Ex Parte Gu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14254494 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/254,494 04/16/2014 Shiqun Gu
112246 7590 01/03/2019
Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm
305 N. Second Ave., #127
Upland, CA 91786
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.
QCOM-2991US (134485) 4461
EXAMINER
HU, SHOUXIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm-pto@lozaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINQUN GU, RA TIBOR RADOJCIC,
and DONG WOOK KIM
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 21-26. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, QUALCOMM Incorporated, which according
to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a bottom integrated
circuit package having metal post connections. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A package, comprising:
a substrate;
a die-side redistribution layer on the substrate;
a seed layer on the die-side redistribution layer;
a dielectric layer on the seed layer, wherein the dielectric
layer comprises a plurality of openings;
a plurality of die interconnects electrically coupled to the
die-side redistribution layer through the seed layer via at least
some of the plurality of openings in the dielectric layer; and
a plurality of plated metal posts electrically coupled to the
die-side redistribution layer through the seed layer via at least
some of the plurality of openings in the dielectric layer, wherein
the plurality of metal posts are in situ on the substrate.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Murayama et al.
("Murayama")
US 8,169,073 B2 May 1, 2012
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 22, 2017
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2017 ("Appeal Br."),
the Examiner's Answer dated February 23, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed March 23, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Final Act. 3--4.
Rejection 2. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
as anticipated by Murayama. Id. at 5.
Rejection 3. Claims 3, 4, 8-10, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Murayama. Id. at 7.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 3--4. Claim 5 indirectly depends from
claim 1 and recites "an upper die-side redistribution layer electrically
coupled [ sic, to or with] a lower die-side redistribution layer." Appeal Br.
19 (Claims App.). Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites "vias
electrically couple a die-facing redistribution layer to the board-facing
redistribution layer." Id. The Examiner states that the claims fail to clarify
where the recited redistribution layers "are definitely located" and "what is
the definite relationship between the upper or lower die-side redistribution
layer recited here and the die-side redistribution layer recited in claim 1."
Final Act. 4.
We apply the test for indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in
In re Packard, i.e., "a claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases
whose meaning is unclear." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
3
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494
2014). Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection fails to adequately
explain why the recited features of claims 5 and 8 are indefinite. Appeal Br.
8-10. We agree that, on the present record, the Examiner has not adequately
explained why words or phrases in claims 5 and 8 are unclear in meaning.
To the extent claims 5 and 8 do not recite the precise location of recited
layers or whether each recited layer must be separate, this issue is one of
breadth rather than one of indefiniteness. In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788
(CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). We do not sustain this
rejection.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, and 2 6 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Murayama. Final Act. 5. Of most
relevance here, the two independent claims on appeal, claims 1 and 21 each
recite "a die-side redistribution layer." In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner finds that Murayama teaches a die-side redistribution layer by
referencing "at least portions of layer 19 that connects the dies 11 and the
posts 27." Final Act. 5. In the Answer, the Examiner elaborates by finding
that the die-side redistribution layer is "at least a section of the conductive
layer (22 that includes the pads 19) in Murayama that connects the dies (11)
and the metal posts (27)." Ans. 16-17. The Examiner states that the
Murayama structure "has basically the same structure and/or function as that
of the upper die-side redistribution layer (14) of the instant invention (see
Fig. IA of the instant invention) .... " Id. at 17.
Appellant addresses the Examiner's position in the Final Office action
by arguing that Murayama's structure 19 is individual connection pads
rather than a redistribution layer. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant's position is
4
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494
supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, e.g., Muraya Fig. 2,
5:16-29).
Appellant addresses the Examiner's revised position (stated in the
Answer) by arguing that Murayama's structure 22 is wiring. Reply Br. 3--4.
This position is also supported by the preponderance of the evidence. See,
e.g., Muraya 5:40--41 ("the wiring 22 makes electrical connection between
the connection pads 19 and the connection pad 20").
"A prior art reference anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if
it discloses every claim limitation" either expressly or inherently. In re
Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner has not adequately explained why Murayama's
combination of connection pads (19 and 20) and wiring (22) meets the
independent claims' recited "die-side redistribution layer." We, therefore,
do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, and
22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murayama. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner's obviousness reasoning does not address or cure the
deficiency addressed above in connection with Rejection 2. Nor does the
Examiner's explanation of this rejection provide reasoning why it would
have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill to reach the
independent claims' "die-side redistribution layer" recitation addressed
above. Id. at 7-8. We, therefore, do not sustain this rejection.
5
Appeal2018-004446
Application 14/254,494
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-10 and 21-26.
REVERSED
6