Ex Parte Sabatini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

12463090 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
12/463,090 05/08/2009 James Sabatini 235402-2 (GEL8083.037) 8842
62204 7590 10/27/2017
GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION
GE LICENSING (62204)
901 MAIN AVENUE
NORWALK, CT 06851
EXAMINER
PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
rlt @ zpspatents. com
docket@fyiplaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES SABATINI, CHRISTOPHER JAMES KAPUSTA, and
GLENN FORMAN
Appeal 2015-007003
Application 12/463,090
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 27—36 and 43—52. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a layer for forming a
multi-layer electronic package and a stackable electronic package.
Claims 27 and 43 are illustrative and reproduced below:
27. A stackable electronic package comprising:
a bottom surface that is substantially parallel with a top
surface, wherein the following elements are positioned between
the bottom surface and the top surface:
a die having a surface that forms a first portion of
the bottom surface, the die comprising first and second
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
electrical nodes that are positioned between the bottom
surface and the top surface;
a first electrically conductive material having a
surface that forms a second portion of the bottom surface;
a first metallization that electrically connects the
first electrically conductive material to the first node, the
first metallization being formed, in part, down through
vias formed in a dielectric layer that that is positioned on
a surface of the die including the first and second
electrical nodes; and
a feed-thru pad having a surface that forms a first
portion on the top surface, wherein the feed-thru pad is
formed onto the first metallization.
43. A layer for forming a multi-layer electronic
package, the layer comprising:
a first surface that is substantially parallel with a
second surface, wherein the following elements are
positioned between the first surface and the second
surface:
a die having a surface that forms a first portion of
the first surface, the die comprising first and second
contact pads that are positioned between the first surface
and the second surface;
a first electrically conductive material having a
surface that forms a second portion of the first surface;
a first metallization that electrically connects the
first electrically conductive material to the first contact
pad; and
a feed-thru pad having a surface that forms a first
portion of the second surface, wherein the feed-thru pad
is formed onto the first metallization.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Yamagata US 2004/0033654 Al, Feb. 19, 2004
2
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
Lee et al.
Longo et al.
Shim et al.
US 2008/0045003 Al Feb. 21, 2008
US 7,550,857 B1 Jun. 23, 2009
US 8,039,303 B2 Oct. 18,2011
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection1:
1. Claims 43—45, 48, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Longo.
2. Claims 43, 45, 48, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Yamagata.
3. Claims 27—29, 32, 34—36, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longo in view of Shim.
4. Claims 27, 29—32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Shim.
5. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Shim and Lee.
6. Claims 46 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamagata.
7. Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Lee.
We affirm Rejections 1, 2, 6 and 7.
We affirm Rejection 3 as to claim 52. We reverse Rejection 3 as to the
remaining claims subject to this rejection.
We reverse Rejections 4 and 5.
Our reasoning follows.
1 A previously maintained rejection of certain claims under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 11).
3
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
Rejections 1, 2, 6, and 7
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation Rejections 1 and 2
and/or obviousness Rejections 6 and 7 over the applied prior art. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 1, 2, 6, and 7 for substantially the
fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis
only.
Anticipation Rejections
Concerning each of the Examiner’s anticipation rejections over the
applied prior art, Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group
with respect to each such rejection. Accordingly, we select claim 43 as the
representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal as to each of
the stated anticipation rejections.
Claim 43 is drawn to a layer for forming a multi-layer electronic
package, not the package itself. The layer of claim 43 includes first and
second surfaces with the surfaces being parallel to each other; however, the
aforementioned surfaces are not required to be a top and/or a bottom surface
of a layer and/or a top or bottom surface of a package. Moreover, claim 43
employs open “comprising” transitional language, which does not exclude
the presence of other materials or components from being part of the subject
matter of claim 43.
4
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
Concerning the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over Longo,
Appellants argue that Longo fails to anticipate claim 43 because “Longo
fails to disclose a layer having a feed—thru pad with a surface that forms a
first portion of the second surface of the layer, as called for in claim 43”
(App. Br. 12). In this regard, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
reliance on “electrically conductive bumps 938B of Longo” as
corresponding to the feed-thru pads required by claim 43 is in error because
“the electrically conductive bumps 93 8B of Longo do not form a portion of
the second surface 914U of the RDL die assembly” given that “the second
surface of the first level RDL die assembly needs to be spaced apart from the
first surface of the second level RDL die assembly” as disclosed and
illustrated by Longo (Reply Br. 8; Longo; col. 12,11. 43^46; Lig. 9; see App.
Br. 12-13).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 43 over Longo because claim 43
does not require that the claimed second surface of a layer must be located at
the top surface of an electronic package element, such as at the top surface
of a first level RDL die assembly, as seemingly argued by Appellants. In re
Self, 671 L.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments
fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims. . . .”).
Appellants have not persuasively articulated why a layer having first
and second surfaces, as required by claim 43, may not embrace subject
matter corresponding to that disclosed by Longo in the figure 9 embodiment
including the subject matter (a layer) between the lines (corresponding to
5
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
layer surfaces) provided in the annotated Figure 9 accompanying the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 16; see also Ans. 2—3).
It follows that we shall sustain Rejection 1.
As for the Examiner’s other anticipation rejection (Rejection 2 over
Yamagata), Appellants similarly fail to present an argument that
demonstrates substantive error in the stated rejection. This is principally
because representative rejected claim 43 does not require that a surface of a
die/IC chip from a portion of a bottom surface of a completed semiconductor
package, as contended by Appellants (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9).
