Ex Parte Wakiyama et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2011

11157863 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SATORU WAKIYAMA and SHINJI BABA

___________

Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 23-28.1 Claims 1-22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a semiconductor device including a
semiconductor chip, electrodes formed on a major surface of the
semiconductor chip and a wiring board for mounting the semiconductor chip
(e.g., wirings for electrically connecting the wirings of the wiring board).
(Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 23 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
23. A semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor chip using an Si substrate, a low-dielectric-constant
film as an interlayer insulation film, and solder bumps formed over a main
surface of the Si substrate; and
a wiring board having a core layer and built-up layers laminated over
both sides of the core layer, wherein
the semiconductor chip is electrically and mechanically connected
with one of the built-up layers through the solder bumps,
the low-dielectric-constant film has a rupture strength lower than a
rupture strength of an SiO2 film,
the built-up layers have a coefficient of linear thermal expansion
larger than a coefficient of linear thermal expansion of the Si substrate, and
each of the core layer and the built-up layers contain glass cloth.

Claims 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious
over Lebonheur (U.S. Patent No. 6,617,683, B2, Sep. 9, 2003), Chung (U.S.
Patent No. 6,184,142, B1, Feb. 6, 2001), Jaeger (RICHARD C. JAEGER,

1 An oral hearing was held on November 8, 2011. The record includes a
written transcript of the oral hearing.
Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863

3
INTRODUCTION TO MICROELECTRONIC FABRICATION 1 (Prentice Hall 2002))
and Takase (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0104042, A1,
Jun. 3, 2004).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious
over Lebonheur, Chung, Jaeger, Takase and Li (U.S. Patent No. 7,009,307,
B1, Mar. 7, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8) that the
combination of Lebonheur, Chung, Jaeger and Takase would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 23, including the disputed limitation
“each of the core layer and the built-up layers contain glass cloth.”
The Examiner acknowledged that the combination of Lebonheur,
Chung and Jaeger does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation (Ans. 5)
and therefore, cited Takase for the disclosure of a laminate formed by
doubled-side circuit boards 21, 30, 36 composed of epoxy resin impregnated
with glass-cloth substrate (Ans. 6; Takase, ¶¶ [0031], [0065]; fig. 2A). The
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to include the
wiring board details of the build up layers and the core layer both being
made of glass cloth . . . as suggested by Takase in order to ensure . . . a
reliable laminated board structure.” (Ans. 6-7.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Lebonheur relates to “semiconductor die packages, especially
microprocessor packages.” (Col. 1, ll. 8-9.) The semiconductor die
package 1 disclosed in Lebonheur has a microprocessor package that
includes a flip chip die 2 (i.e., a central processing unit) (col. 3, ll. 7-9;
fig. 1) soldered to a substrate 8 of the package (col. 3, ll. 16-18; fig. 1).
Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863

4
Takase describes a multilayer printed wiring board (¶ [0001]) “that
has a reliable laminated board structure, simplified manufacturing process,
shorter lead time, and higher yield” (¶ [0026]). In an exemplary
embodiment, Takase discloses an insulated substrate 2 formed from “an
insulating material selected from epoxy resin impregnated [with] glass-cloth
substrate.” (¶ [0031].) As illustrated in Figure 2A, Takase further discloses
that a multilayer printed wiring board is formed by laminating double-side
circuit boards 21, 30, 36, and two sheets of prepreg 25 and 33. (¶¶ [0064]-
[0065].) In other words, Takase teaches the claim limitation “each of the
core layer and the built-up layers contain glass cloth.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that incorporating the multilayer printed wiring board of
Takase, including the double-side circuit boards 21, 30, 36 formed from
epoxy resin impregnated with glass-cloth, with the semiconductor die
package 1 of Lebonheur would improve Lebonheur by providing a reliable
laminated board structure. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). In the alternative, combining Lebonheur with Takase is no
more than the simple substitution of the known multilayer printed wiring
board of Takase, including the double-side circuit boards 21, 30, 36 formed
from epoxy resin impregnated with glass-cloth substrate, for the known
substrate 8 of Lebonheur, to yield predictable results. See id. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that modifying Lebonheur to include the
multilayer printed wiring board of Takase, including the double-side circuit
boards 21, 30, 36 formed from epoxy resin impregnated with glass-cloth
substrate, would have been obvious.
Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863

5
Appellants argue that “Takase does not disclose or suggest that the
glass cloth achieves a reliable laminated board structure.” (App. Br. 8.) In
particular, Appellants point to paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of Takase and
asserts that:
the reliable laminated board structure of Takase is achieved by . . .
[p]reparing two double-side circuit boards and one sheet of prepreg,
. . . [p]ositioning the pads of the double-side circuit boards opposite to
each other via the though hole, and . . . [h]eat pressing to bind double-
side circuit board/prepreg/double-side circuit board.
(App. Br. 8.) However, the relied-on portions of Takase do not provide an
express disclosure that the production of the “reliable laminated board
structure” is only a result of heat pressing two doubled-side circuit boards
and that the use of double-side circuit boards 21, 30, 36 formed from epoxy
resin impregnated with glass cloth substrate provides no additional benefit.
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Lebonheur, Chung, Jaeger and Takase would have rendered obvious
independent claim 23, which includes the disputed limitation “each of the
core layer and the built-up layers contain glass cloth.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 24-27 depend from independent claim 23 and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 24-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 23.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claim 28, Appellants
merely argue that “Claim 28 depends from Claim 23 and is patentable for at
Appeal 2010-005022
Application 11/157,863

6
least the reasons stated for Claim 23.” (App. Br. 12.) We are not persuaded
by this argument for the reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 23. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23-28 is affirmed.
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

ke