Sun, Yangyang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2020

13478010 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020)

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.
13/478,010 05/22/2012 Yangyang Sun MI22-5084 5787
21567 7590 03/20/2020
Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 600
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
ZARNEKE, DAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2020 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):
docketing@wellsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YANGYANG SUN, RANDALL S. PARKER,
JASPREET S. GANDHI, and JIN LI
____________

Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5–7, 16, 27, and 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to semiconductor constructions. Spec. ¶ 1. The
invention seeks to develop new methods of forming connections to
through-substrate interconnects and to develop new through-substrate
interconnect architectures to address problems encountered during formation

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micron Technology,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

2
of connections to through-substrate interconnects. Id. ¶ 5. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below:
1. A semiconductor construction comprising:

an electrically conductive post consisting of one or more
electrically conductive compositions, the conductive post
extending vertically through a semiconductor die; the
conductive post having an electrically conductive upper surface
above a backside surface of the die, and having an electrically
conductive vertical sidewall surface extending between the
backside surface and the electrically conductive upper surface;

a photosensitive material over and in physical contact
with the backside surface; the photosensitive material having a
first portion having a first thickness with an elevationally
uppermost surface and having an opening encircling the
conductive post, a second portion of the photosensitive material
being directly against and along the electrically conductive
sidewall surface and having a second thickness;

a first electrically conductive material directly against the
electrically conductive upper surface of the conductive post; the
electrically conductive material being configured as a cap over
the conductive post; the cap having an edge that extends
laterally outwardly beyond the conductive post and encircles
the conductive post within the opening; an entirety of the edge
being directly over the second portion of photosensitive
material; and

a second electrically conductive material over the first
conductive material and extending within the opening, at least
one of the first and second electrically conductive materials
comprising copper; and

a third electrically conductive material over the second
conductive material and extending into the opening, the third
conductive material comprising one or both of nickel and
palladium.
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

3

Independent claim 16 recites a semiconductor construction similar to
the one recited by the subject matter of claim 1 but including additional
features.
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
5–7, 16, 27, and 28 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pratt (US 2009/0032960 A1, published February 9, 2009),
Gaul (US 5,618,752, issued April 8, 1997), and Cheng (US 8,466,553 B2,
issued June 18, 2013). Appeal Br. 8; Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 16 together and presents
separate arguments for dependent claim 6. See generally Appeal Br.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter
claimed and decide the appeal as to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 16, 27,
and 28 based on the arguments presented for claim 1. We address claim 6
separately.

OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs, and the Examiner presents in the Final Action and
Answer, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–7,
16, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Examiner
presents. We add the following for emphasis.

Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

4
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a semiconductor construction comprising an
electrically conductive post having a cap comprising three layers of
electrically conductive materials.
The Examiner finds that Pratt teaches a semiconductor construction
comprising an electrically conductive post surrounded by a photosensitive
material that differs from the claimed invention in that Pratt does not
disclose placing a cap comprising three layers of electrically conductive
materials at the exposed end of the electrically conductive post. Final
Act. 3–4; Pratt Figures 1, 2F. The Examiner finds Gaul teaches that it is
known to cover an electrical post with a cap comprising two layers of
electrically conductive material having the structure for claimed first and
second electrically conductive materials. Final Act. 4; Gaul Figure 20, col.
5, ll. 25–67, col. 6, ll. 58–67. The Examiner further finds that Cheng teaches
that it is known to apply a cap to an electrically conductive post comprising
three layers of electrically conductive material. Final Act. 5; Cheng Figure
24, col. 5, ll. 30–47. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cap of Gaul, modified to
have a third layer of electrically conductive material, in the invention of
Pratt because Gaul teaches the cap as a conventional means to extend
electrically conductive posts in semiconductor constructions. Final Act.
4–5.
Appellant argues that materials of Gaul’s cap do not extend into any
opening. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further “contends that even if the
capping materials of Gaul were utilized in conjunction with the
configuration disclosed by Pratt, it would not necessarily result in both
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

5
capping materials being within the depression around the conductive post”
because “Pratt teaches that the openings . . . are very small.” Id. Appellant
additionally argues that Pratt does not disclose the thickness ranges for the
thickness T or opening depth of the dielectric material while Gaul discloses
the thickness of barrier/adhesion material is 1000 angstroms. Id. However,
Appellant asserts that the cited art does not suggest that even the
barrier/adhesion material of Gaul alone would fit within opening 132 of
Pratt. Id. That is, Appellant argues that the teachings of the cited art cannot
be physically combined.
Appellant’s arguments do not point to error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness. It is well established that the obviousness
inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined
but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of
the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”). “[T]he
test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425–26.
As the Examiner notes (Final Act., 4; Ans. 3), Gaul recognizes the use
of a metallic cap (solder bump interconnection) on electrically conductive
pads as a known technique for surface mounting dies on printed circuit
boards. Gaul col. 1, ll. 35–45; see also id. at col. 8, ll. 6–28. Given this
disclosure, Appellant has not explained adequately why one skilled in the
art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

6
adapting Gaul’s cap to fit within Pratt’s opening for application to Pratt’s
post. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have been able
to scale the sizing of the cap to fit the specific application. Ans. 3.
With respect to Cheng, Appellant argues that, while Cheng teaches a
cap comprising three metallic layers, Cheng removes the photosensitive
material after forming under ball metals (UMBs) such that that the final
construction of Cheng does not contain openings in photosensitive material
and, thus, the cap is not within any opening. Appeal Br. 13; Cheng Figure
24, col. 4, ll. 45–48.
The argument is unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
As the Examiner explains, Cheng is relied upon to teach the use of a
third conductive material in making a three layered cap while Pratt is relied
upon for the teaching of an opening in a photosensitive material around a
post. Ans. 14. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not address the
Examiner’s reasons for combining the cited art.

Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that the semiconductor construction has a
photosensitive material comprising one or more materials selected from the
group consisting of siloxane-containing materials, epoxy acrylate-containing
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

7
materials, polyimide-containing materials, and
poly(benzoxazole)-containing materials.
The Examiner determines that, while Pratt does not teach the claimed
photosensitive material, the claimed materials are conventionally known and
used photosensitive materials and it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use them in the
invention of Pratt. Final Act. 5–6. In the Answer, the Examiner cites a
number of evidentiary references to support the assertion that the recited
photosensitive materials are known and conventional. For example, the
Examiner relies on Sir (US 7,365,007 B2, issued Apr. 29, 2008) as
disclosing the use of a photosensitive epoxy acrylate to form an interconnect
opening. Ans. 5; Sir col. 4, ll. 5–12.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Sir’s material does not
contact sidewalls of a conductive post or the backside surface of a die as
required by the present claims. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
The Examiner relies on Sir for the teaching that an epoxy acrylate as a
conventional dielectric material for semiconductor constructions. Ans. 5–6;
Sir col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 12. As the Examiner notes, Pratt provides the
teaching of how the photosensitive material is used in a particular
semiconductor construction. Ans. 5.
Given that the Specification discloses that the photosensitive material
may comprise any suitable composition (Spec. ¶ 25), Appellant has not
explained adequately why one skilled in the art would not have found Sir’s
Appeal 2019-003007
Application 13/478,010

8
photosensitive material suitable as a photosensitive material for Pratt’s
semiconductor construction in view of Sir’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1,
2, 5–7, 16, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Examiner
presents and we provide above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7, 16,
27, 28
103(a) Pratt, Gaul, Cheng 1, 2, 5–7,
16, 27, 28

TIME PERIOD
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) (2017).

AFFIRMED