Micron Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2019004539 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
14/743,124 06/18/2015 Eric Tan Swee Seng 2269-6331.4(2003-1364.04) 8349
63162 7590 05/29/2020
TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
EXAMINER
PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte ERIC TAN SWEE SENG
____________
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–6, 10–14, 16–18, and 20 of
Application 14/743,124.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
14/743,124 filed June 18, 2015 (’124 App.”); the Final Office Action dated
May 18, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 26, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply
Brief filed May 21, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MICRON
TECHNOLOGY, INC. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 2 and 3 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
2
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
The subject matter of the invention relates to multi-chip modules in
which two or more semiconductor devices are stacked relative to one
another. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, distances between adjacent, stacked
semiconductor devices are determined, at least in part, by a plurality of
discrete spacers interposed therebetween, and discrete conductive elements
protrude from a central region of the lower semiconductor device and pass
through a common aperture formed between the active surface of the lower
semiconductor device, the back side of the upper semiconductor device and
two of the spacers. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A multi-chip module on a substrate having contact areas
on a surface thereof, comprising:
a first semiconductor device having an active surface
including bond pads thereon and an opposing back side affixed
to the substrate;
a second semiconductor device having a back side
stacked over the first semiconductor device;
spacers interposed between the active surface of the first
semiconductor device and the back side of the second
semiconductor device;
a first opening facing a first periphery of the stacked first
and second semiconductor devices and defined between a first
set of spacers of the spacers, the first semiconductor device, and
the second semiconductor device;
a second opening facing a second, opposing periphery of
the stacked first and second semiconductor devices and defined
between a second set of spacers of the spacers, the second,
opposing periphery of the stacked first and second
semiconductor devices opposing the first periphery of the
stacked first and second semiconductor devices, the first
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
3
semiconductor device, and the second semiconductor device,
wherein the first set of spacers is separate from the second set
of spacers;
a third opening facing a third periphery of the stacked
first and second semiconductor devices and defined between a
third set of spacers of the spacers, the first semiconductor
device and the second semiconductor device, wherein the third
periphery of the stacked first semiconductor device and the
second semiconductor device is oriented in a direction
transverse to the first periphery and the second periphery;
discrete conductive elements, each extending over the
active surface of the first semiconductor device from respective
bond pads of the bond pads positioned at an interior portion of
the active surface of the first semiconductor device to
respective contact areas on the substrate surface between at
least two of the first opening, the second opening, and the third
opening, wherein at least the first opening and the third opening
have at least one of the discrete conductive elements extending
therethrough, and wherein at least one of the first set of the
spacers, the second set of the spacers, and the third set of the
spacers are positioned at an outer portion of the active surface
of the first semiconductor device proximate an outer boundary
of the active surface;
a dielectric coating on at least portions of at least one of
the discrete conductive elements and the back side of the
second semiconductor device, the dielectric coating configured
to electrically isolate the discrete conductive elements from the
back side of the second semiconductor device; and
an insulative material disposed at least partially between
the first semiconductor device and the second semiconductor
device.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.) (some formatting added).

Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Name Reference Date
LoBianco et al.
(“LoBianco”)
US 6,340,846 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
Akram et al. (“Akram”) US 2002/0043711 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Derderian US 2003/0038355 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
Kurita et al. (“Kurita”) US 2003/0189259 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
A. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10–12 over LoBianco in view of Derderian;
B. Claim 13 over Kurita in view of Derderian;
C. Claims 16–18 and 20 over LoBianco in view of Kurita;
D. Claim 4 over LoBianco and Derderian in view of Akram; and
E. Claim 14 over Kurita and Derderian in view of Akram.
Final Act. 3–9.
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant 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 [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
5
A. Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 10–12 as obvious over LoBianco in
view of Derderian
Appellant argues claims 1, 5, 6, and 10–12 as a group. See Appeal Br.
14–16. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 5, 6, and 10–12 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that LoBianco teaches most aspects of claim 1,
but does not teach (1) a first, second, and third set of spacers interposed
between the first and second devices to define the openings, wherein at least
a set of the spacers is positioned at an outer portion of the first device
proximate to an outer boundary of the active surface, or (2) a dielectric
coating on at least portions of one of the conductive elements and the back
side of the second device, wherein the coating is configured to electrically
isolate the conductive elements from the back side of the second device.
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Derderian teaches such spacers and
a dielectric coating on at least portions of the conductive elements and back
side of the second device. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to include the dielectric coating and the spacers of Derderian in
LoBianco’s4 module to prevent shorting and protect the conductive
elements. Id. (citing Derderian ¶¶ 60, 61).
The Examiner bases the rejection on an embodiment (illustrated in
LoBianco Fig. 6) that does not include spacers. Ans. 12. In response to

4 In stating a conclusion of obviousness, the Final Office Action refers
incorrectly to the module of Kurita, rather than the module of LoBianco.
