Ex Parte Yang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2003

09420817 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2003)

1 In rendering our decision, we have considered Appellant’s arguments presented in the Brief,
filed October 29, 2002.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JICHENG YANG
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WALTZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 21
to 29 and 39 to 47.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
2
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Hamzehdoost et al. (Hamzehdoost) 5,689,091 Nov. 18, 1997
Egawa 6,229,215 May 08, 2001
(filed October 23, 1998)
Bertin et al. (Bertin) 6,300,687 Oct. 09, 2001
(filed June 26, 1998)
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 to 29 and 39 to 47 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Egawa, Bertin and Hamzehdoost.
(Answer, p. 3).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Brief.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103
rejection is well founded.
Appellant’s invention is directed to multi-chip modules for coupling more than one
chip together in a single package. According to the specification, pages 1 and 2, there is a
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
3
need for packages which comprise multiple chips that have been connected together prior
to connection to the outside world. Claim 24, which is representative of the claimed
invention, appears below:
24. A multi-chip module comprising:
a central support layer having a central aperture, a top side and a bottom
side, a bonding pad on each of said sides and conductive interconnections
extending through said layer;
a first chip wire bonded to the top side of said layer through said aperture
and secured to the bottom side of said layer;
a second chip secured to the top side of said layer, said second ship secured
by bumps to said layer; and
said layer extending outwardly beyond said first and second chips, said
layer including a solder ball pad on an extension extending outwardly
beyond said first and second chips for electrically connecting said chips to
external devices.
Appellant has indicated that “all of the pending claims may be grouped with
claim 24.” (Brief, p. 5). We interpret Appellant’s statement as indicating that all of the
claims stand or fall together. Accordingly, all the claims will stand or fall together, and
we select claim 24 as representative of the rejected claims. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) and (8) (2001).
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
4
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103
rejection is well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785,
787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We affirm primarily for the reasons advanced by the Examiner
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner has found that Egawa discloses a semiconductor package, figure 3,
that differs from the subject matter of claim 24 in that the first chip is not wire bonded to
the top side of the laminate layer. According to the Examiner, Bertin discloses a
semiconductor package, figure 8, that contains a chip that is wire bonded to a laminate
layer for electrical coupling. The Examiner also found Egawa and Bertin were from the
same field of endeavor. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use wire bonding techniques for electrically
connecting the first chip to the laminate layer of Egawa. (Answer, p. 4).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on improper hindsight and
there is no motivation or suggestion to modify Egawa with Bertin. (Brief, p. 5). We are
not convinced by Appellant’s argument. A person having ordinary skill in the art would
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
5
have recognized that the wire bonding techniques could have been used in Egawa’s
semiconductor package. In an alternative embodiment Egawa discloses wire bonding of
the top layer of a chip to a central layer. (See figure 1(b)). A person having ordinary skill
in the art would have also recognized that the wire bonding could have occurred through
the central aperture described in figure 3. (Note Bertin figure 8). It is well settled that the
prior art references stand for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences
one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom,
see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Appellant argue that Egawa’s use of a flip chip design is a teaching away from
using wire bonding. (Brief, pp. 5-6). We disagree. The central layer of Egawa’s
semiconductor package contains connection points on both sides. (See figure 3, points 18
and 32). A person of ordinary skill in the are would have recognized that if the circuitry
of the central layer, from the side not facing the first chip, were needed on the first chip
wire bonding would have been a suitable connection method.
Appellant argues that Egawa filled the space between the chips 11, 17 and the
substrate 30 with a resin 33 for encapsulation and that the hole 31 is not suitable for wire
connection. (Brief, p. 6). We disagree. Egawa discloses that the use of wire bonding and
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
2 Since Appellant indicated that issues of patentability should be determined based upon claim
24, we have not provided a discussion of the Hamzehdoost reference. The Examiner applied the
teachings of this reference for elements of other claims.
6
resin encapsulation was known by persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Col. 1, ll. 10-20).
Bertin discloses wire bonding of a semiconductor package through a central hole to
connect a chip to the central layer. (Figure 8). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have known the proper techniques for the use of wire bonding through a central
aperture.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having evaluated
the prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellant’s arguments, we conclude that
the subject matter of claims 21 to 29 and 39 to 47 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art from the combined teachings of the cited prior art for the reasons
stated above and in the Answer.2
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 21 to 29 and 39 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Egawa, Bertin and Hamzehdoost is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
7
Time for taking action
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY T. SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
8
JTS/kis
TROP, PRUNER, HU & MILES
8554 KATY FREEWAY
SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TX 77024