Ex Parte Yee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2014

12014578 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JAE HAK YEE
and BYOUNG WOOK JANG
__________

Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal
Applica

A
T
20, whi
§ 6(b).
W
T
system.
package
[0015].
T
Claim 1
Februar

1 Refere
illustrat
2012-0004
tion 12/01
. STAT
he Appell
ch are all o

e REVER
he subject
Appellan
system ac
A
of a
enca
here are th
is reprodu
y 3, 2011

nce numer
ed in Appe
85
4,578
EMENT
ants appea
f the pend
SE.
matter on
ts’ FIG. 3,
cording to
ppellants
n integrat
psulation
an
ree indepe
ced below
(“App. Br.

als in brac
llants’ FIG
OF THE C
l under 35
ing claims
appeal is
reproduce
one embo
’ FIG. 3 de
ed circuit p
(104) havi
d an elev
ndent clai
from the
”).1 The l
kets have
. 3.
2
ASE
U.S.C. §
. We hav
directed to
d below, i
diment of
picts a cro
ackage sy
ng a non-e
ated portio
ms on app
Claims Ap
imitation a
been adde
134 from t
e jurisdicti
an integra
llustrates a
the inven
ss-section
stem com
levated po
n (108).
eal, i.e., cl
pendix of
t issue is i
d and refe
he rejectio
on under 3
ted circui
n integrat
tion. Spec
al view
prising an
rtion (106
aims 1, 6,
the Appea
talicized.
r to the em
n of claim
5 U.S.C.
t package
ed circuit
. ¶¶ [0013

)
and 11.
l Brief da

bodiment
s 1-
],
ted

Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578

3

1. A method of manufacture of an integrated circuit package
system comprising:
forming an integrated circuit stack [338] having a bottom non-
active side [318] and a top non-active side [340] of a die;
connecting an internal interconnect [336] between a lead [112],
having a top side [110] and a bottom side [216], and the integrated
circuit stack [338]; and
forming an encapsulation [104], having both a non-elevated
portion [106] and an elevated portion [108], around the integrated
circuit stack [338] and the internal interconnect [336] with the top
side [110] exposed at the non-elevated portion [106], and with the
bottom side [216], the bottom non-active side [318], and the top non-
active side [340] exposed.
Similarly, claim 6 recites a method of manufacturing an integrated circuit
package system comprising, inter alia, forming an encapsulation around an
integrated circuit stack and an internal interconnect including “forming the
encapsulation having both an non-elevated portion and an elevated portion,
exposing the top side [of a lead] at the non-elevated portion, [and] exposing the top
non-active side [of the integrated circuit stack] at the elevated portion . . . .” App.
Br., Claims App’x.
Claim 11 is directed to an integrated circuit package system comprising,
inter alia:
an encapsulation, having both a non-elevated portion and an
elevated portion, around the integrated circuit stack and the internal
interconnect with the top side exposed at the non-elevated portion,
and with the bottom side, the bottom non-active side, and the top non-
active side exposed.
App. Br., Claims App’x.

Appeal
Applica

T
as unpa
§ 103(a
Burns5;
Goh; an
of Goh
B

T
circuit p
reprodu

2 US 20
3 US 5,2
4 US 20
5 US 5,5
6 Exami
2012-0004
tion 12/01
he claims
tentable ov
) as unpate
claims 11
d claims 1
and furthe
. DISC
1.
he Examin
ackage sy
ced below
appar

08/015730
91,061, is
07/011464
85,668, is
ner’s Answ
85
4,578
stand rejec
er Lee2 in
ntable ove
-15 under
6-20 unde
r in view o
USSION
Claims 1
er finds L
stem. The
. Ans. 4, 1
Lee FIG.
atus comp
and a sec

2 A1, pub
sued Marc
1 A1, pub
sued Dece
er dated
ted as foll
view of B
r Lee in v
35 U.S.C.
r 35 U.S.C
f Burns.
and 6
ee disclos
Examiner
2.6
7 depicts a
rising a fir
ond integr
lished July
h 1, 1994.
lished Ma
mber 17,
May 10, 2
4
ows: claim
all3 and G
iew of Bal
§ 103(a) a
. § 103(a)
es a metho
directs ou
cross-sect
st integrat
ated circu
3, 2008.