Final Act. 12. It is clear from the Appeal Brief that Appellant understood
the rejection to be over LoBianco in view of Derderian (see Appeal Br. 14–
16), and thus we determine the error is harmless.
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
6
Appellant’s argument that LoBianco discloses spacers in the form of
microspheres in an different embodiment (illustrated in LoBianco Fig. 7)
(Appeal Br. 15), the Examiner finds that design incentives would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to look at other kinds of spacers to
implement a predictable variation. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that
Derderian’s spacers would provide additional positive results, including
defining openings used to receive LoBianco’s adhesive layer laterally and
reducing or eliminating the incidence of bubble formation in the adhesive.
Id. at 12–13 (citing Derderian ¶¶ 46, 47). With regard to prevention of
shorting as a reason to combine the references, the Examiner concludes that
finding one solution to a problem (LoBianco’s) would not have discouraged
a skilled artisan from using other known solutions to the problem
(Derderian’s). Id. at 15–16.
Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined LoBianco with Derderian (see Appeal Br. 14–15) is not
persuasive of reversible error. Appellant contends that LoBianco teaches
microspheres that provide the same result as Derderian’s spacers, and thus
there is no reason to add the spacers of Derderian to LoBianco. Id. at 15;
Reply Br. 2. However, “if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH
& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2006) wherein our reviewing Court stated:
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a
suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
7
when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the
combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal—and even common-
sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a
motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint
of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations,
the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses
knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the
prior art references.
Appellant does not explain why substituting Derderian’s spacers for
LoBianco’s microspheres (or adding them to LoBianco) would have been
beyond the level of skill in the art or yield unpredictable results. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely
bars its patentablity.”).
As to Appellant’s argument that LoBianco teaches prevention of
shorting (id. at 16), we note that the cited portion of LoBianco discloses that
the layer of adhesive between the first and second die prevents shorting, but
says nothing in relation to the use of spacers to prevent shorting. See
LoBianco col. 2, ll. 6–13.
According to Appellant, the combined references fail to teach or
suggest a multi-chip module “wherein the third periphery of the stacked
first semiconductor device and the second semiconductor device is oriented
in a direction transverse to the first periphery and the second periphery”
and “wherein at least the first opening and the third opening have at least
one of the discrete conductive elements extending therethrough.” Appeal
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
8
Br. 14. However, “a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art” is
insufficient to rebut obviousness. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
reversibly errs in rejecting claim 1 over LoBianco in view of Derderian. For
the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 10–12 over
these references.
B. Rejection of claim 13 as obvious over Kurita in view of Derderian
Claim 13 comprises limitations similar or identical to those of claim 1,
but also requires, inter alia, “each spacer of the spacers surrounding a
portion of a discrete conductive element” and the spacers are positioned
“separate from the bond pads on the active surface of the first semiconductor
device.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds that Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 13
except fails to show each spacer surrounding a portion of a conductive
element. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner relies on Derderian for teaching that
each spacer surrounds a portion of a conductive element prevents the
conductive elements from collapsing. Id. at 6.
Appellant argues that Derderian teaches spacers positioned over the
bond pads, and modifying the position of the spacers to be moved away
from the bond pads while still surrounding a conductive element has no
support in either reference, and is based on hindsight. Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner relies on Kurita, not Derderian, to disclose spacers
positioned separate from the bond pads. Final Act. 6. Kurita shows this
configuration in FIG. 12, reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
9

Kurita FIG. 12 is a cross-sectional view for showing a configuration
of a semiconductor device according to an embodiment. Kurita ¶ 80.
Semiconductor device 50 includes a first-layer semiconductor chip 54 in
which pad electrodes (bond pads) 55 and 56 are arranged in two rows along
the centerline. Id. ¶ 140. A second semiconductor chip 11 is stacked on the
first chip via a plurality of semi-spherical spacers 57 and an adhesive agent
58. Id.
Thus, Kurita teaches the claimed positioning of the bond pads relative
to the spacers. As the Examiner points out in the Answer, Derderian’s
disclosure is not limited to spacers formed over bond pads. See Ans. 18
(citing Derderian FIG. 1). On this basis, Appellant’s argument that the
combined references must result in spacers being over the bond pads is
unpersuasive. See Appeal Br. 18.
Derderian teaches spacers that surround a portion of a discrete
conductive element. Derderian ¶ 68 (“When spacers 22 at least partially
encapsulate discrete conductive elements 18, . . . spacers 22 may prevent
discrete conductive elements from being collapsed onto one another, bent,
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
10
kinked, or otherwise distorted or damaged . . . .”). The Examiner’s rationale
for combining Derderian’s disclosure of spacers surrounding a portion of a
discrete conductive element with Kurita’s teaching of a multi-chip module
(to prevent the elements from collapsing (Final Act. 6)) qualifies as
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” that supports the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). “Such a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“When a work is available in one field,
design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either
in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can
implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so,
§ 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We see no reason why improving
Kurita’s device with Derderian’s teaching would have been beyond the skill
of one of ordinary skill in the art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 over Kurita in view of Derderian.
