Ex Parte Takiar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 20, 201511170883 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HEM TAKIAR, SHRIKAR BHAGATH, and KEN JIAN MING WANG ____________ Appeal 2014-003631 Application 11/170,883 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-003631 Application 11/170,883 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 12–14, 16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38–43, and 45–52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a dummy circuit pattern on a surface of a substrate for a semiconductor package, the dummy circuit pattern including straight line segments having a length controlled so as not to generate stresses within the line segments above a desired stress. Abstract. Independent claim 12, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 12. A dummy circuit pattern formed on a surface of a substrate for a semiconductor package, the dummy circuit pattern comprising: a straight line segment including: a width; and a length based on a length determined to maintain stress within the straight line segment below a given stress level. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 29, 35, 41, 42, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2004/0084205 A1, May 6, 2004) (“Chang”). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 33, 39, 46, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Lin et al. (US 6,534,852 B1, Mar. 18, 2003). Appeal 2014-003631 Application 11/170,883 3 3. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Tsai (US 6,380,633 B1, Apr. 30, 2002). 4. The Examiner rejected claims 30, 36, 43, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 2002/0040986 A1, Apr. 11, 2002). 5. The Examiner rejected claims 32, 38, 45, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Valluri et al. (US 6,507,100 B1, Jan. 14, 2003). 6. The Examiner rejected claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Takizawa et al. (US 2002/0043715 A1, Apr. 18, 2002). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Chang teaches the limitation of “a straight line segment including . . . a length based on a length determined to maintain stress within the straight line segment below a given stress level” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants do not dispute Examiner’s finding of Chang’s teaching that limiting the size of the two dimensional region reduces stress (Br. 12). Appellants argue however that the size of the two-dimensional region says nothing about the lengths of individual segments in the first group, or lengths of individual segments in the second group, but rather, only that Appeal 2014-003631 Application 11/170,883 4 segments in the first and second groups together make up the region and that this region is provided to control stress (Br. 12). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds (Ans. 4–5), we agree, and Appellants do not dispute (Br. 12), that the dummy circuit region 330 is of a size dimensioned to be less than the warpage threshold size. The Examiner annotated Chang’s Figure 3 to highlight the length of the straight line segment 330 as reproduced below. Fig. 3 shows the length of the straight line segment 330. We agree with the Examiner that the area of the dummy circuit pattern 330 of Chang can be limited only by limiting the length or width (which is Appeal 2014-003631 Application 11/170,883 5 also considered to be a length) of the straight line segments 330 of the dummy circuit pattern in order to reduce thermal stress on the substrate, thus preventing warpage of the substrate (Ans. 5; Chang ¶ 25). Thus, Chang teaches a straight line segment (i.e., straight line segment 330) including a length determined to maintain stress within the straight line segment below a given stress level (i.e., the size of segment 330 necessarily having a length dimensioned to be less than warpage threshold size) as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 12–14, 16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38–43, and 45–52. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Chang teaches the limitation of “a straight line segment including . . . a length based on a length determined to maintain stress within the straight line segment below a given stress level” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–14, 16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38–43, and 45–52 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)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation