Ex Parte Brunnbauer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13482431 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/482,431 05/29/2012 Markus Brunnbauer I550.231.102/2006P51554US 1824
25281 7590 12/02/2016
DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA
FIFTH STREET TOWERS
100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
TANG, SUIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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.PATENTS @dbclaw.com
dmorris@dbclaw.com
DBCLAW-Docket@dbclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS BRUNNBAUER, HARRY HEDLER,
and THORSTEN MEYER
Appeal 2015-003661
Application 13/482,431
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the June 19, 2014 Final
rejection of claims 1—8 and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§6.
Appellants’ appealed invention relates to an electronic device
comprising an integrated component or chip. (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced from the Brief
below:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
an integrated component;
Appeal 2015-003661
Application 13/482,431
a package body; and
at least one spherical contact device penetrating the
package body,
wherein the integrated component is arranged within the
package body.
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1—8, 10-12, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, US 7,242,081 Bl, iss. July 10, 2007
(“Lee”) in view of Lee et al., US 7,112,520 B2, iss. Sept. 26,
2006 (“Teck”).
II. Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee and Teck, and further in view of Shook,
US 2001/0022382 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2001 (“Shook”).
III. Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee and Teck, and further in view of Leng, US 5,081,563,
iss. Jan. 14, 1992 (“Leng”).
IV. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee and Teck, and further in view of Pape, US 5,982,028,
iss. Nov. 9, 1999 (“Pape”).
OPINION1
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons
1 Appellants have not present arguments specific to every claim on appeal.
When addressing Rejections II—IV Appellants rely on the same arguments
presented when discussing Rejection I. (App. Br. 6—7). We limit our
discussion to independent claims 1 and 18 as representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
2
Appeal 2015-003661
Application 13/482,431
expressed in the Answer, including the Response to Argument section. We
add the following:
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. (Final Act. 2—8).
Appellants argue the Examiner has not established that the
combination of Fee and Teck teaches or suggests “at least one spherical
contact device penetrating the package body” as required by independent
claims 1 and 18. (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue Teck discloses, as shown in
Figure 6, that solder ball (152) is not spherical because it is reflowed to
attach the interconnect structures of the pattern of conductive traces and to
fill any space remaining within interconnect recess. (App. Br. 6; Teck col.
6,11. 63—65). Appellants argue the contact shape claimed provides
advantage that during soldering the contact devices will not change their
shape on account of the surface tension thus, no intermediate spaces occur
between the contact devices and the package body which is not possible in
the device of Teck. (App. Br. 6).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants have focused their argument for patentability on the Teck
reference. (App. Br. 5—7). The Examiner found Fee discloses an electronic
device comprising an integrated component having contact devices that
differ from the claimed invention in their spherical shape. The Examiner
relied on Teck for describing the use of solder balls as contact devices.
(Final Act. 3). Fee is open to various types of electrical connection devices
so long as the connection device is higher than the chip structure and
altitude. (Col. 5 11. 25—32). Teck describes solder balls as conductive
elements (32) which reside substantially within recess (30) that is
3
Appeal 2015-003661
Application 13/482,431
configured. (Col. 3 11. 44-48). Teck discloses recess (30) is designed to
retain the solder composition and can be designed and sized to constrain
formulations of spheres. The teachings of Teck would have provided a
person of ordinary skill in the art sufficient guidance to design recesses for
constraining conductive elements in the shape of spheres. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that conductive
elements having the shape of spheres would have been suitable for the
device of Lee.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the purported advantages of the
claimed spherical shape do not detract from the teaching of Tech which
exhibit the shape is known for conductive elements.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8,
10—12, and 17—20 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given
above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—8 and 10—20 are
affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
4