Ex Parte Andrews

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

13178732 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/178,732 07/08/2011 Peter S. Andrews
65106 7590 03/04/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
5308-1299 8992
EXAMINER
VU, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER S. ANDREWS 1
Appeal2014-004620
Application 13/178, 732
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14--22, and 24--30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a packaged electronic device comprising a submount
110, a bonding pattern 112 on the submount, and an electronic chip 100
having a bonding layer 22 in contact with the bonding pattern, wherein a
1 Cree, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004620
Application 13/178,732
periphery of the bonding layer defines a die mounting region 120 and
wherein a channel extends from within the die mounting region to a region
of the submount outside the die mounting region (independent claim 1, Figs.
7, 8; see also independent claims 14 and 26).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A packaged electronic device according to some
embodiments comprises:
a submount,
a bonding pattern on the submount, and
an electronic chip on the bonding pattern, the electronic chip
having a bonding layer in contact with the bonding pattern;
wherein a periphery of the bonding layer on the electronic chip defines a
die mounting region of the submount, and wherein the bonding pattern
comprises a bonding area within the die mounting region and at least
one channel that extends from within the die mounting region to a region
of the submount outside the die mounting region.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 14--18,
and 24--28 as anticipated by Shei et al., (US 7,205,648 B2, issued April 17,
2007) (hereinafter "Shei") (Final Action 2--4).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects remaining dependent
claims 4, 6-12, 19-22, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over Shei alone or in
combination with an additional prior art reference (id. at 5-7).
Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
any of the dependent claims (App. Br. 3-9). Therefore, the dependent
claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims of which claim
1 is representative.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
2
Appeal2014-004620
Application 13/178,732
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding bumps 212 of
Shei's Figure 2C correspond to the bonding layer of claim 1 (see also claim
14) (App. Br. 4--5) and in finding the gap between these bumps 212 and
between conductive films 208a, 208b corresponds to the channel of claim 1
(see also claim 26) (id. at 7-8).
Appellant's arguments lack persuasive merit. As fully explained by
the Examiner, the claimed bonding layer and channel are indistinguishable
from Shei's bumps 212 and the gap/channel therebetween (which extends
from a region covered by electronic chip 210 to a region not covered by the
electronic chip) (Ans. 2--4). In the Reply Brief, Appellant emphasizes that
bumps 212 of Shei are separate elements and therefore cannot be construed
as a bonding layer or as defining a region having a channel extending
therethrough in accordance with the independent claims (Reply Br. 5-7).
However, Appellant does not explain why the claimed bonding layer should
be interpreted as excluding a plurality of elements. Furthermore, such an
interpretation appears to be contrary to the express Specification disclosure
that "the singular forms 'a', 'an' and 'the' are intended to include the plural
forms as well" (Spec. i-f 61 ).
In summary, Appellant's arguments fail to show error in the
Examiner's finding that the independent claims are anticipated by Shei.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
3