y 24, 2007
1996.
011.
s 1-5 und
oh4; claim
l and Goh
s unpatent
as unpate
d of manu
r attention
ional view
ed circuit p
it package
.
er 35 U.S
s 6-10 und
and furthe
able over L
ntable ove
facturing
to Lee FI

of an
ackage 70
710.
.C. § 103(
er 35 U.S
r in view
ee in view
r Lee in vi
an integrat
G. 7,
5
a)
.C.
of
of
ew
ed
Appeal
Applica

T
725 but
elevated
intercon
the emb
T
[sic, vis
505 of F
above)
Lee FIG
T
an enca
2012-0004
tion 12/01
he Examin
finds that
portion a
nect” as re
odiment il
appar
he Examin
ualize] an
ig.5 abov
. . . .” Ans
. 5 disclos
he Examin
psulant aro
85
4,578
er finds L
neither en
round the
cited in cl
lustrated i
Lee FIG.
atus comp
and a sec
er finds th
encapsula
e) and an e
. 5, 13. H
es “formin
er finds th
und the st
ee forms a
capsulatio
stacked int
aims 1 an
n Lee FIG
5 depicts a
rising a fir
ond integr
at “[f]rom
nt having b
levated po
owever, th
g an enca
at Ball FI
acked die
5
n encapsu
n has both
egrated ci
d 6. Ans.
. 5, reprod
cross-sect
st integrat
ated circu
[the] stru
oth a non
rtion (i.e.
e Examine
psulant ar
G. 2, repro
(i.e. 44 of
lation arou
“a non-ele
rcuit . . . a
5, 12. Thu
uced below
ional view
ed circuit p
it package
cture abov
-elevated p
portion of
r finds tha
ound the d
duced bel
Fig. 2 belo
nd either
vated por
nd the inte
s, the Exa
. Ans. 5,

of an
ackage 50
510.
e, one can
ortion (i.e
510 of Fig
t neither L
ie stacked
ow, illustr
w).” Ans
die 740 or
tion and an
rnal
miner turn
13.
5
visualized
. portion o
.5
ee FIG. 7
.” Ans. 6,
ates “form
. 6, 14.
die

s to

f
nor
14.
ing
Appeal
Applica

T
skill in t
around
structur
T
Lee’s F
encapsu
reliabili
T
encapsu
dies (12
Ball, co
2012-0004
tion 12/01
he Examin
he art “to
stacked die
e . . . .” An
he Appell
IGS. 5 and
lant would
ty of the L
he Appell
late an enc
, 16, 18, 2
l. 1, ll. 5-8
85
4,578
Ball FIG
a stacked
er conclu
modify Le
, as taugh
s. 6, 14.
ants argue
7 are alre
be of no
ee structur
ants’ argum
apsulated
0) to form
; Ball FIG
. 2 depicts
die comp
des that it
e’s Fig. 7,
t by Ball, t
, inter alia
ady indivi
further ben
e.” App.
ent is per
package.
a stacked
. 2. The E
6
a cross-se
rising a fo
would hav
and Lee’s
o provide
, that “sinc
dually enc
efit and, t
Br. 15, see
suasive of
Rather, B
die device
xaminer h
ctional vie
ur die stac
e been obv
Fig. 5 and
a reliable
e the stack
apsulated,
hus, would
also App
reversible
all encapsu
that incre
as not dire
w of
king.
ious to on
form an
stacked di
ed separa
the additi
not impr
. Br. 30.
error. Ba
lates a sin
ases devic
cted us to

e of ordin
encapsulan
e
te package
onal Ball
ove the
ll does no
gle stack
e density.
any evide
ary
t
s of
t
of

