Ex Parte Toyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13071841 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/071,841 03/25/2011 Munehiro Toyama
21186 7590 11/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
884.E61US3 4808
EXAMINER
STEVENSON, ANDRE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUNEHIRO TOY AMA,
SIEW FONG TAI, KIAN SIN SIM,
CHARAN K. GURUMURTHY and
SELVY TAMIL SEL V AMUNIANDY1
Appeal2015-006053
Application 13/071,841
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 INTEL CORPORATION is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-006053
Application 13/071,841
Appellants claim a semiconductor chip grid array connection structure
300 comprising a metallic land grid array electrical connection surface 320,
a nickel layer 312 coupled to the metallic connection surface, a palladium
containing layer 314 coupled to the nickel layer, and a gold layer 316
coupled to the palladium containing layer (sole independent claim 1, Fig.
3A).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A semiconductor chip grid array connection structure, comprising:
a metallic land grid array electrical connection surface;
a nickel layer coupled to the metallic connection surface;
a palladium containing layer coupled to the nickel layer; and
a gold layer coupled to the palladium containing layer.
(App Br., pg. 11, Claims Appendix.)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable
claims 1, 2, and 42 over Mori et al. (US 5,821,627, issued Oct. 13, 1998;
hereinafter "Mori") in view of Saiki et al. (US 2005/0023033 Al, published
Feb. 3, 2005; hereinafter "Saiki") (Final Action 4--5) and rejects remaining
claims 3 and 5-9 over these references in combination with additional prior
art (id. at 5-9).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner expresses the following findings
and conclusion regarding obviousness.
Mori fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a semiconductor
chip grid array connection structure comprising a metallic land grid
array electrical connection surface.
2 Claim 4 is not listed in the statement of this rejection but nevertheless is
discussed in the body thereof (Final Action 4).
2
Appeal2015-006053
Application 13/071,841
Saiki teaches, with respect to claim #1, a semiconductor chip
grid array connection comprising, a metallic (connections; 28, 31, 32,
16, 47, 46, 48, 45) land grid array (item #11) electrical connection
surface (metal facial surfaces/layers; 28, 32, 16, 47, 46) (page #7,
paragraph 0090; page #10, paragraph 0128).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, a
semiconductor chip grid array connection structure comprising a
metallic land grid array electrical connection surface, into the method
of Mori, as taught by Saiki, with the motivation that use of LGA's
offer easier component rework, lesser chance of sideways
deformation, durability and provides an unleaded electronic
configuration which conforms to the future environmental standards.
(Id. at 5---6).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no reason or
motivation for combining the applied references in the manner required by
claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 1). For example, Appellants urge that the
motivation expressed by the Examiner (i.e., "use of LGA's [sic, LGAs] offer
[sic, offers] easier component rework, lesser chance of sideways
deformation, durability and provides an unleaded electronic configuration
which conforms to the future environmental standards" (Final Action 5))
"appears to be a motivation to choose an LGA over a solder configuration,
not a motivation to combine teachings between the two technologies [of
Mori and Saiki]" (App. Br. 8). Similarly, Appellants urge that "neither Mori
nor Saiki teach[ es] any combination suggested by the Examiner, and even if
combined, there is no teaching in either of the references to combine in the
way that is claimed" (Reply Br. 1)
Appellants' argument has convincing merit.
3
Appeal2015-006053
Application 13/071,841
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, the Examiner does not support the conclusion of obviousness
with articulated reasoning and rational underpinning of meaningful
specificity. As an example, the Examiner fails to identify specifically the
particular metallic land grid array electrical connection surface to be
combined with the structure of Mori, where the electrical connection surface
would be located in Mori' s structure, or why an artisan would have provided
Mori' s structure with such a connection surface at such a location. In this
latter regard, we emphasize that the Examiner's proffered motivation of
LGA advantages is not supported by citation to evidence and is not
embellished with any explanation why these advantages would have led an
artisan to provide the structure of iviori with a metallic land grid array
electrical connection surface as required by claim 1 (i.e., rather than simply
replacing the structure of Mori with an LGA). These circumstances reveal
that the Examiner's obviousness conclusion regarding claim 1 is based on
mere conclusory statements rather than articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning.
For the above-stated reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections of claims 1-9.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4