Ex Parte Hart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201411735871 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/735,871 04/16/2007 Alan D. Hart ATSS-0211-01.01US 2781 109838 7590 09/25/2014 Advantest c/o Murabito Hao & Barnes LLP Two North Market Street Third Floor San Jose, CA 95113 EXAMINER CAMPBELL, SHAUN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte ALAN D. HART, ERIK VOLKERINK, and GAYN ERICKSON __________ Appeal 2012-009618 Application 11/735,871 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 8–21. Claims 1–7 and 22 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal is directed to an apparatus for singulated die testing. Claims 8 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. They are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated February 23, 2012 (“Br.”). The limitations at issue are italicized. Appeal 2012-009618 Application 11/735,871 2 8. An apparatus for testing silicon wafers, said apparatus comprising: a wafer singulating device configured to singulate a first wafer into singulated dies; a die placement device configured to place said singulated dies from said first wafer into a singulated die testing arrangement; wherein said wafer singulating device is further configured to singulate a second wafer into singulated dies; wherein said die placement device is further configured to place said singulated dies from said second wafer into said singulated die testing arrangement; and a testing device interface configured to provide input and output signals to said singulated die testing arrangement. 18. An arrangement of singulated dies, said arrangement comprising: a first set of singulated dies having been singulated from a first wafer; a second set of singulated dies having been singulated from a second wafer; and said first set of singulated dies and said second set of singulated dies arranged in a combined singulated die testing arrangement, wherein each singulated die in the combined singulated die testing arrangement is offset from the other singulated dies in the combined singulated die testing arrangement, and wherein a number of dies in the combined singulated die testing arrangement exceeds a number of dies singulated from either of the first wafer or the second wafer. The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: claims 8, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dozier1; claims 10–14, 16, and 18–21 under 1 US 2007/0063721 A1, published March 22. 2007. Appeal 2012-009618 Application 11/735,871 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dozier; and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dozier in view of Devereaux.2 The rejections are sustained for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated March 15, 2012 (“Ans.”). We add the following for emphasis. B. DISCUSSION 1. Claims 8–17 As to claim 8, the Examiner finds that Dozier discloses an apparatus for testing silicon wafers comprising, inter alia, a wafer singulating device configured to singulate first and second wafers into singulated dies, and a die placement device configured to place the singulated dies from the first and second wafers into a singulated die testing arrangement. Ans. 5. The Appellants argue that “Dozier does not indicate that die from different wafers (i.e., a first wafer and a second wafer) are placed into a common ‘singulated die testing arrangement’.” Br. 9; see also Br. 10 (“Dozier does not disclose the mixing of die from multiple wafers into a ‘singulated die testing arrangement’.”). The Appellants argue that, “[a]t best, Dozier suggests a singulated die testing arrangement consisting of all of the die singulated from a single wafer.” Br. 10. Contrary to the Appellants’ argument, claim 8 does not require a common singulated die testing arrangement consisting of dies from the first and second wafers. Claim 8 merely recites that the die placement device is configured to place dies from the first and second wafers into a singulated die testing arrangement. See Ans. 12. The Appellants have failed to show that the die placement device described in Dozier is not suitably configured. 2 US 5,279,975, issued January 18, 1994. Appeal 2012-009618 Application 11/735,871 4 The § 102(e) rejection of claims 8, 15 and 17 and the § 103 rejections of claims 9–14 and 16 are sustained. 2. Claims 18–21 In relevant part, claim 18 recites first and second sets of singulated dies from first and second wafers, respectively, arranged in a combined singulated die testing arrangement “wherein a number of dies in the combined singulated die testing arrangement exceeds a number of dies singulated from either of the first wafer or the second wafer.” Br., Claims App. We interpret the number of dies in the claimed “combined singulated die testing arrangement” to be one more than the number of dies singulated from a single wafer. The Examiner finds that Dozier teaches that dies from a plurality of wafers may be placed on a test carrier in a combined singulated die testing arrangement as recited in claim 18. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 63 and 64 of Dozier and Dozier Figure 7 for support. Ans. 9, 13. The Appellants argue that this portion of Dozier teaches that “dies are singulated from plural wafers in parallel” and Dozier “does not suggest that singulated dies from different wafers should be intermingled and placed into a common ‘singulated die testing arrangement.’” Br. 9. We disagree. Dozier discloses that a plurality of singulated dies 804 are produced from a plurality of wafers 802 and “ones of the singulated dies 804 can be placed on a test carrier.” Dozier ¶¶ 63-64 (emphasis added). Dozier does not make a distinction between dies singulated from a particular wafer in describing the placement of dies on a test carrier. Rather, Dozier suggests that “ones of the singulated dies 804” are selected from the plurality of singulated dies 804 produced from the plurality of wafers 802. For this reason, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports Appeal 2012-009618 Application 11/735,871 5 the Examiner’s finding that Dozier teaches the combined singulated die testing arrangement recited in claim 18. The Examiner further finds that: Dozier teaches that the only dies that may not be placed on the test substrate are dies that did not pass the initial basic testing at (704). [See Dozier ¶ 63 and Fig. 7.] Therefore, if all of the dies pass the initial testing, the die placement device will place all of the dies on the test substrate. Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner finds that the number of dies in the combined singulated die testing arrangement taught in Dozier would exceed the number of dies singulated from a single wafer as recited in claim 18. Ans. 9. In this regard, we note that Dozier teaches that the total number of dies placed on a carrier “can be selected to make maximum usage of the available tester resources.” Dozier ¶ 83; see also Dozier ¶ 65 (the term “carrier” includes a testing substrate). There is no evidence on this record that the tester resources disclosed in Dozier are limited to a number of dies less than the number recited in claim 18. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is 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 cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation