12769130 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Weiser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 2016

12769130 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121769,130 04/28/2010 92724 7590 HONEYWELL/FAEGRE Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 07/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Martin W. Weiser 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. H0004362 USA CON - 4018 CONFIRMATION NO. 6976 EXAMINER TRINH,HOAB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2817 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com DL-SM-IP@Honeywell.com patentdocketing@faegrebd.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN W. WEISER, NANCY F. DEAN, BRETT M. CLARK, MICHAEL J. BOSSIO, RONALD H. FLEMING, and JAMES P. FLINT Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 the final rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants' invention is directed to methods of removing alpha- emitters from materials (Spec. i-f 2). Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of refining an elemental material selected from the group consisting of tin, silver, copper, indium and bismuth, the method comprising electrorefining the elemental material to decrease an alpha flux of the elemental material to less than 0.002 cts/cm2 /hr. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 5,965,945, issued Oct. 12, 1999) in view ofKardokus et al. (US 6,849,139 B2, issued Feb. 1, 2005). Appellants argue subject matter common to independent claims 1 and 10 (App. Br. 4--9). We select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 CPR Â§ 41.37(c)(iv) (2013). Appellants further argue claims 2 to 5 (App. Br. 9). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS CLAIM 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight to combine the teachings of Miller and Kardokus (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that Miller does not teach refining the lead solder to remove the alpha-emitting particles and instead uses a thin layer of low-alpha emitting particle solder between a high-alpha emitting particle solder and the semiconductor (App. Br. 6). Appellants contend that Miller provides no guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to investigate modifying ordinary high-alpha particle emitting lead solder. Id. Appellants argue that Kardokus is directed to using electrorefined copper to make a sputtering target and Kardokus teaches nothing about problems (i.e., soft errors) caused 2 Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 by alpha-emitting particles (App. Br. 6-7). Appellants contend that if one were to combine Kardokus' teaching to electrorefine metals with Miller, the result would have been to electrorefine Miller's lead solder (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that the Declaration of Brett Clark (hereinafter the "Clark Declaration") evinces that one of ordinary skill would not have used electrorefining to separate isotopes of a given element from one another. Id. Appellants argue the Examiner's reliance on Miller's teachings regarding copper and tin are not relevant because Miller says nothing about these elements being alpha-particle emitting (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that Kardokus' teaching regarding the high purity of the electrorefined copper (i.e., 99 .9999%) does not necessarily mean that the copper has an alpha-emitting level within the claimed range (i.e., less than 0.002 counts/cm2/hr (App. Br. 8). Appellants direct us to the Clark Declaration as showing that Kardokus' highly pure copper has an alpha- particle emission greater than required by the claim. Id. The Examiner's findings and conclusions are located on pages 3-7 of the Final Action. We are unpersuaded by the Appellants' arguments because they fail to address the Examiner's stated rejection. The Examiner is not proposing to use Kardokus' electrorefining process to refine Miller's lead solder. Rather, we understand the Examiner to find that Miller teaches that it is known to use a low-alpha emitting lead solder adjacent the semiconductor wherein the low-alpha emitting lead solder may include copper or tin to raise melting point of that solder (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Miller does not teach the electrorefining process. Id. The Examiner finds that Kardokus teaches using electrorefining to purify an elemental material using an electrorefining process to obtain a high purity 3 Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 (i.e., 99.9999%). Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Kardokus' electrorefining process to purify the copper material in Miller's solder because such is a well-known process for purifying materials (Final Act. 3--4 ). As found by the Examiner, Miller teaches using copper as part of the low-alpha emitting solder (col. 6, 11. 45-59). Miller teaches that the copper is used to raise the melting point of the low-alpha emitting solder layer to prevent the mixing of the low-alpha particle emitting solder layer with the high-alpha particle emitting solder layer placed atop it. Id. Miller teaches that the low-alpha lead solder layer may be formed by sputtering (col. 8, 11. 19-21). Kardokus teaches using copper for interconnects in integrated circuits and the desirability of using high purity copper which is sputtered on to the circuit to form the interconnects (col. 1, 11. 19-25). Kardokus discloses that the purity of the copper is important to maintain low resistivity in order to meet high speed goals and influence electromigration resistance (col. 1, 11. 26-33). Electrorefining may be used to achieve the desired purity (col. 5, 11. 21-23). The teachings of Miller and Kardokus as a whole would have suggested the desirability of using high-purity electrorefined copper as the copper to add to Miller's low-alpha particle emitting lead solder. The desirability of using a high-purity copper for interconnects in electronic structures is taught by Kardokus. That Kardokus does not disclose anything regarding alpha-particle emission is not dispositive. Rather, the Examiner has shown that Kardokus' copper is formed by an electrorefining process, which is the same process required by Appellants' claim 1. Accordingly, it 4 Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 is reasonable to find that Kardokus' copper must have the same alpha- emitting characteristics as recited in claim 1. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants have the burden of showing that Kardokus' elecrorefined copper does not possess the claimed alpha- particle emitting characteristic. Id. Appellants submitted the Clark Declaration as allegedly showing that Kardokus' high-purity copper (i.e., 99.9999%) with 0.0001 % impurity would have alpha-emissions greater than that recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8- 9). Paragraphs 6-13 of the Clark Declaration includes calculations based upon suppositions as to what impurities may be present in the copper. We note that Dr. Clark states that any 210Pb present in the copper even at that low impurity level would result in an alpha-emission greater than required by claim 1 (Clark Dec. i-f 9). The Clark Declaration does not provide any objective evidence that 210Pb would have been present in Kardokus' electrorefined copper. The Clark Declaration has not satisfied Appellants' burden of showing that Kardokus' electrorefined copper would have an alpha-emission greater than that required by the claims. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's Â§103 rejection of claims 1, 6---13, 16---22 over Miller and Kardokus. CLAIMS 2-5 Regarding claims 2 to 4, Appellants argue that Kardokus does not teach at column 5, lines 15-50 an electrorefining bath including acid and water (App. Br. 9). The Examiner citing to column 5, line 29 and column 6, line 31 finds that Kardokus teaches that the copper is exposed to oxygen, sulfur and then 5 Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 to water, which results in a sulfurous acid and water (Ans. 8; Final Act. 4). Those portions of Kardokus, however, merely recite that the copper is treated so that oxygen and sulfur is driven from the metal and the billet of copper is quenched in water. The Examiner has not shown where Kardokus teaches using acid and water during the electrorefining process. Regarding claim 5, Appellants argue that the Examiner has cited no prior art to show that it was known to use current densities of 1 A/ft2 and about 70 A/ft2 (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that it is known to use current densities as recited in claim 1 and concludes that it would have been obvious to use current densities as claimed in order to increase structural strength of the semiconductor package (Final Act. 4). The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present case, the Examiner has not presented any evidence that using the particular claimed current densities in an electrorefining process is "well- known." Appellants have challenged the Examiner's reliance on a well- known statement and the Examiner does not respond to this challenge in the Answer. On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of claims 2-5 over Miller and Kardokus. 6 Appeal2014-009964 Application 12/769,130 DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a) (1). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7