second
integrated circuit package with a gull-wing or J-lead leadframe as recited in
each of the appealed independent claims 1, 6, and 11. In particular,
Appellants contend (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3) that, in contrast to the
claimed requirements, Crowley discloses (Fig. 9, col. 21, ll. 21-46) that the
first integrated circuit package 86 of the stacked package (50, 86) has flat,
i.e., unconfigured, leads. Appellants further attack (App. Br. 11-12; Reply
Br. 4-5) the Examiner’s proposed combination of Harnden with Crowley by
contending that the external leadframe configuration of Harnden is
incompatible with the encapsulated internal lead frame configuration of
Crowley and, contrary to the Examiner’s contention (Ans. 3 and 15) that
package size efficiency would be improved, the resultant combination
package would have increased size.
We do not agree with Appellants. Initially, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the leadframe 87 in the integrated circuit
package 86 disclosed by Crowley (Fig. 9, col. 6, ll. 20-46) can be reasonably
interpreted as being a “configured” leadframe as claimed. As pointed out by
the Examiner (Ans. 13-15), aside from the non-limiting examples of
“configured” leadframes (“such as a gull-wing or J-lead leadframe,” Spec.
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

5
5:3-4), Appellants’ disclosure provides no specific definition of the term
“configured” that is different from the ordinary and customary meaning of
the term. Further, even assuming arguendo that Appellants’ characterization
(App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3) of Crowley’s leadframe 87 as being “flat” is
correct, there is no evidence presented by Appellants to support the
conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered a “flat”
leadframe as being necessarily unconfigured.
We also note that, while the Examiner has directed attention (Ans. 3
and 14) to the Figure 9 embodiment of Crowley, the Figure 11 embodiment
of Crowley unambiguously illustrates a stacked integrated circuit package
with each package 91, 92 having leadframes which are configured into non-
flat shapes. As described by Crowley, (Fig. 11, col. 6, l. 62-col. 7, l. 33) the
leads 93 and 97 in the first and second packages 91, 92 have upper, middle,
and lower portions (94, 95, 96 and 98, 99, 100) configured into a shape
which corresponds to the “S” shape disclosed at column 4, lines 61-63 of
Crowley.
Lastly, we find no error in the Examiner’s application (Ans. 3 and 15)
of the J-lead and gull wing shaped leadframe configuration teachings of
Harnden to the disclosure of Crowley. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments
(App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4-5), we do not interpret the Examiner’s position
as suggesting the bodily incorporation of the external J-lead and gull-wing
shaped leadframes into the internal leadframe configuration of Crowley.
Rather, it is Harnden’s teaching (¶ [0187]) of the space saving achieved by
the bending back of leads into a J-shape or a reverse gull-wing shape that is
relied upon as a rationale for the proposed combination with Crowley. “The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

6
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11, as well as dependent claims 2-
4, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-19 not separately argued by Appellants.

Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 5, 10, 15, and 20. We find no error in the Examiner’s application
(Ans. 11-13) of the heat sink teachings of Mahulikar to the combination of
Crowley and Harnden. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6)
rely on those asserted against the obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 6, and 11. We found those arguments to be unpersuasive as
discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-004764
Application 11/382,983

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

tkl

LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 330
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087