Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

14024840 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/024,840 09/12/2013 Rongwei Zhang TI-73639 6186
23494 7590 01/03/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
KING, SUN MI KIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONGWEI ZHANG1
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—
4.3 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Texas Instruments Incorporated, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, also is the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 12, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated November 6, 2015 (“Final Act.”);
Appeal Brief dated April 20, 2016 (“App. Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer to
the Appeal Brief dated October 26, 2016 (“Ans.”).
3 Pending claims 5—8 have been withdrawn from consideration and are not
before us on appeal.
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s disclosure relates to semiconductor device packaging and
associated die attachment methods, including the packaging of integrated
circuits (ICs) and the interface between die and die attach materials.
Spec. 1—2; Abstract. According to Appellant, the concept of the claimed
invention is to embed silver or silver-coated nanomaterials into the die
backside to improve the interface between the die and die attach materials.
Abstract.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 15) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded and indentation added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a semiconductor die, having a top side and a
backside;
a plurality of cavities in the back side of the
semiconductor die, wherein each of the plurality of
cavities contains a plurality of silver particles',
a substrate, having a top side and a backside; and
a substantially uniform layer of a silver filled die
attach adhesive on the top side of the substrate;
wherein the backside of the semiconductor die is
positioned on the silver filled die attach adhesive while
maintaining the top surface of the semiconductor die in a
parallel with the top surface of the substrate, and
wherein the semiconductor die is mechanically
attached to the substrate by sintering the silver particles
embedded in the backside of die to the silver in silver
filled die attach adhesive.
2
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Jiang et al., US 6,184,064 B1 Feb. 6,2001
(hereinafter “Jiang”)
Khaselev et al., US 2012/0114927 Al May 10, 2012
(hereinafter “Khaselev”)
The Rejection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: claims 1—
4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of
Khaselev. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections based on the fact finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer to
the Appeal Brief and Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own. See
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential)).
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
Appellant argues claims 1^4 as a group. App. Br. 8. We select
claim 1 as representative and the remaining claims subject to this rejection
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
The Examiner determines that the combination of Jiang and Khaselev
suggests a semiconductor die apparatus satisfying all of the limitations of
claim 1 and thus, would have rendered claim 1 obvious. Final Act. 2-4
(citing Jiang, Figs. 4A, 4B, col. 8,1. 16; Khaselev 158).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the pending claims are “patentably distinct from the prior art of
record.” App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellant argues that, according to the
method Jiang discloses, “the organic resin in the die attach adhesive will wet
the cavities at the die back side first due to capillary force and only a very
small portion of silver particles in die attach adhesive will contact with die
back side.” App. Br. 12.
Appellant further argues that although the method described by Jiang
“can reduce or eliminate delamination at the interface between die backside
and die attach adhesive ... it cannot improve the electrical and thermal
performance.” App. Br. 12.
Appellant also appears to argue that the Examiner’s determination that
claim 1 is a product-by-process claim is erroneous because:
The product after the process will have silver particles in a
plurality of cavities in the back side of the semiconductor die
and layer of a silver filled die attach adhesive between the
semiconductor die and the substrate.
Id. at 13.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection. On the record before us, we find that a
preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the
Examiner’s analysis and determination that the combination of Jiang and
Khaselev suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, and the conclusion that
4
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Jiang, Abstract,
Figs. 4A, 4B, col. 8,1. 16; Khaselev, Abstract, | 58.
As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 2—3), Jiang teaches an apparatus
comprising a semiconductor die 100 having a top side and a back side; a
plurality of cavities in the back side 104 of the semiconductor die 100; and a
substrate 144 having a top side and a back side. Jiang, Abstract, Fig. 4A,
col. 8,11. 8—19. As the Examiner further finds (Final Act. 3), Jiang teaches a
substantially uniform layer of a conductive die attach adhesive 146 on the
top side of the substrate 144 and that the conductive die attach adhesive 146
is embedded into the plurality of cavities at the back side of the
semiconductor die. Jiang, Figs. 4A, 4B, col. 8,11. 16, 20—29.
As the Examiner also finds (Final Act. 3—4), Khaselev teaches that
silver pastes containing silver nanoparticles are well known in the art for die
attachment and sintering the silver particles in the back side of the die to the
silver in the conductive die attach adhesive. Khaselev 1 58.
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal any reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and analysis in this regard.
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis and identifies a
preponderance of the evidence in the record to evince why one of ordinary
skill would have combined the teachings of the references to arrive at
Appellant’s claimed invention. Final Act. 3 (explaining that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use a silver nanoparticle
paste, as taught by Khaselev, for the conductive die attach adhesive of Jiang
because silver nanoparticle pastes require lower sintering temperature which
may cause less damage to the overall device); Khaselev 1 58 (disclosing that
a silver nanoparticle paste sintering material functions to “create a highly
5
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
reliable bond . . . between a substrate and an element such as a die” and
“reduce process cycle times”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (explaining that any need or problem known in the
art can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant fails to direct us to persuasive evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to establish why the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention lacks a rational underpinning or is otherwise based on some other
reversible error.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments at page 12 of the Appeal Brief
that “the organic resin in the die attach adhesive will wet the cavities at the
die back side first due to capillary force and only a very small portion of
silver particles in die attach adhesive will contact with die back side”
persuasive of reversible error for the well-stated reasons provided by the
Examiner at pages 2—3 of the Answer.
In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 2), the arguments are
conclusory and Appellant does not provide an adequate technical
explanation or direct us to sufficient evidence in the record to support them.
Attorney argument is not evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 3), Appellant acknowledges
Jiang discloses that “a very small portion of silver particles in die attach
adhesive will contact with die back side.” App. Br. 12. Indeed, as the
Examiner explains (Ans. 3), even if Jiang discloses that only a very small
portion of silver particles contacts the die back side, such disclosure would
fall within the scope of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
Appellant’s argument that “the method described by Jiang et al. can
reduce or eliminate delamination at the interface between die backside and
die attach adhesive, but it cannot improve the electrical and thermal
performance” (App. Br. 12) is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because it is conclusory and based solely on attorney
argument. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), Appellant’s comments
regarding improving electrical and thermal performance (App. Br. 12) and
that the “silver nanostructure are intentionally embedded into die back side
through metal-assisted etching process” (id. at 12—13) are equally
unpersuasive because they are based on limitations not recited in the claims.
See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184—85 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“[F]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).
We do not find Appellant’s argument at page 13 of the Appeal Brief
regarding claim 1 not being a product-by-process claim persuasive of
reversible error for the reasons provided by the Examiner at page 4 of the
Final Office Action and pages 4—5 of the Answer.
As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 4), the recitation “sintering the
silver particles embedded in the backside of the die to the silver in the silver
filled die attach adhesive” of claim 1 is a product-by-process limitation and
thus, is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the claimed product.
In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, because as
the Examiner determines (Final Act. 2—4), the cited prior art suggests all of
the limitations of the claimed product, the burden shifts to Appellant to show
an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art
product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
7
Appeal 2017-004779
Application 14/024,840
Appellant, however, has not satisfied that burden. In particular,
Appellant’s assertions at page 13 of the Appeal Brief, without more, are
insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings and determination in this regard.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Jiang and Khaselev.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED
8