Ex Parte Skokov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2008

10939226 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SERGEI SKOKOV, LEI JIANG,
and SADASIVAN SHANKAR
____________

Appeal 2007-3713
Application 10/939,226
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 20, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 7-15. Claims 7
and 12 are illustrative:
7. A packaged integrated circuit comprising:

an integrated circuit die;

a surface mount connection between said die and said package; and
Appeal 2007-3713
Application 10/939,226

underfill within said package, said underfill including
benzocyclobutene modified to reduce its curing temperature.

12. An underfill comprising:

a material whose curing temperature is modified to reduce its curing
temperature, said material forming cyclotene.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Kirchhoff 4,999,449 Mar. 12, 1991
Alcoe 6,583,354 B2 Jun. 24, 2003
Ueda 6,620,862 B2 Sep. 16, 2003

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an underfill comprising a
modified benzocyclobutene, such as cyclotene, whose curing temperature is
reduced as a result of the modification. Claims 7-11 define a packaged
integrated circuit including the underfill comprising the modified
benzocyclobutene.
Appealed claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda in view of Kirchoff. Claims 7-11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of
Kirchoff and Alcoe.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well-
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
2
Appeal 2007-3713
Application 10/939,226

We consider first the Examiner’s § 112, second paragraph rejection of
claims 12-15. It is the Examiner’s position that the recitation “cyclotene” is
an improper use of a trademark/tradename that does not sufficiently identify
or describe the material. Appellants’ principal Brief does not address the
thrust of the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner explains as much in the
Answer (See p. 7, 2nd para.) Although Appellants submitted a Reply Brief in
response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants again failed to address the
Examiner’s legitimate concern for the claim recitation of a trademark/-
tradename. Consequently, inasmuch as the Examiner’s rejection is
reasonable on its face, and has not been refuted by Appellants, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 12-15 over
Ueda in view of Kirchoff. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual
determination that Ueda, like Appellants, discloses an underfill material for
a packaged integrated circuit comprising a modified benzocyclobutene. The
Examiner recognizes that Ueda does not teach that the benzocyclobutene is
modified to reduce its curing temperature. However, the Examiner cites
Kirchoff as evidence that it was known in the art that benzocyclobutene can
be modified to reduce its curing temperature. In particular, Kirchoff
expressly discloses that “[w]herein the cyclobutene ring is substituted with
an electron-donating substituent, the polymerization temperature is generally
lowered, the higher the ability of the substituent to donate electrons, the
lower the polymerization initiation temperature is" (col. 21, lines 20 et seq.).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to modify the benzocyclobutene underfill
material of Ueda in the manner taught by Kirchoff for the purpose of
3
Appeal 2007-3713
Application 10/939,226

reducing its curing temperature. We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the curing
temperature of Ueda’s underfill material to reduce the energy required for
processing, and therefore the processing cost, as well as for the purpose of
subjecting the material to less strident conditions that may produce harmful
stress. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kirchoff
provides no reason for lowering the curing temperature. We are convinced
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the benefit
of utilizing a material that can be processed at a lower temperature. It is not
necessary for a finding of obviousness that the reference, itself, articulates a
reason for lowering the curing temperature which would have been readily
apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants have not presented a further substantive argument against
the § 103 rejection of claims 7-11 that includes the further citation of Alcoe.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the forgoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
4
Appeal 2007-3713
Application 10/939,226

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).
AFFIRMED

cam

TROP PRUNER & HU, PC
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631

5