Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 13, 2007

10892133 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHINSUKE SUZUKI
and SHINJI MURAKI
____________

Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 13, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12 and 24-32.
Claims 13-23 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is
illustrative:

Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133

1. A dies bonding apparatus, comprising:

a nozzle unit which discharges an adhesive agent to a rectangular
bonding area of a chip mounting surface, said nozzle unit including,

a central nozzle which discharges the adhesive agent to the center of
the bonding area; and

a plurality of peripheral nozzles provided around the central nozzle
and whose amount of discharge of the adhesive agent is smaller than the
amount of discharge of the adhesive agent from the central nozzle;

wherein each of an area of a discharge port of the peripheral nozzles is
substantially identical; and

wherein an area of a discharge port of the central nozzle is about 1.2
to 3 times of the area of the discharge port of each of the peripheral nozzles.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Yoshida 5,187,123 Feb. 16, 1993
Masato (as translated) JP 11-145165 May 28, 1999

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a die bonding apparatus
comprising a nozzle unit that is used to discharge an adhesive to the bonding
area of a chip mounting surface. The nozzle unit comprises a central nozzle
and a plurality of peripheral nozzles located around the central nozzle. The
discharge port of the central nozzle is about 1.2 to 3 times the area of the
discharge port of each of the peripheral nozzles which are substantially
identical.
Appealed claims 1-4, 7-9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2
Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133

being unpatentable over Masato. Claims 5, 6, 10-12, and 25-32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masato in view
of Yoshida.
With respect to the § 102/103 rejection, Appellants do not set forth
separate, substantive arguments for claims 4 and 7-9. Accordingly, these
claims stand or fall together with claim 1. Likewise, claims 5, 6, 10-12, and
25-32 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner has
properly concluded that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, and 24
under § 102 or § 103 over Masato. Masato, like Appellants, discloses a die
bonding apparatus that may discharge an adhesive agent comprising a
central nozzle and a plurality of peripheral nozzles provided around the
central nozzle. Figure 1(b) of Masato depicts a pattern of bonding material
on a substrate that is discharged by the nozzle unit, and it can be seen that
the central nozzle of Masato discharges more material than the four
peripheral nozzles. As emphasized by Appellants, however, Masato does
not describe that the discharge port of the central nozzle has a greater area
than the discharge ports of the peripheral nozzles. The reference is silent
with respect to the relative areas of the central and peripheral discharge
ports. As a result, it cannot be concluded that Masato describes the claimed
subject matter within the meaning of § 102.
However, we fully concur with the Examiner that Masato provides
sufficient evidence that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
3
Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133

to one of ordinary skill in the art under § 103. In our view, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily understood that the pattern of the
deposited material shown in Figure 1(b) of Masato may be generated by
using a central nozzle having a greater area for the discharge port than the
area of the discharge ports of the peripheral nozzles. While it may be true,
as argued by Appellants, that the larger central area of deposited material
may be achieved by means other than having the area of the central nozzle
greater than the area of the peripheral nozzles, we are satisfied that utilizing
discharge ports having different areas would have been one of the more
obvious ways for obtaining the pattern depicted in Masato's Figure 1(b). We
find no fault in the Examiner's citation of common sense to arrive at the
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill
in the art to employ a central nozzle having an area larger than the areas of
the peripheral nozzles to obtain a pattern of deposited material like that
shown in Masato. Common sense is a legitimate and useful tool in the
obviousness analysis under § 103. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1742 (2007).
We will also sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6,
10-12, and 25-32 over Masato in view of Yoshida for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer. Claim 5 defines a particular pattern for the
location of the central nozzle and the peripheral nozzles, and we are
convinced that it would have been a matter of prima facie obviousness for
one of ordinary skill in the art to select any particular pattern for the
discharge nozzles in the absence of a showing of criticality by Appellants
that the particularly recited pattern produces an unexpected advantage. In
general, where patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of the
4
Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133

prior art, such as a change in size, configuration, concentration of
ingredients, etc., the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective
evidence that the change leads to a new, unexpected result. In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Ranier, 377 F.2d 1006, 1010
(CCPA 1967); In re Bourdon, 240 F.2d 358, 361 (CCPA 1957); In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, Appellants have
proffered no objective evidence that nozzle patterns within the scope of the
appealed claims produce anything more than what would have been
expected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner's factual finding that Yoshida discloses the claimed
nozzle configuration for discharging bonding material. While Appellants
argue that Yoshida does not disclose a variation in the hole size of the
nozzles, we, for the reasons set forth above, agree with the Examiner that
such a variation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.1
As for Appellants' argument that Masato injects solder whereas Yoshida
injects adhesive paste, we find that the references are combinable inasmuch
as they are both directed to the discharge of viscous, bonding material.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.

1 We also note that Appellants state in their Reply Brief that the argument
appearing at page 10 of the Principal Brief, paragraph 2, was in error (see
Reply Br. 4, para. 9).
5
Appeal 2008-0231
Application 10/892,133

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)(effective
Sept. 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

RABIN & BERDO, P.C.
Suite 500
1101 14th Street
Washington, DC 20005

6