Ex Parte Zakel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

11910771 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111910,771 10/05/2007
26710 7590 02/22/2016
QUARLES & BRADYLLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN A VENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ElkeZakel
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
129569.00004 9808
EXAMINER
MAZUMDAR, SONYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELKE ZAKEL
and GHASSEM AZDASHT 1
Appeal2014-004102
Application 11/910, 771
Technology Center 1700
Before, JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 20. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is Pac Tech -
Packaging Technologies GMBH. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004102
Application 11/910, 771
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a method for transferring a chip
adhesively attached to the backside of a transfer substrate to a contact
substrate. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the principal Brief:
1. A method for transferring a chip situated on a transfer
foil to a contact substrate, and for establishing contact between
the chip and the contact substrate, in which the chip, the back
side of which is attached adhesively to a support surface of the
transfer foil facing the contact substrate, is charged with laser
energy from behind through the transfer foil, and the chip
contacts thereof that are arranged opposite a contact surface of
the contact substrate are brought into contact with substrate
contacts arranged on the contact surface by means of a pressing
device from behind through the transfer foil thereby the
pressing device deflecting the transfer foil, the contacting of the
chip contacts with the substrate contacts being carried out by
deflecting the transfer foil, and a thermal bond is created
between the chip contacts and the substrate contacts while the
foil being in the deflected state.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Hayashi (US 2005/0155699Al published Jul. 21, 2005)
and Kurosawa. (US 2001/0017403 Al published Aug. 30, 2001); Claims 6,
8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayashi,
Kurosawa and Craig. (US 2005/0000634 Al published Jan. 6, 2005).
2
Appeal2014-004102
Application 11/910, 771
OPINION2
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combination of Hayashi and Kurosawa would have
suggested bringing chip contacts into contact with substrate contacts by
means of a pressing device deflecting a transfer foil from behind as required
by claims 1 and 20?3
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established that the combination of Hayashi and Kurosawa would have
suggested deflecting a transfer foil from behind to transfer a chip to a contact
surface as required by claims 1 and 20.
The Examiner found that Hayashi discloses using laser energy to
transfer a chip adhesively attached to the backside of a transfer substrate to a
contact substrate. (Final Act. 2-3; Hayashi Figs. 23-25.) The Examiner
found Hayashi does not disclose deflecting the backside of a transfer foil,
which is used as the contact substrate, to the transfer chip. (Final Act. 2-3.)
The Examiner found Kurosawa teaches a transfer foil that is deflected to
transfer a chip adhesively attached to the backside of a transfer foil to a
contact substrate. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer foil
taught by Kurosawa with the transfer support of Hayashi to allow the use of
2 We limit our discussion to independent claims 1 and 20.
3 A discussion of Craig is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal. The
Examiner cited Craig to address the limitations of some of the dependent
claims. (Final Act. 5.)
3
Appeal2014-004102
Application 11/910, 771
a flexible substrate which would improve contact with uneven receptor
substrates. (Final Act. 5.)
Appellants argue Hayashi and Kurosawa do not teach or suggest the
method for transferring a chip of claims 1 and 20. (App. Br. 5-7.)
Appellants argue Hayashi paragraph [0243] discloses the following:
[t]o effect the transfer of the LED 42, the third temporary
holding member 84 and LED 42 are placed above the second
substrate 60 and laser beams 56 irradiate a portion of the third
temporary holding member 84 and a portion of the second
substrate 60 to soften the thermal re-peelable layer 85 and the
thermoplastic adhesive layer 86, respectively.
(App. Br. 4.)
Appellants argue Kurosawa teaches the removal of a semiconductor
element 13 from adhesive sheet 14 utilizing push-up pins 27 to push up the
adhesive sheet 14, and the semiconductor element 13 towards a suction head
10. (App. Br. 5.) Appellants argue that the "combination of Hayashi and
Kurosawa fails to suggests creating a thermal bond between the chip
contacts and the substrate contacts while the foil is in a deflected state, as
required in claim 1." (App. Br. 5.)
We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner's position,
Hayashi does not describe contact between the chip contacts and the
substrate contacts, thus Hayashi cannot disclose or suggest creating a
thermal bond between the chip contacts and the substrate contacts, as
required by claim 1. (Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellants specifically state "[a]s
shown in Fig. 25 of Hayashi, the thermoplastic adhesive layer 86 is
interposed between the chip contact 49 and the substrate contacts 57
preventing the chip contact 49 from contacting the substrate contacts 57."
4
Appeal2014-004102
Application 11/910, 771
(Reply Br. 3.) Kurosawa fails to remedy Hayashi's difference from the
claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has failed to adequately
explain why the combination of Hayashi and Kurosawa would have
suggested bringing chip contacts into contact with substrate contacts by
means of a pressing device deflecting a transfer foil from behind as required
by claims 1 and 20.
We reverse the appealed prior art rejections.
REVERSED
5