nce
Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578

7

to support the finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have encapsulated
the two encapsulated packages depicted in Lee FIG. 7 (i.e., packages 705 and 710)7
or Lee FIG. 5 (i.e., packages 510 and 505)8 “to provide a reliable stacked die
structure.” See Ans. 6, 14.
Moreover, the encapsulation disclosed in Ball has a uniform height. See
Ball FIG. 2. Claims 1 and 6, on the other hand, recite that the encapsulation has
both a non-elevated portion and an elevated portion wherein the top side of the
lead is exposed at the non-elevated portion. App. Br., Claims App’x. The
Examiner has failed to explain, in any detail, why the combined teachings of Lee
and Ball would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add just enough
encapsulant between the two encapsulated packages depicted in Lee FIG. 5 to form
a single encapsulation having non-elevated and elevated portions as recited in
claims 1 and 6.9
On this record, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
encapsulated the two encapsulated packages of Lee FIG. 7 or FIG. 5 as recited in
claim 1, absent the Appellants’ disclosure. For this reason, the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 1-5 is not sustained.

7 Packages 705 and 710 are Stacked-Package Quad Flat No-Lead (SPQFN)
packages. Lee ¶¶ [0009], [0018].
8 Package 505 is a Stacked-Package Quad Flat No-Lead Package, and package 510
is a Thin Small-Outline Package. Lee ¶¶ [0009], [0016].
9 The Examiner relies on Goh to teach a top non-active side of a die. Ans. 7, 15.
Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578

8

The Examiner does not rely on Burns to cure the deficiencies discussed
above in connection with claim 1.10 Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6-
10 is not sustained for the reasons set forth above.
2. Claim 11
The Examiner omits Ball from the statement of the rejection of claims 11-15
and merely relies on the combined teachings of Lee and Goh to support a
conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 8; see also Office action dated August 3, 2010, at
7.
Claim 11 is directed to an integrated circuit package system comprising,
inter alia:
an encapsulation, having both a non-elevated portion and an
elevated portion, around the integrated circuit stack and the internal
interconnect with the top side exposed at the non-elevated portion,
and with the bottom side, the bottom non-active side, and the top non-
active side exposed.
App. Br., Claims App’x.
Relying on Lee FIG. 5, the Examiner finds that “one can visualized [sic,
visualize] an encapsulant having both a non-elevated portion (i.e. portion of 505 of
Fig.5 above) and an elevated portion (i.e. portion of 510 of Fig.5 above) . . . .”
Ans. 9. However, as explained above, package 505 and package 510 are separate
encapsulated packages and claim 11 recites “an encapsulation . . . having both a
non-elevated portion and an elevated portion.” App. Br., Claims App’x.
The Examiner contends that “it is well settled that the term ‘a’ or ‘an’
ordinarily means ‘one or more.’” Ans. 24 (emphasis omitted). For support, the

10 The Examiner relies on Burns to teach integrated circuit dice in an offset
configuration. Ans. 15.
Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578

9

Examiner relies on several cases. Scanner Tech. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp.,
N.V., 365 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004), is instructive. The court explains:
“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article
‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in
open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’
Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article
‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when
the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.”
Id., at 1304 (quoting KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2000)).
In this case, the use of the phrase “an encapsulation” in open-ended claim 11
permits more than one encapsulation in the claimed system. However, claim 11
also expressly limits the structure of a single encapsulation in the system. That is,
claim 11 requires one encapsulation to have “both a non-elevated portion and an
elevated portion, around the integrated circuit stack and the internal interconnect
with the top side exposed at the non-elevated portion, and with the bottom side, the
bottom non-active side, and the top non-active side exposed.” App. Br., Claims
App’x. The Examiner has failed to show that the combined teachings of Lee and
Goh would have suggested such an encapsulation in the system of Lee. Therefore,
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11-15 is not sustained.
Claims 16-20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11. The
Examiner does not rely on Burns to cure the deficiencies discussed above in
connection with claim 11.11 Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 16-20 is
not sustained.

11 The Examiner relies on Burns to teach integrated circuit dice in an offset
configuration. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2012-000485
Application 12/014,578

10

C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc