Ex Parte Takiar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2015

11170883 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2015)

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