Megic Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2007

No. 78476212 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2007)

Mailed:
Feb. 16, 2007

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Megic Corporation
________

Serial No. 78476212
_______

Stephen B. Ackerman of Saile Ackerman LLC for Megic
Corporation.

Elizabeth J. Winter, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Grendel and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark POST-PASSIVATION (in standard character form)
for goods identified in the application as “integrated
circuits.”1

1 Serial No. 78476212, filed on August 31, 2004. The application
is based on applicant’s asserted bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce. Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C.
§1051(b).
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 78476212
2
At issue in this appeal are the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s refusals to register applicant’s mark on two
grounds. First, she contends that the mark is merely
descriptive and thus unregistrable pursuant to Trademark
Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). Second, she
has refused registration on the basis of applicant’s
asserted failure to fully comply with her request for
information pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R.
§2.61(b).
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney have
filed main appeal briefs. We affirm the refusal to
register.
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
Ser. No. 78476212
3
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not
in the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services
for which registration is sought, the context in which it
is being used on or in connection with those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services
because of the manner of its use. That a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Moreover, it is settled that “[t]he question is not whether
someone presented with only the mark could guess what the
goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will
understand the mark to convey information about them.” In
re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
See also In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1537 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB 1990); and In re American
Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).
It is clear from the evidence made of record by the
Trademark Examining Attorney that POST-PASSIVATION is
merely descriptive of applicant’s “integrated circuits.”
Ser. No. 78476212
4
As the dictionary evidence submitted by applicant
itself shows, “post-” is defined as a prefix meaning
“after; later.” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language (4th ed. 2000)). We note that Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1990) defines
“passivation” as the noun version of the verb “passivate,”
which itself is defined as “to protect (as a solid-state
device) against contamination by coating or surface
treatment.” Similarly, the website of DIE Products
Consortium (http://www.dieproduct.com) includes a glossary
which gives the following definition of “passivation”:
“insulating layer directly over a circuit or circuit
element to protect the surface from contaminants, moisture
or particles.”
The evidence of record also includes numerous
instances of descriptive use of “post-passivation” and/or
“post passivation” in the relevant industry. Examples of
these descriptive uses are as follows (emphasis added).
- The website of The Surface Mount Technology
Association (http://www.smta.org) identifies a paper
presented at a conference, entitled “Post-Passivation
Layers: Device Enhancement at the Wafer Level.” The text
includes the statement that “The application and complexity
Ser. No. 78476212
5
of this ‘post-passivation layer’ wafer processing in the
back end will increase...”.
- The website FreshPatents.com
(http://www.freshpatents.com) displays a patent application
entitled “Method for reducing defects in post passivation
interconnect process,” which includes the following in its
text: “The present invention relates generally to
integrated circuits, and more particularly to a method for
reducing defects in a post passivation interconnect
process.”
- The website freepatentsonline
(http://www.freepatentsonline.com) displays Patent No.
6399997, owned by applicant, entitled “High performance
system-on-chip using post passivation process and glass
substrates.”
- The website ChipScale Review (July 2004)
(http://www.chipscalereview.com) displays an article in
which the following text appears: “Additional wafer
processing in back-end assembly has been practiced for
years, on a limited scale, to enhance device functionality.
The application and complexity of this ‘post-passivation
layer’ (PPL) wafer processing at the backend will increase
as innovative technical solutions are required to enable
future high-performance devices. ... A PPL is defined as
Ser. No. 78476212
6
any layer or structure above the final passivation of a
chip that adds functionality to the semiconductor device.”
An accompanying diagram of a “Chip Interconnect” includes
the wording “Post Passivation Layers” as one element of the
chip.
- Another article from the ChipScale Review website
(July 2004) includes the following text under the heading
“Value Added with Post Passivation”: “Amkor’s Berry
suggests thinking farther outside the box beyond just
bumping. ‘Just send processed, ready-for-bumping wafers
(a.k.a. post passivation) and let the vendors apply UBM,
RDL and bumps before thinning, then they can thin them as
needed.”
- The website of Reed Electronics Group
(http://www.reed-electronics.com) includes the following
text under the heading “PPL processing”: A post-
passivation layer (PPL) is defined as any layer or
structure above the final passivation of a chip that adds
functionality to the semiconductor device.” Under the
heading “Process results,” the following text appears: As
discussed previously, there is a growing demand for post-
passivation lithography to enhance the device
functionality. One of the key challenges in successful
Ser. No. 78476212
7
post-passivation lithography is the ability to expose high-
aspect-ratio structures without affecting process yields.”
- A NEXIS article from Test and Measurement World of
June 1, 2005 includes the following text: “August’s Roy
noted a growing interest in placing post-passivation layers
(PPLs) on top of wafers.”
- A NEXIS article from US Fed News of March 16, 2005
discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,684,565 includes the following
text: “Vincent Hool of Fremont, Calif., and Jon Long of
Livermore, Calif., have developed a method of post-
passivation thick metal pre-routing for flip chip
packaging. According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark
Office: “The semiconductor package comprises an IC chip
and a substrate, wherein part of the substrate routing such
as substrate level trace routing is placed on the IC chip
using post-passivation thick metal process at wafer level.”
Based on this evidence, including applicant’s own
descriptive usage in its patent, we find that POST-
PASSIVATION is merely descriptive as applied to applicant’s
“integrated circuits.” Applicant argues to the contrary
that the word “post” has numerous other meanings which,
when combined with the word “passivation,” are incongruous
and have nothing to do with applicant’s goods. This
argument is unpersuasive because, as noted above, the mere
Ser. No. 78476212
8
descriptiveness of the mark must be determined in reference
to the identified goods, not in the abstract. That a term
may have other meanings in different contexts is not
controlling. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., supra.
In this case, the evidence is clear that “post-
passivation”2 merely describes a feature or characteristic
of applicant’s goods, i.e., that applicant’s integrated
circuits are or would be subjected to or constructed using
a post-passivation process and that they feature a post-
passivation layer. In view thereof, we find that the
Trademark Examining Attorney’s Section 2(e)(1) refusal is
proper.

Decision: The Section 2(e)(1) refusal is affirmed.3

2 The evidence also clearly shows that “post passivation,” i.e.,
without the hyphen, is commonly used to describe this feature of
the goods, and that it therefore is as merely descriptive as the
hyphenated “post-passivation.”

3 In view of our affirmance of the Section 2(e)(1) refusal, we
need not and do not reach the additional refusal based on
applicant’s asserted failure to comply with the Trademark
Examining Attorney’s requirement for submission of information
under Trademark Rule 2.61(b).