2020000733 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2020

2020000733 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

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. 15/646,127 07/11/2017 Andre Uhlemann 1012-1912/2013P50505 US01 2786 57579 7590 12/01/2020 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES 1255 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 200 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER CARPENTER, ROBERT K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2826 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2020 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDRE UHLEMANN and ALEXANDER HERBRANDT Appeal 2020-000733 Application 15/646,127 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 and 10–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000733 Application 15/646,127 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A semiconductor module support member, comprising: a substrate having a metallized side; and a plurality of cooling structures welded to the metallized side of the substrate, each of the cooling structures comprising a plurality of distinct weld beads disposed in a stacked arrangement extending away from the substrate, wherein a first end of each stacked arrangement of distinct weld beads is attached to the metallized side and a second end of each stacked arrangement of distinct weld beads is free standing. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”) US 7,446,419 B1 Nov. 4, 2008 Chou et al. (hereinafter “Chou”) US 2012/0217628 A1 Aug. 30, 2012 Hohlfeld CN 102208380 (A) Oct. 5, 2011 THE REJECTION 1. Claims 1–8 and 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over CN 102208380 to Hohlfeld in view of Lin and Chou. Appeal 2020-000733 Application 15/646,127 3 OPINION Appellant does not argue the claims separately, but instead focuses on limitations involving independent claim 1 (independent claim 10 has common limitations). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018), we select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in 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.”). Upon review of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s position in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection on appeal for the reasons set forth in the record by the Examiner, with the following emphasis. We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection presented on pages 3–9 of the Final Office Action. Therein, in summary, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to have replaced the stacks of bonding wire sections 3 disclosed in Hohlfeld with the stacks of bumps 103, 104 as disclosed in Chou, or with the stacks of ball bonds 150A-150D as disclosed in Lin, to arrive at a plurality of distinct weld beads disposed in a stacked arrangement extending away from a substrate as claimed by the Appellant. Appeal 2020-000733 Application 15/646,127 4 Appellant submits that one would not have been motivated to combine the Lin, Chou and Hohlfeld references in the manner suggested in the rejection for the reasons set forth on pages 4–9 of the Appeal Brief. Therein, in essence, Appellant argues that Hohlfeld is dedicated to the most efficient arrangement of bonding wire sections for the express purpose of dissipating heat, whereas the modified device (Hohlfeld’s power semiconductor module modified by replacing the bonding wire sections 3 with Lin’s ball bonds 150A-150D or Chou’s bumps 103/104) would be significantly less effective at dissipating heat. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant submits that reduced heat dissipation capacity could easily result in irreparable damage to the power semiconductor chips included in Hohlfeld’s power semiconductor module. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant offers similar argument in the Reply Brief. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the reasons provided by the Examiner on pages 3–8 of the Answer. The Examiner explains (Ans. 4) that Chou teaches that different bump designs for different products with different heat generation patterns on the ICs can be used to provide an optimum (or best) heat dissipation mechanism (Chou, para. [0022]). We note that “[d]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable . . . is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Also, Appellant’s statement that the modification of Hohlfeld could result in irreparable damage is unsupported as Appellant does not provide evidence supporting this assertion. It is based instead on unsubstantiated attorney argument. Such attorney argument has low probative value because Appeal 2020-000733 Application 15/646,127 5 attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In view of the above, we affirm the rejection. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10–16 103 Hohlfeld, Lin, Chou 1–8, 10–16 Overall Outcome 1–8, 10–16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED