Ex Parte Wood et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 17, 2009

10666742 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALAN G. WOOD, WARREN M. FARNWORTH, DAVID R.
HEMBREE, DAVID R. HEMBREE, SIDNEY B. RIGG, WILLIAM M.
HIATT, PETER BENSON, KYLE K. KIRBY and SALMAN AKRAM
____________

Appeal 2009-004480
Application 10/666,742
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 17, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2009-004480
Application 10/666,742

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 70-74, 76-86 and
88-98. Claim 17-20 and 23-34 have been allowed by the Examiner, while
claims 75 and 87 have been deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 70 and 82 are illustrative:
70. A method for thinning a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
molding a support structure on an active surface of the semiconductor
substrate;
removing material from a back side of the semiconductor substrate to form a
thinned semiconductor substrate; and
transporting the thinned semiconductor substrate for further processing.
82. A method for thinning a semiconductor substrate, comprising;
forming a support structure on an active surface of the semiconductor
substrate;
securing the semiconductor substrate to a platen with the active surface
facing the platen and the support structure abutting at least one surface or
feature of or on the platen;
removing material from a back side of the semiconductor substrate
supported by the support structure and the platen to form a thinned
semiconductor substrate; and
transporting the thinned semiconductor substrate for further processing.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Leedy 5,354,695 Oct. 11, 1994
Tandy 6,524,881 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Grigg 6,562,661 B2 May 13, 2003

The present application was before us in a prior appeal (Appeal no.
2007-0942). The main distinction between the claims in the parent
application and the present claims on appeal is that claim 17 in the parent
application recited “forming a support structure on an active surface of the
2
Appeal 2009-004480
Application 10/666,742

semiconductor substrate”, whereas instant claim 70 recites “molding a
support structure on an active surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Also,
instant claim 82 recites forming a support structure on the active surface and
securing the active surface of the substrate to a platen. In a Decision dated
March 5, 2007, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the Leedy and Grigg references
presently applied by the Examiner.
Appealed claims 70-74, 76-86 and 88-98 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leedy in view of Grigg and
Tandy.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 71-74, 76-81,
83-86 and 88-98. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall together with the
independent claims upon which they ultimately depend.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, as well as those articulated in our prior Decision, and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We agreed with the Examiner in the prior appeal that Leedy describes
forming a support structure 19 on the active surface of a semiconductor
substrate and removing material from the back side of the substrate to form a
thin semiconductor substrate. We also agreed with the Examiner that Grigg
evidences the obviousness of forming a layer of unconsolidated material
over the outer peripheral portion of the active surface of a semiconductor
3
Appeal 2009-004480
Application 10/666,742

substrate and then partially consolidating the material. As for the claim 70
requirement of molding a support structure on the active surface of the
substrate, we fully concur with the Examiner that Tandy establishes the
obviousness of doing so.
Tandy, like Appellants and Leedy, provides a support structure on the
active surface of a semiconductor substrate which backside is thinned while
further supported on a platen. Tandy describes submount 17 as a support
structure for the active surface of semiconductor substrate 10, and teaches
that the submount support can be formed from a molding compound (col. 5,
ll.36-40). Hence, we are convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to perform the claimed method of molding a
support structure on the active surface of a semiconductor substrate to
protect the active surface and provide support while the back side of the
substrate is thinned.
Appellants maintain that “Tandy provides no teaching or suggestion
that the submount 17 is molded onto an active surface of a semiconductor
substrate…it appears from the disclosure of Tandy that the submount 17 is
part of a platen 56, which provides physical support for a semiconductor
substrate, such as a wafer 10, during backgrinding. Col. 5, ll. 30-34” (Reply
Br. 2, last para.). However, the cited portion of Tandy, as well as the
subsequent disclosure relevant to the supporting submount 17, provides no
indication that submount 17 is part of platen 56. In fact, Tandy is silent
regarding whether submount 17 is bonded to the active surface of the
semiconductor substrate or the platen. However, we are persuaded that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, alternatively,
4
Appeal 2009-004480
Application 10/666,742

place submount 17 on either the substrate or the platen to provide support
and protection of the substrate during the thinning process.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

tc

TRASK, BRITT, P.C./MICRON TECHNOLOGY
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110

5