Ex Parte Pagaila et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 201612822458 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/822,458 06/24/2010 112165 7590 09/16/2016 STATS ChipPAC/PATENTLAWGROUP: Atkins and Associates, P.C. 55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104 Chandler, AZ 85225 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Reza A. Pagaila 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. 2515.0234 5875 EXAMINER HALL, VICTORIA KATHLEEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2897 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2016 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): main@plgaz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REZA A. P AGAILA, Y AOJIAN LIN and JUN MO KOO Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-30. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is ST ATS ChipP AC, Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as relating to a method of forming an anisotropic conductive film ("ACF") between a semiconductor die and a build-up interconnect structure. Spec. i-f 1. The ACF serves to reduce shifting of the semiconductor die during encapsulation. Spec., Abstract. Independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 26 are on appeal. Claims 1, 8, 14, and 26, reproduced below with emphases added, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a semiconductor wafer including a plurality of semiconductor die comprising bumps formed over contact pads on an active surface of the semiconductor die; depositing an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) over the bumps and active surface of the semiconductor wafer; singulating the semiconductor wafer to separate the semiconductor die; providing a temporary carrier; disposing the semiconductor die with the ACF oriented to the temporary carrier; compressing the ACF under the bumps to form a conductive portion of the ACF electrically connected to the bumps; curing the ACF to form a cured ACF; depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die and temporary carrier; removing the temporary carrier to expose the conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps; and forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor die, cured ACF, and encapsulant with the interconnect structure being electrically connected through the conductive portion of the cured ACF to the bumps. 2 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 8. A method of making a semiconductor device, compnsmg: providing a semiconductor die including bumps formed over contact pads on an active surface of the semiconductor die; depositing an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) over the bumps; providing a carrier; disposing the semiconductor die with the ACF oriented to the carrier; compressing the ACF under the bumps to form a conductive portion of the ACF; depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die and carrier; removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion of the ACF; and forming an interconnect structure on the encapsulant and conductive portion of the ACF with the interconnect structure being electrically connected through the conductive portion of the ACF to the bumps. 14. A method of making a semiconductor device, compnsmg: providing a semiconductor die including contact pads; disposing the semiconductor die over an anisotropic conductive film (ACF); compressing the ACF under the contact pads to form a compressed ACF; curing the ACF to form a cured ACF; depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die to leave the cured ACF under the contact pads exposed; and forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor die and encapsulant with the interconnect structure being electrically connected through the compressed ACF to the contact pads of the semiconductor die. 3 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 26. A method of making a semiconductor device, compnsmg: providing a semiconductor die; disposing the semiconductor die over an anisotropic conductive film (ACF); compressing the ACF beneath the semiconductor die to leave a conductive portion of the ACF opposite the semiconductor die exposed; and forming a conductive layer over the conductive portion of the ACF. Appeal Br.2 78, 80-81 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Pogge us 6, 110,806 Aug. 29, 2000 Choi et al. US 2007/0114661 Al May 24, 2007 (hereinafter "Choi") Su US 2009/0020865 Al Jan.22,2009 Paik et al. US 2009/0029504 Al Jan.29,2009 (hereinafter "Paik") Kim et al. US 2009/0039491 Al Feb. 12,2009 (hereinafter "Kim") Yamano US 2010/0041183 Al Feb. 18,2010 Pagaila US 2011/0031634 Al Feb. 10,2011 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed April 24, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 1, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed November 20, 2014 ("Ans."). 4 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 29 and 30 as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 2. Rejection 2. Claim 6 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Id. Rejection 3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Paik, in further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Id. Rejection 4. Claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of Pogge. Id. Rejection 5. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of Pagaila. Id. Rejection 6. Claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paik, Choi, Su, and Y amano, and further in view of Kim. Id. at 3. Rejection 7. Claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Su, and Y amano. Id. Rejection 8. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Su, and Yamano and further in view of Pogge. Id. Rejection 9. Claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Su, and Y amano and further in view of Pagaila. Id. 5 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 Rejection 1 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects Claims 29 and 30 as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 2. "[T]he test for [written description] sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Claim 29 recites, "The method of claim 26, further including forming an interconnect structure over the conductive portion of the ACF." Appeal Br. 85 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner maintains that claim 26 requires "forming a conductive layer over the conductive portion of the ACF" and that the Specification does not disclose having both a conductive layer and an interconnect structure "over" the conductive portion of the ACF. Ans. 4-- 5. In the Examiner's view, either the conductive layer or the interconnect structure must be "under the ACF." Id. We disagree. Appellants persuasively explain that Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Specification and Figure 9h disclose forming an interconnect structure (230) over the conductive portion of the ACF and that the interconnect structure includes a conductive layer (RDL 232). Appeal Br. 9. Because the conductive layer may be part of the interconnect structure (as shown in Figure 9h) both the conductive layer and the interconnect structure may be "over the conductive portion of the ACF" as described in the Specification. Spec. i-f 66 ("a bottom-side build-up interconnect structure 230 is formed over ACF 204 . . . . The build-up interconnect structure 230 includes an 6 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 electrically conductive layer or RDL 232 .... ")(emphasis added). We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29. The Examiner rejects claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, solely because of its dependency on claim 29. Final Act. 5. We thus also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30. Rejection 2 The Examiner rejects claim 6 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which depends from claim 1. Claim 6 recites, "The method of claim 5, wherein the semiconductor component includes bumps which are compressed into the cured ACF." Appellants do not appear to dispute the Examiner's rejection and agree that "one skilled in the art would understand that when making the device shown in FIG 11, the curing step needs to occur after compressing semiconductor die 254 into ACF 136 .... " Appeal Br. 14. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Rejections 3---6, Claim 1-7 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Paik in further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2-3. Appellants argue that none of these four references teaches or suggests "removing the temporary carrier to expose the conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps" as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 30. The Examiner acknowledges that none of the references expressly teaches this recited step. Final Act. 18. The Examiner concludes that this recited step would have nonetheless been obvious in view of the teachings of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Id. While the Examiner's underlying findings might suggest that the recited step would be possible, the findings fail to establish that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to implement 7 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 a method of making a semiconductor device where ACF is compressed (so that it becomes conductive in the compressed area) under the bumps, cured, and then exposed by removing a temporary carrier. The Examiner's stated rationale for combining references also fails to establish that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to reach this missing step. In particular, the Examiner states that a semiconductor die has two problems: a need for electricity and a need to protect the die. Ans. 19. The Examiner acknowledges that "[t]here are a variety of ways to solve both problems." Id. Appellants' explanation of the four prior art references establishes that these references solve these problems in ways that do not involve the missing step: "removing the temporary carrier to expose the conductive portion of the cured ACF under the bumps." Appeal Br. 17-30. The present record lacks adequate reasoning based upon the four cited references or otherwise as to why a person of skill in the art would have chosen, among the variety of ways to solve the identified problems, to implement the missmg step. This is particularly true given that the step at issue is not taught by any of the references. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not state that the additional three references applied to dependent claims (Pogge, Pagaila, and Kim) further relate to the missing step discussed above. See, e.g., Final Act. 28, 31, 34. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, which all depend from claim 1. Rejections 3-6, claims 8-13 The Examiner rejects independent claim 8 as obvious over Paik in further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2. Independent claim 8 recites "removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion of the ACF." Appeal 8 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 Br. 80 (Claims Appendix). "The conductive portion" refers back to the portion of the ACF compressed under the bumps earlier in the claim. Id. Thus, this recitation is very similar to the claim 1 recitation discussed above. Appellants argue that none of the four applied references "teach[ es] or suggest[s] removing the carrier to expose the conductive portion of the ACF or forming an interconnect structure on the encapsulant and conductive portion of the ACF .... " Appeal Br. 48. The Examiner again acknowledges the missing step but concludes that the step would have been obvious. Final Act. 22. For the reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner's conclusion is in error. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 or its dependent claims 9-13. Rejections 3---6, claims 14--20 The Examiner rejects independent claim 14 as obvious over Paik in further view of Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 2-3. Independent claim 14 recites "depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die to leave the cured ACF under the contact pads exposed .... " Appeal Br. 82 (Claims Appendix). Appellants argue that none of the four references teaches this step (Appeal Br. 63), and the Examiner again acknowledges the missing step but concludes the step would have been obvious (Final Act. 26). For the reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner's conclusion is in error. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 or its dependent claims 15-20. Rejections 7-9, claims 26-30 The Examiner rejects independent claim 26 as obvious over Choi, Su, and Yamano. Ans. 3. Independent claim 26 recites "compressing the ACF beneath the semiconductor die to leave a conductive portion of the ACF 9 Appeal2015-002952 Application 12/822,458 opposite the semiconductor die exposed." Appeal Br. 84 (Claims Appendix). Appellants argue that none of the references teaches this recited step. Id. at 74. The Examiner's rationale for why this step would have been obvious (Final Act. 36-37) is in error for the reasons explained above with respect to claim 1. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 or its dependent claims 27-30. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRivIED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation