Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13787911 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
131787,911
99900 7590
Advent/Maxim
The Advent Building
17838 Burke Street
Suite 200
Omaha, NE 68118
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
03/07/2013 TiaoZhou
09/30/2016
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.
16483.1279US01/MAXM-1279 1075
EXAMINER
MALEK, MALIHEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
uspto@adventip.com
sloma@adventip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIAO ZHOU, RICKY AGRAWAL, and
ABHISHEK CHOUDHURY
Appeal2015---005173
Application 13/787,911
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2015-005173
Application 13/787,911
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A wafer-level package device comprising:
a semiconductor substrate:
a passivation layer disposed on the semiconductor substrate;
a top metal contact pad disposed on the semiconductor substrate;
a thin film disposed on the passivation layer;
a redistribution layer structure disposed on the top metal contact pad
and at least a portion of the passivation layer, the redistribution
layer structure disposed at least partially in a via formed in the
thin film; and
a dielectric layer formed on the thin film and the redistribution layer
structure.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Lin et al.
(hereafter "Lin '200")
Lin et al.
(hereafter "Lin '516")
US 2010/0105200 Al
US 2010/0264516 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Apr. 29, 2010
Oct. 21, 2010
1. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lin '516.
2
Appeal2015-005173
Application 13/787,911
2. Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lin '516.
3. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lin '516 in view of Lin '200.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Critical to our analysis herein is the claim interpretation of the
claimed phrase "a redistribution layer structure" as recited in both claims 1
and 8. The Examiner's interpretation of this phrase is reproduced below:
[t]he term "redistribution layer structure" is a broad term, and it is
interpreted to be a conductive layer in an integrated circuit (IC) that
makes the I/O pads (i.e. input/output pads) of that integrated circuit
available in other locations. The term "redistribution layer structure"
in the art is also named as "conductive/metal trace," or "landing pad."
Appellant himself, on page 14 of the Appeal Brief, says "the
redistribution layer structure in current claim 1 functions as a
rerouting and interconnection system that redistributes
electrical interconnections in the wafer-level package device."
Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the adhesion layer 40 and inductor layer 42 of
Lin '516 are not a redistribution layer. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants submit
that an inductor is a passive circuit element. Id.
In reply, the Examiner finds that structure 40/42 of Lin '516 is not
only an inductor, but is also a conductive layer made of metals such as Ti
3
Appeal2015-005173
Application 13/787,911
(layer 40), and layer 42 is made of metals such as Cu, that satisfies the
above-mentioned interpretation or function. Ans. 3--4. Hence, it seems as
though, because an inductor is an electrical component, albeit, a passive
electrical component, the Examiner believes that it can function as part of an
RDL structure.
However, as discussed, supra, the term "redistribution layer structure"
is interpreted by the Examiner to be a conductive layer [emphasis added] in
an integrated circuit (IC) that makes the I/O pads (i.e. input/output pads) of
that integrated circuit available in other locations. We agree with Appellants
that an inductor is not considered a conductive layer. As Appellants point
out, Lin '516 discloses a redistribution layer (RDL) structure 50, and it is
distinguished from the metal adhesion layer 40 and metal layer 42 (inductor)
of Lin '561. Lin '561, para. [0032], Appeal Br. 6. Hence, even the prior art
distinguishes an inductor from an RDL structure.
To the extent possible, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). As indicated in paragraph
[0017] of Appellants' Specification, an RDL redistributes electrical
connections. In other words, an RDLis an extra metal layer on a chip that
makes the IO pads of an integrated circuit available at other locations, as
exemplified by Lin '516 with reference to RDL 50. It is in this manner that
we interpret the claim term "a redistribution layer structure".
4
Appeal2015-005173
Application 13/787,911
As such, because the Examiner mischaracterizes the teaching of Lin
'516, as discussed above, with regard to the meaning of the term "a
redistribution layer structure", we agree with Appellants that an element of
the claim has not been properly addressed in the rejection, and we therefore
reverse Rejection 1.
Rejections 2 and 3
Rejections 2 and 3 each involve Lin '516 as the primary reference, and
the stated deficiencies of Lin ' 516 remain in these rejections, and we
therefore reverse Rejections 2 and 3 for the same reasons that we reverse
Rejection 1.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5