C. Rejection of claims 16–18 and 20 as obvious over LoBianco in
view of Kurita
Claims 17, 18, and 20 depend directly from independent claim 16.
Appeal Br. 28–29 (Claims App’x). Claim 16 comprises elements similar or
identical to those of claim 1. Of relevance to the rejection, claim 16 recites,
inter alia, that a central region of the first semiconductor device
encompasses bond pads, and that spacers form three common apertures. Id.
at 28.
Appellant argues claims 16–18 and 20 as a group. Id. at 19–21. We
select claim 16 as representative of the group. Claims 17, 18, and 20 stand
or fall with claim 16. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
11
The Examiner finds the LoBianco teaches most of the elements of
claim 16, including spacers that form three common apertures. Final Act. 6–
7. The Examiner finds that both LoBianco and Kurita conductive elements
extending through openings (apertures) between the first and second
devices. Ans. 18–20. The Examiner also finds that Kurita discloses
centrally located bond pads. Id. at 21. The Examiner concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of LoBianco
and Kurita because the skilled artisan could have selected among a plurality
of alternative spacers available, which would be predictable variations of
each, other barring patentability, and the spacer variations would have
improved similar devices in the same way. Id. at 19–20. In addition, the
Examiner determines that the spacers of Kurita would have provided the
additional benefits to LoBianco of eliminating the incidence of minute gaps
between the first and second devices, as well as providing stability to the
stack. Id. at 20 (citing Kurita ¶¶ 17, 96, 100).
As in the rejection over LoBianco in view of Derderian, Appellant
argues there is no reason to combine the teachings of LoBianco and Kurita.
Compare Appeal Br. 14–15 with id. at 20–21. Pointing to LoBianco’s
disclosure of microspheres, Appellant contends that Kurita merely duplicates
spacers, thus unnecessarily duplicates parts, complicates the device, and
increases costs. Id. at 20.
Appellant also argues that LoBianco teaches peripheral bond pads,
not centrally located bond pads. Id. at 20–21. Appellant contends that “the
alleged ‘degree of freedom’ gained by having centrally located bond pads is
not supported by any reasoning in the [Final Office Action].” Id. at 20.
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
12
Appellant argues that LoBianco contains no disclosure that its
microspheres form openings with conductive elements extending
therethrough. Id. at 21.
Appellant’s arguments fail to establish reversible error in the rejection
of claim 16 as obvious over LoBianco in view of Kurita. As discussed
supra, a skilled artisan would recognize that Kurita’s spacers—and central
spacer location—would improve LoBianco’s device, and we find no reason
that such improvement and use of technology would have been beyond the
artisan’s skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 471. Thus, the combination of
references would have been obvious. See also Dystar Textilfarben, 464 F.3d
at 1368 (finding an implicit motivation to combine references that result in a
more desirable product). Appellant argues that the references would not
have been combined, but not that one of ordinary skill in the art was not
capable of combining them. See id. We also note that the Examiner’s
conclusion that Kurita’s central location of bond pads provides degrees of
freedom in connecting conductive elements itself provides “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning” that supports the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Turning to Appellant’s argument that LoBianco does not disclose
forming openings with conductive elements extending therethrough, we note
that the Examiner relies on Kurita, not LoBianco, for this disclosure. Thus,
Appellant improperly attacks the references individually, rather than the
combination. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
13
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
prior art as a whole. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 16–18 and
20 over LoBianco in view of Kurita.
D. Rejection of claim 4 as obvious over LoBianco and Derderian in
view of Akram
Appellant argues that claim 4 is patentable “for at least the reasons set
forth” regarding claim 1 from which it depends. Appeal Br. 21.
Having sustained the rejection of claim 1, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claim 4.
E. Rejection of claim 14 as obvious over Kurita and Derderian in
view of Akram
Appellant argues that claim 14 is patentable “for at least the reasons
set forth” regarding claim 13 from which it depends. Id. at 22.
Having sustained the rejection of claim 13, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claim 14.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 10–
12 103(a)
LoBianco, Derderian 1, 5, 6, 10–
12
13 103(a) Kurita, Derderian 13
16–18, 20 103(a) LoBianco, Kurita 16–18, 20
4 103(a) LoBianco, Derderian, Akram 4
14 103(a) Kurita, Derderian, Akram 14
Appeal 2019-004539
Application 14/743,124
14
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–6, 10–
14, 16–18,
20

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).
AFFIRMED