Appellants have not persuasively articulated why a layer having first
and second surfaces, as required by claim 43, does not embrace subject
matter that corresponds to that disclosed by Yamagata as depicted in the
annotated Figure 1 of Yamagata that accompanies the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 16; see also Final Act. 6; Ans. 4).
It follows that we shall sustain Rejection 2.
Obviousness Rejections 6 and 7
As for the Examiner’s rejection of claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamagata, Appellants further contend
that the subject Specification establishes the criticality of the die thickness
range (between 10 and 20 microns) specified in claim 46 and the layer
thickness range (less than 100 microns) specified in claim 46 in a manner so
as to overcome the Examiner’s obviousness determination, which the
Examiner based on the level of ordinary skill in the art being sufficient to
determine a workable die thickness and layer thickness for Yamagata based
on routine experimentation (App. Br. 15,Spec. Tflf 7, 8).
6
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
However, the paragraphs of the Specification cited by Appellants fail
to demonstrate the criticality of the ranges specified in claim 46 and/or claim
47. Consequently, Appellants argument is not persuasive of reversible error
for reasons articulated by the Examiner (Ans. 9—10).
Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 6.
As for Rejection 7 pertaining to dependent claim 49, Appellants do
not present any separate arguments against the latter rejection (see generally
App. Br.; Final Act. 12).
It follows that we shall affirm Rejection 7.
Obviousness Rejections 3, 4 and 5
Concerning Rejections 3 and 4, Appellants principally focus on
features found in independent claim 27 in contesting these rejections;
however, Appellants do not present any substantive argument contesting the
Examiner’s separate basis for rejecting claim 52 (Rejection 3), which latter
claim depends from independent claim 43 (see generally App. Br.; Final
Act. 9).
It follows that we affirm Rejection 3 as to claim 52 for the fact
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and in
the Answer pertaining to the rejection of claim 52.
Our disposition of Rejection 3, as well as Rejections 4 and 5, as to the
other claims subject to these rejections is another matter.
Claim 27, the only independent claim subject to Rejections 3 and 4,
requires a stackable electronic package that includes a bottom surface that is
substantially parallel with a top surface and further requires several features
including inter alia, a die having a first surface that forms a portion of the
7
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
bottom surface and a feed-thru pad having a surface that forms a portion of
the package top surface.
The Examiner has not established that either Longo or Yamagata,
each taken in combination with Shim, teach or suggest a stackable electronic
package corresponding to the package required by claim 27 for reasons
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7, 10; Reply Br. 3—7).
For instance and concerning the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 27 over Longo in view of Shim, the Examiner relies on the Figure 9
embodiment of Longo and finds that Longo teaches a surface of a feed­
through pad 93 8B that forms a first portion of a top surface 914L of a
package, which feature the Examiner has determined would correspond to
the “feed-thru pad having a surface that forms a first portion of the top
surface” of a stackable electronic package as required by Appellants’ claim
27 (Ans. 6; see Ans. 14; see copy of Fig. 9 of Longo, as annotated by
Examiner).
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding feed-through pad
(bumps) 93 8B as being part of a second (top) surface 914 L of a stackable
package (first die assembly 914A) because the surface 914L referred to by
the Examiner in annotated Figure 9 is the lower surface of another package
assembly (second die assembly level 914B) that is spaced apart from top
surface 914 U of the first die assembly and is not part of the second (upper)
top surface 914U of stackable package assembly 914A (Reply Br. 7—8; see
App. Br. 7).
The disclosure of Longo supports Appellants’ argument (Longo, col.
11,1. 52—col. 13,1. 23; Fig. 9). The Examiner does not rely on Shim to cure
this deficiency in the obviousness rejection of claim 27 (Rejection 3).
8
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
It follows that we shall reverse Rejection 3 as to claim 27 and the
claims which depend therefrom (claims 28, 29, 32, and 34—36).
As for the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Yamagata in view
of Shim (Rejection 4), the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Yamagata shows a
die 2 disposed between top and bottom surfaces of a package, wherein a
surface of the die 2 forms a first portion of the bottom surface (Ans. 8; see
Ans. 15; Final Act. 9—10; see copy of Fig. 1 of Yamagata, as annotated by
Examiner, as reproduced by Appellants (Reply Br. 6)). In other words, the
Examiner relies on a surface of die 2 of Yamagata’s Figure 1 as
corresponding with the claim 27 requirement for a die having a surface that
forms a first portion of the bottom surface of a stackable electronic package.
As argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not established that die
(chip) 2, which is formed on a protective layer 29 as shown in Figures 1 and
3B of Yamamoto, includes a bottom surface that forms a portion of a bottom
surface of the Figure 1 package device of Yamagata (App. Br. 10).
Figure 1 of Yamagata supports Appellants’ argument. The Examiner
has not otherwise established that Yamagata taken with Shim teaches or
suggests a stackable electronic package with a die chip 2 surface formed as
part of a bottom surface of a stackable package satisfying all the
requirements for the stackable package of claim 27. It follows that we shall
reverse Rejection 4 as to claim 27 and the other rejected claims which
depend therefrom.
Concerning Rejection 5, the Examiner relies on the added Lee
reference to address certain features pertaining to dependent claim 33 (Final
Act. 11—12), not to cure the deficiency in the base combination of Yamagata
and Shim as discussed above with respect to Rejection 4.
9
Appeal 2015/007003
Application 12/463,090
Accordingly, we reverse Rejection 5.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims subject to
Rejections 1, 2, 6, and 7 and to reject claim 52 (Rejection 3) is affirmed.
Thus, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 43—52 is affirmed.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the remaining appealed
claims subject to Rejection 3 and the claims subject to Rejections 4, and 5.
Thus, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27—36 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10