TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

15978043 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
15/978,043 05/11/2018 Ruby Ann Maya Merto TI-75308A 5482
23494 7590 06/01/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
SAAD, ERIN BARRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUBY ANN MAYA MERTO, JERRY GOMEZ CAYABYAB,
and EDSEL GOMEZ BALAGTAS
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–7.3, 4

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed May 11, 2018 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Sept. 18, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 15, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s
Answer dated Nov. 19, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas
Instruments, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
4 The Appellant states that the present appeal is related to the appeal in SN
15/973,782 (Appeal No. 2019-004395). Appeal Br. 4. The present
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

2
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a method of making a semiconductor device
using a frame member to clampingly engage a peripheral portion of a
leadframe strip during wire bonding of IC components. See Spec. ¶ 26.
Figure 1, below, illustrates a wire bonding machine window clamp assembly
used in prior art methods of making semiconductor devices. See id. ¶ 13.

application is a continuation of SN 14/663,978, now US 9,997,490. See
Spec. ¶ 1. Related application SN 15/973,782 is a division of SN
14/663,978.

Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

3
Figure 1 is an isometric view of prior art wire bonding machine 10
supporting leadframe strip 18. Spec. ¶ 13. Bonding machine arms 12, 14
engage window clamp 16. Id. Window clamp 16’s frame structure 26
defines central opening 28 to expose a portion of leadframe strip 18. Id.
¶ 15. Frame structure 26’s bottom surface 27 (shown in Figure 2) engages
underlying leadframe strip 18. Id. Leadframe strip 18 includes integrally-
connected leadframe portions 18A, 18B, 18C, etc. Id. ¶ 13. Leadframe strip
18 is supported on leadframe support plate 19, which is in turn mounted on
heater block 20. Id. ¶ 14. Support plate 19 has tiny vacuum holes 32
extending through its upper surface that are registered with portions of
leadframe strip 18. Id. ¶ 16. Vacuum holes 32 are in fluid communication
with a vacuum manifold and apply a suction force to the bottom surface of
leadframe strip 18 to prevent it from vibrating during wire bonding
operations. Id. When heat from heater block 20 causes leadframe strip 18 to
expand, portions of leadframe strip 18 that are not engaged by window
frame 26 may buckle upwardly, reducing vacuum force on the entire system.
Id. Other portions of leadframe strip 18 become disengaged from plate 19.
Id. The buckled and disengaged leadframe portions vibrate during wire
bonding, resulting in defective wire bonds. Id.
A prior art solution to the above-described problems is to use a
window pane-type gridwork within frame structure 26. Spec. ¶ 18. However,
according to the Specification, such gridworks are relatively rigid and may
damage the underlying leadframe or associated devices, such as integrated
circuit dies. Id.
The inventive method is said to “overcome leadframe buckling,
vibration and disengagement problems.” Spec. ¶ 19. An embodiment of the
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

4
frame member used to clampingly engage the leadframe strip in the
inventive method is illustrated in Figure 5, reproduced below.

Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of window clamp 50 engaged with a
portion of underlying leadframe strip 40. Spec. ¶¶ 10, 22. Vacuum holes 37
in support plate 39 are in registration with leadframe portions 42 of
leadframe strip 40. Id. ¶ 22. Leadframe portions 42 support Quad Flat No-
lead (“QFN”) component stacks. Id. ¶¶ 10, 20. As shown in Figure 5, QFN
component stack 44 may comprise lower die 41, lower clip leadframe 43,
upper die 45, and upper clip leadframe 47. Id. ¶ 20. The components may be
solder bond attached. Id. Leadframe portion 42 and the various components
of QFN component stack 44 ultimately are electrically connected through
wire bonding performed by a wire bonding machine. Id.
Similar to prior art frame structure 26, frame structure 52 includes flat
bottom surface 68 for engaging tip surface 69 of leadframe strip 40.
Compare Spec. ¶ 24, Figure 5, with Spec. ¶ 15, Figures 2, 3. Unlike prior art
frame structure 26, frame structure 52 includes lip portion 61 having
downwardly facing surface portion 65 for engaging top surface 70 of QFN
component stack 44. Id. ¶ 24, Figure 5. According to the Specification,
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

5
“[s]uch engagement firmly holds the leadframe strip 40 in engagement with
the window clamp support plate 39 and obviates microbouncing of the
leadframe strip and defective wire bonds caused by such microbouncing.”
Id. ¶ 25. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of making a semiconductor device,
comprising:
using a frame member to clampingly engage a peripheral
portion of a leadframe strip having multiple leadframe portions,
more than one of the leadframe portions being adjacent to the
engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe strip and more than
one of the leadframe portions not being adjacent to the engaged
peripheral portion of the leadframe strip, each of the multiple
leadframe portions having an IC component stack mounted on
it;
using the frame member to urge only the IC component
stacks that are mounted on the more than one of the leadframe
portions that are adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of
the leadframe strip downwardly;
wire bonding the IC component stacks to their respective
leadframe portion;
singulating the leadframe strip to separate the multiple
leadframe portions; and
packaging one of the singulated leadframe portions to
form the semiconductor device.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

6
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Ricketson US 5,307,978 May 3, 1994
Fogal US 5,954,842 Sept. 21, 1999
Camacho US 2010/0140764 A1 June 10, 2010

The Examiner also relies on the Appellant’s admitted prior art in
Specification paragraph 16 (“AAPA”). Final 4–5.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fogal in view of Ricketson and Camacho.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fogal in view of Ricketson, Camacho, and AAPA.

OPINION
The Examiner rejected independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Fogal in view of Ricketson and Camacho. See Final 2–3. Fogal Figure 1 is
reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

7

Fogal Figure 1 is a top view of a dual clamp apparatus in dual bond site wire
bonding assembly 10. Fogal 4:11–13. Assembly 10 includes primary clamp
12 that is mountable on a wire bonding apparatus and contacts the lead
frame. Id. at 3:29–30, 4:36–41. Primary clamp 12 is formed from a
substantially rigid material and is movable toward and away from an
underlying heater block. Id. at 4:41–44. Primary clamp 12 includes two,
rectangular-shaped, bond site windows 16, 18 that are spaced to match the
spacing of the lead frames of a lead frame strip. Id. at 4:51–56. Each bond
site window 16, 18 includes an opposing pair of secondary clamps 34. Id. at
5:4–5. When a semiconductor die mounted to the lead frame strip is aligned
with one of bond site windows 16, 18 and pressure is exerted on the lead
frame, secondary clamps 34 contact the semiconductor die. Id. at 5:19–23.

Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

8
Ricketson Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Ricketson Figure 2 is a frontal isometric view of work holder 14 having
work station 15 for receiving lead frames 10. Ricketson 3:15, 58–60. During
operation, one of lead frames 10 is clamped between top clamp plate 34 and
lower clamp plate 35 by clamp frame members 38 such that a bonding site
on that lead frame is located, and held in place, in window 33 of work
station 15. See id. at 4:25–29, 42–50, 6:4–6.
The Examiner found that Fogal discloses a method of making a
semiconductor device using a frame member as recited in claim 1, except
that Fogal does not (1) “clampingly engage a peripheral portion of a
leadframe strip having multiple leadframe portions,” such that “more than
one of the leadframe portions [is] adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion
of the leadframe strip and more than one of the leadframe portions [is] not . .
. adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe strip,” (2)
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

9
“singulat[e] the leadframe strip to separate the multiple leadframe portions,”
and (3) “packag[e] one of the singulated leadframe portions to form the
semiconductor device.” See Final 3. As to (1), the Examiner found that
Ricketson evidences that “it [was] known to have multiple leadframe
portions along the strip.” Id. The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have used “a strip as taught by Ricketson to allow for
multiple semiconductor devices to be created continuously[,] saving on the
production time and costs.” Id. The Examiner found that the combination of
Fogal and Ricketson inherently would have resulted in “leadframe portions
adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion (right next to the clamped
portion) of the leadframe strip and more than one lead frame portions not
being adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion (portions further down the
strip) of the lead frame strip.” Id. As to (2) and (3), the Examiner found that
“Camacho discloses that it is known to create semiconductor packages by
mounting semiconductor dies to a lead frame and perform[ing] a singulating
process to complete each assembly to form independent packages.” Id. The
Examiner found that the ordinary artisan would have “perform[ed] a known
process to produce multiple semiconductor devices at one time [as taught by
Camacho] in order to save time and money.” Id.
The Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings (see Final 2) that
Fogal discloses the claim 1 steps of “engag[ing] a peripheral portion of a
leadframe strip having multiple leadframe portions, more than one of the
leadframe portions being adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of the
leadframe strip” and “using the frame member to urge only the IC
component stacks that are mounted on the more than one of the leadframe
portions that are adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

10
strip downwardly.” See Appeal Br. 8–9. The Appellant contends that Fogal
uses a window pane-type gridwork structure within the frame structure,
resulting in all of the IC component stacks being urged downwardly, rather
than only those IC component stacks mounted on the leadframe portions
adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe strip. Id. at 9
(noting that the drawback of this type of structure is described in the
Specification); see Spec. ¶ 18 (“The risk of damage from such gridwork type
clamps is particularly high with vertically stacked integrated circuit
packages, such as QFN packages.”).
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are not
commensurate in scope with the claim language. During examination, claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). We have reviewed the Specification and agree with the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 does not preclude using a window
pane-type grid structure, i.e., multiple windows. Ans. 7; cf. Epistar Corp. v.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Disavowal
requires ‘expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a
clear disavowal of claim scope.’ Teleflex, [Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299
F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)]. A patentee’s discussion of the
shortcomings of certain techniques is not a disavowal of the use of those
techniques in a manner consistent with the claimed invention.”). Further, the
Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim 1 language, quoted in the preceding paragraph, as reading on Fogal’s
clamping of two adjacent components on the leadframe is erroneous or
unreasonable. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

11
explicitly define nor provide any disclosure that indicates the claim term
“peripheral portion” should not be broadly construed as an area of any size.
Ans. 7. In other words, the Specification does not support interpreting
“peripheral portion” as the entire periphery of the leadframe strip.
The Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s finding that Ricketson
teaches the claim 1 limitation “more than one of the leadframe portions [is]
not . . . adjacent to the engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe strip.”
Appeal Br. 11. The Appellant argues, more specifically, that this finding is
based on an erroneous interpretation of claim 1 as encompassing Ricketson’s
leadframe portions that are located outside frame members 38 and clamp
plates 34, 35. Id. at 12. The Appellant contends that claim 1 requires that the
non-adjacent leadframe portions are within the clamped area of the
leadframe strip. See id.
We have reviewed the disclosure that the Appellant relies on in
support of this argument (e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 13, 20, 22, and Figs. 1–5), but agree
with the Examiner that the argument is unpersuasive because it is based on
an overly narrow interpretation of claim 1. See Ans. 7–8. We find no basis
for narrowly construing claim 1 as limited to the exemplary Specification
embodiments. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 27 (“Although certain embodiments of a
wire bonding machine window clamp assembly have been described in
detail herein, alternative embodiments of a such an assembly will become
obvious to those skilled in the art after reading this disclosure. It is intended
that the appended claims be construed broadly to cover such alternative
embodiments, except as limited by the prior art.”); cf. Epistar, 566 F.3d at
1335.
Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

12
The Appellant argues that Ricketson does not teach the claim 1
limitation “using a frame member to clampingly engage a peripheral portion
of a leadframe strip” because Ricketson, like Fogal, uses a window pane-
type gridwork within the frame structure. Id. at 11. This argument is not
persuasive for the same reasons stated above in addressing the Appellant’s
arguments regarding Fogal.
In sum, because the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
The Appellant argues in support of patentability of dependent claims 2
and 4–7 (see Appeal Br. 14–20), as well as in support of patentability of
separately-rejected claim 3 (see id. at 21–22). We agree with the Examiner
that these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the Answer.
See Ans. 7–8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2018) (“A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”). Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejections of claims 2–7.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7 103 Fogal, Ricketson 1, 2, 4–7
3 103 Fogal, Ricketson,
Camacho
3
Overall
Outcome:

1–7

Appeal 2019-004394
Application 15/978,043

13
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