Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2020001947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021)

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.
15/926,312 03/20/2018 Amin Ahmad Sijelmassi TI-78510 1875
23494 7590 03/16/2021
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
CHEN, XIAOLIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIN AHMAD SIJELMASSI and BRADLEY GLASSCOCK
Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
Technology Center 2800
Before LILAN REN, MERREL C. CASHION, JR., and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, 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, 6–9, and 11.2 See Final Act. 4, 5,
11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

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 “Texas Instruments
Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3.
2 The Examiner objects to claims 3–5 and 10 as dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 7. Therefore, these claims are not before us for review on appeal.
Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electrical apparatus, comprising:
a substrate having a first surface;
lead pads on the first surface of the substrate;
a ribbon wire bond having open ends connected to the lead
pads and at least one central portion between the open ends; and
an electrical component bonded to the at least one central
portion of the ribbon wire bond, wherein the at least one central
portion of the ribbon wire bond and the electrical component are
spaced from the first surface of the substrate.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 9).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kajiwara US 2004/0150082 A1 Aug. 5, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Kajiwara. Final Act. 4.
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kajiwara. Final Act. 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kajiwara. Final Act. 6.

Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
3

Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 9 102(a)(1) Kajiwara
6–8 103 Kajiwara
11 103 Kajiwara

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)).
After considering having considered the evidence and each of
contentions Appellant presents in this Appeal, we are not persuaded that
Appellant identified reversible error and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections
for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 13
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
Kajiwara discloses a “ribbon wire bond,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant argues that the prior art structure is not a ribbon wire bond

3 Appellant does not argue separately for the patentability of claims 2, 6–9,
and 11. See Appeal Br. 4–7, (“Dependent claims . . . stand or fall together
with independent claim 1.”), 7 (“Claims 6-8 were improperly rejected as
unpatentable over Kajiwara for the same reasons discussed above relative to
claim 1 from which these claims depend. Reversal of the rejection is
respectfully requested.”). These claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
4
because paragraph 120 of Kajiwara provides that the prior art structure
undergoes certain “manufacturing steps” which “can be performed with less
time than the time for wire bonding.” Id. at 5 (quoting Kajiwara ¶ 120).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not
distinguish adequately the structure of the claimed invention from the prior
art structure. The Specification provides explicit definitions describing the
structural requirements for “surface mount ribbon wire bonds” and “through-
hole mount ribbon wire bonds.” Spec. ¶¶ 20, 21. For example, the
Specification provides that a “surface mount ribbon wire bond has at least
two open ends that are arranged to be soldered to a lead pad on a surface”
and “[t]he ribbon wire bonds have at least one central portion between the
open ends.” Id. ¶ 20. The Examiner finds that Kajiwara’s structure has “open
ends . . . connected to the lead pads . . . and at least one central portion
between the open ends,” as claim 1 recites. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3–4.
Appellant neither disputes the structural identity nor provides a definition of
the recited “ribbon wire bond.” See Appeal Br. 5–6; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s arguments are also unpersuasive because they are not
based on limitations recited in claim 1. Appellant’s argument that “Kajiwara
discloses the connection leads which are made from a different process than
of wire bond, meaning that the leads are not made of wire bonding process”
(Appeal Br. 6) is unpersuasive because apparatus claim 1 does not recite any
particular process step. Appellant’s argument that “the process of making
leads 5, 6 are different from conventional wire bonding process, meaning
that Kajiwara does not use wire bonding process” (id.) is unpersuasive for
the same reason. Appellant’s argument that “leads 5 or 6 are not attached the
same way as a wire bond” (id. at 7) is unpersuasive again because it is not
based on the limitation recited.
Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
5
Moreover, Appellant states: “Appellants submit that leads 5 or 6 are
not attached the same way as a wire bond, as explained earlier.” Id. at 7.
However, we find no such explanation in support of this argument in the
Appeal Brief. Nor does Appellant direct us to the pertinent portion of the
Appeal Brief that Appellant relies upon in support of this argument.
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and fails to
explain sufficiently why the prior art is structurally distinguished from the
claimed “ribbon wire bond.”
Appellant argues that “Kajiwara prohibits the use of wire bonding
when he discloses that the leads making process is better than wire bonding
process.” Appeal Br. 6.
This argument is also unavailing because Appellant does not explain
sufficiently Kajiwara’s lead making process prohibits the use of a wire bond
in the prior art structure.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-001947
Application 15/926,312
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9 102(a)(1) Kajiwara 1, 2, 9
6–8 103 Kajiwara 6–8
11 103 Kajiwara 11
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6–9, 11

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED