Ex Parte Iriguchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

15159046 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/159,046 05/19/2016
23494 7590 12/19/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shoichi Iriguchi
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.
TI-76177 6163
EXAMINER
TURNER, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOICHI IRIGUCHI
Appeal2018-003914
Application 15/159,046
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 20-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
Appeal2018-003914
Application 15/159,046
The invention is principally directed to a method for dicing an
integrated circuit wafer. Spec. ,r 1. According to the Specification, the
conventional method to separate die by sawing through scribe streets using a
dicing saw is inadequate because the edge of the dicing saw blade
accumulates adhesive and silicon saw dust on the edge of the dicing saw
blade when it saws through the wafer and into the dicing tape. Id. ,r 18. It is
said this forms chip outs and cracks in the edges of the die. Id. Claim 20 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
20. A method for dicing an integrated circuit wafer,
compnsmg:
applying a first tape to a first side of the wafer, the first
side including integrated circuits;
sawing the wafer from an opposite second side of the
wafer to a first depth using a first dicing blade with a first
thickness;
removing the first tape;
applying a second tape to the opposite second side; and
sawing the wafer from the first side till an end of the first
depth using a second dicing blade with a second thickness,
wherein the second dicing blade remains at a distance from the
second tape during sawing the wafer from the first side.
Independent claims 29 and 35 are directed to methods that are
substantially similar to the subject matter of independent claim 20.
2
Appeal2018-003914
Application 15/159,046
Appellant1 requests review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 20-
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tsai (US 2014/0273402 Al,
published September 18, 2014) and Ganitzer (US 2015/0348921 Al,
published December 3, 2015). See generally App. Br.; Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Claim 202
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 20-38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons presented by the Appellant and add
the following for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a complete statement of
the rejection. Final Act. 2--4. Briefly, the Examiner finds Tsai discloses a
method of dicing integrated circuit wafers that differs from the claimed
invention in that Tsai does not disclose using a blade for the final topside
dicing process. Id. at 2-3. Tsai, instead, uses a laser for this purpose. Tsai
,r 39. The Examiner relies on Ganitzer as teaching the use of dicing blades
and lasers as art-recognized alternatives for dicing a wafer. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 3; Ganitzer ,r,r 24, 56. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Ganitzer's dicing
blade for Tsai' s dicing laser in view of Ganitzer' s teachings. Final Act. 4.
1 Appellant is the Applicant Texas Instruments Incorporated, also identified
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 20.
3
Appeal2018-003914
Application 15/159,046
Appellant argues that Tsai recognizes the conventional method of
using a mechanical blade of a second thickness in cutting a wafer from the
topside results in undesirable crumbling or cracking defects. App. Br. 6; see
Tsai Figure lB and ,r,r 5---6. Appellant further argues that Ganitzer only
teaches saw and laser dicing as alternatives for backside dicing rather than
the topside as claimed. App. Br. 6; see Ganitzer Figures 5---6 (showing 11
and 13 as the respective front and backside of the wafer during the wafer
cutting process); ,r,r 24, 56. Thus, Appellant contends that there is no reason
or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai to use
Ganitzer' s mechanical sawing blade disclosed for backside dicing in place of
the topside laser dicing of Tsai. App. Br. 6.
We agree. The Examiner reasons that Ganitzer discloses the use of a
blade and a laser as art-recognized equivalents and, thus, one skilled in the
art would expect equivalent results from using one or the other. Ans. 2-3.
However, as Appellant argues, Ganitzer teaches the two techniques as art-
recognized equivalent for backside dicing of a wafer. App. Br. 6;
Ganitzer ,r 56. Thus, one skilled in the art would expect equivalent results
from using one or the other technique with respect to backside dicing of a
wafer. In view of this and Tsai's recognition of problems using blade dicing
techniques for topside dicing of wafers, the Examiner has not adequately
explained why one skilled in the art would have found Ganitzer' s backside
blade dicing technique suitable for Tsai's topside dicing process. The
Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would
have expected that using Ganitzer' s backside blade dicing technique in place
of Tsai' s topside laser dicing technique would not result in detrimental
crumblings and cracks as taught by Tsai.
4
Appeal2018-003914
Application 15/159,046
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's prior art rejection of
claims 20-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons presented by Appellant
and given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 20-38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5