Ex Parte Sutton et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 23, 201914275762 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/275,762 05/12/2014 23494 7590 05/28/2019 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Benjamin Michael Sutton 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. TI-74206 1038 EXAMINER GAUTHIER, STEVENB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2893 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2019 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN MICHAEL SUTTON, SREENIV ASAN K. KODURI, and SUBHASHISH MUKHERJEE Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREYR. SNAY, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of filed May 12, 2014 as amended on July 14, 2016 ("Spec."), Final Office Action of July 25, 2017 ("Final"), Appeal Brief of March 12, 2018 ("Appeal Br."), Examiner's Answer of May 2, 2018 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief of July 2, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21- 27, 29, 30, and 32--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to an integrated circuit package. Claim 21 is illustrative: 21. An integrated circuit package comprising: a leadframe including a die attach pad, the die attach pad including a set of cantilevered fingers, each of the set of cantilevered fingers terminating at a distal end; and a die on the die attach pad, the die including a portion on the distal end, the die including at least one coil. Appeal Br. 14 (claims appendix). Of the rejections maintained by the Examiner, it will suffice for us to discuss the rejection of claim 21 as obvious over Leung4 in view of Ghai 5 and Feng6 and the rejection of claims 29 and 35 as obvious over Leung in view of Ghai and Kinsman 7. All of the claims and rejections stand or fall based on the resolution of the issues arising for the rejections of claims 21, 2 Texas Instruments Incorporated is the applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Advisory Action of Jan. 12, 2018. 4 Leung et al., US 2008/0317106 Al, published Dec. 25, 2008. 5 Ghai, US 6,265,761 Bl, issued July 24, 2001. 6 Feng et al., US 2009/0160595 Al, published June 25, 2009. 7 Kinsman, US 2001/0045631 Al, published Nov. 29, 2001. 2 Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 29, and 35. Compare Final 3-11, and Ans. 2-9, with Appeal Br. 7-13, and Reply Br. 1-2. OPINION Claim 21 As to the rejection of claim 21 as obvious over Leung in view of Ghai and Feng, the issue is whether Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a reason, based on the teachings of Ghai and Feng, to use a die attach pad including a set of cantilevered fingers in the integrated circuit package of Leung. Appellant has not identified a reversible error. There is no dispute that Leung teaches an integrated circuit package including a leadframe ( 1602 in Fig. 16) with a die attach pad ( die mounting pad 1606) onto which a die ( 1620) including at least one coil (in the MCU/isolator combination of Figs. 1-2) sits. Compare Final 3--4, with Appeal Br. 7-9; see also Leung ,r,r 31, 32, 34, 70 and 71. Leung's die attach pad is shown as a solid pad rather than a set of cantilevered fingers, thus, the Examiner turns to Ghai and Feng to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final 4. As Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 8), Feng's leads (41a-41j in Fig. 4B) are for a specific purpose: they cooperate with other portions of the package to form a coil (Feng ,r,r 66-67). Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would have no reason to modify the solid die attach pad of Leung with the bottom half-coil patterned conductive leads of Feng. Appeal Br. 8. However, that Feng uses the leads for an additional purpose of forming part of a coil does not point to reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a reason to combine. This is because Ghai provides evidence that those of 3 Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 ordinary skill in the art understood that cantilevered fingers were useful for supporting dies, generally, and in situations where the fingers were not used to form part of a coil. -Ghai supports the Examiner's finding that "[i]t was well-known in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a die attach pad comprising cantilevered fingers." Final 4. Ghai's lead frame includes leads that are a set of cantilevered fingers (lead portions 12, 14 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2) that can be used to support a larger die relative to the size of the package body while maintaining good mechanical support for the leads and support for the die during packaging. Ghai col. 2, 1. 54---col. 3, 1. 4. Ghai does not use the fingers to form part of a coil. Appellant contends that the Examiner's finding of a reason to make the combination, which is based on Ghai' s observation that the cantilevered support is inherently less rigid, is in error because Ghai teaches that replacing the paddle ( die attach pad) with leads is undesirable as the less rigid leads cause problems (mechanical failure and problems in joining of the die to the frame in the bonding of wires to the die). Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the rigidity problem was a problem with the prior art Ghai's invention is said to overcome. Ghai explains that, in many prior art packages, the semiconductor die is positioned on the paddle with clearance between the semiconductor die and the inner ends of the leads. Ghai col. 1, 11. 43--45. To reduce the package size, those in the art have proposed eliminating the paddle and instead supporting the "die on the inner portions of the leads," but, because "the inner ends of the leads are unconnected, they provide a cantilevered support that is inherently less rigid than a structure employing a paddle." Ghai col. 4 Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 1, 1. 66-col. 2, 1. 6. According to Ghai, the lack of rigidity can present difficulties in the packaging process. Id. Ghai is directed to an improvement over the prior art: "a lead frame that allows a larger semiconductor die to be packaged relative to the size of the package body while maintaining good mechanical support for the leads and support for the die during packaging." Ghai col. 2, 11. 54--58. Ghai's lead ends 12, 14 are cantilevered fingers. Ghai Figs. 1-2. Ghai provides evidence that it was known in the art to place the die on leads so that the leads provide a cantilevered support for the die. Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a reason to use a die attach pad including a set of cantilevered fingers in place of Leung's solid die attach pad. Claims 29 and 35 To reject claims 29 and 35, the Examiner relies on Leung, Ghai, and Kinsman. Leung and Ghai support the rejection in the manner discussed above. This is true whether or not Kinsman supports the rejection. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejections. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 5 Appeal2018-007075 Application 14/275,762 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation