11115936 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

Ex Parte Beaulieu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 14, 2012

11115936 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

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. 11/115,936 04/27/2005 Frederic Beaulieu YOR920040670US1 1723 48062 7590 05/14/2012 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 1300 POST ROAD SUITE 205 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte FREDERIC BEAULIEU, GOBINDA DAS, STEVEN J. DUDA, MATTHEW J. FARINELLI, ADREANNE KELLY, SAMUEL MCKNIGHT, and WILLIAM J. MURPHY ____________________ Appeal 2010-0009581 Application 11/115,936 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines, Corp. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2010-0000958 Application 11/115,936 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21.2 (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for diffusing an alloying element (122) into the bond pad (120) of a microelectronic chip (118) by limiting the diffusion of the alloying element to a maximum of two micrometers (128) below the surface of the bond pad (120). (Spec. 6, ll. 7- 18, Fig. 1.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows: 1. A method of forming a bond pad, the method comprising the steps of: selectively introducing at least one alloying element to at least a portion of at least one surface of the bond pad; and diffusing the at least one alloying clement into at least a portion of the bond pad through one or more thermal cycles, 2 While Appellants indicate in the “status of the claims” section of the appeal Brief that only independent claims 1 and14 are subject to this appeal (App. Br. 2), Appellants also argue the patentability of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-21. (Id. at 6.) Therefore, Appellants have not shown a clear intent to appeal only claims 1 and 14. We will consequently treat all rejected claims 1-21 pending before us in this application as being subject to the present appeal. Appeal 2010-0000958 Application 11/115,936 3 wherein said diffusion of the at least one alloying element is limited to a maximum depth of two micrometers below said surface of the bond pad. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Koubuchi US 4,965,656 Oct. 23, 1990 Bhansali US 6,265,300 B1 Jul. 24, 2001 Besser US 6,444,567 B1 Sep. 3, 2002 Lee US 6,762,503 Jul. 13, 2004 Shue US 6,815,336 Nov. 9, 2004 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Besser. 2. Claims 7, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Besser and Koubuchi. 3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Besser and Bhansali. 4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Besser and Bhansali. 5. Claims 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Besser and Shue. 6. Claims 13, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Besser. Appeal 2010-0000958 Application 11/115,936 4 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the principal Brief, pages 3-6. Representative Claim 1 Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Besser’s disclosure describes the diffusion of an alloying element being limited to a maximum depth of two micrometers below the surface of the bond pad, as recited claim 1. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Besser anticipates claim 1 because the cited reference does not describe the disputed limitations emphasized above. According to Appellants, while Besser discloses diffusing an alloying element at a minimum depth of 20 to 100 angstroms below the surface of bond pad, the reference does not disclose limiting such diffusion to a maximum depth or 2 micrometers below the surface of the pad. (App. Br. 3-4, Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellants argue that because Besser only discloses an example of a minimum depth that falls within the range of 0 to 2 micrometers without providing a similar example for the maximum depth, Besser has provided no range for the depth. (Reply Br. 3) In response, the Examiner finds that because Besser discloses an example of a depth (100 A or 0.001 micrometer) that falls within the claimed range of 0 to 2 micrometers, Besser’s disclosure describes the disputed limitations. (Ans. 11.) Appeal 2010-0000958 Application 11/115,936 5 On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate determination of anticipation. We note at the outset that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the disputed claim limitation simply requires that the diffusion of the alloying element fall within the range of 0 to 2 micrometers below the surface of the bond pad. (Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, to meet the disputed claim limitation, it is not required for the prior art to describes the entire range recited in the claim. It suffices that he reference shows an example of a diffusion depth that falls within the claim range. As admitted by Appellants, Besser’s disclosure of a minimum depth of 100 angstroms falls within the claimed range. (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, Besser’s disclosure describes the disputed claim limitation. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 14 not argued separately falls therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1)(vii). Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-21, Appellants argue that the secondary references do not cure the noted deficiencies in Besser. (App. Br. 5-6.) As discussed above, we find no such deficiencies in Besser for the secondary references to remedy. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13 and 15-21. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21as set forth above. Appeal 2010-0000958 Application 11/115,936 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Vsh