ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 8, 2021

2021001906 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 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.
15/247,259 08/25/2016 Bryan Black 100104-US-DIV 9692
163037 7590 11/08/2021
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
797 Sam Bass Road #2559
ROUND ROCK, TX 78681
EXAMINER
LI, MEIYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2811
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kate@klspatents.com
office@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRYAN BLACK, MICHAEL Z. SU,
GAMAL REFAI-AHMED, JOE SIEGEL, and SETH PREJEAN1
____________

Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor chips. E.g.,
Spec. ¶ 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and ATI Technologies ULC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259

2
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a first semiconductor chip including a layer and a conductor pad;
a first plurality of conductive vias traversing the layer and having
first ends and second ends, respectively, the first ends of one or
more of the first plurality of conductive vias in ohmic contact
with the first conductor pad; and
a conductive via extension on each of the first ends of others of
the first plurality of conductive vias and in ohmic contact with
the first conductor pad.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Cobbley (US 2009/0294983 A1, published Dec. 3, 2009). For reasons set
forth below, we reverse the rejection.
The Examiner finds that Cobbley anticipates claim 1. Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant provides the following annotated version of Cobbley’s
Figure 7A to illustrate the Examiner’s reasoning as to how Cobbley
anticipates claim 1:

Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259

3
Above is an annotated version of Cobbley’s Figure 7A which includes
annotated numerical references 30X and 30V. See Appeal Br. 32; Final Act.
5 (including essentially the same figure, but with some blurring/clarity
issues).
Of particular relevance to the issues on appeal, in the Final Action, the
Examiner finds that the terms “a first plurality of conductive vias” and “a
conductive via extension” are “process limitations, because forming these
elements of the same material render them indistinguishable from each
other.” Final Act. 5. In view of that, the Examiner arbitrarily identifies the
top portions 30X of certain vias (i.e., the outer left and outer right vias) as
“extensions,” and arbitrarily identifies other, indistinguishable vias (i.e., the
middle via) as not having any extensions. See id. at 4–5.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that, “merely because two
features are formed from the same material, it does not follow that the two
features are indistinguishable from each other.” Appeal Br. 26. The
Appellant argues that what the Examiner has labeled as “30X” are not via
“extensions” because they are simply upper portions of the via itself. Id. at
30. The Appellant also argues that, even if the Examiner were correct to
identify upper portions 30X as via extensions, “then all of the conductive
vias 30V have via extensions 30X,” which also falls beyond the scope of
claim 1, which requires at least some vias have “ends . . . in ohmic contact”
with the conductor pad. Id. at 37.
In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the determination that claim 1
includes product-by-process recitations, but states that “the Examiner was
trying to provide a position how the [disputed] limitations . . . were being
interpreted under the condition . . . when these two features are formed from
Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259

4
the same material.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds, without evidentiary
support, that “it is well known in the art that when a structure composes of a
same (or homogeneous) material, an observer would not be able to
distinguish the border between regions . . . made from the same material in
the final product.” Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that, since claim 1
does not require the vias and via extensions “to be made from different
materials,” the claim limitation requiring “via extension[s]” is essentially
immaterial. Id. at 4–5.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that
“it is well known in the art that when a structure composes of a same (or
homogeneous) material, an observer would not be able to distinguish the
border between regions . . . made from the same material in the final
product.” Reply Br. 5. The Appellant points out that the “Examiner
provides no evidence” that there would be no distinction between border
regions, and provides examples of scenarios in which there would be an
observable distinction. Id. The Appellant maintains that Cobbley does not
teach “via extension[s]” within the scope of claim 1. Id. at 5–11.
The issue before us is whether it is reasonable to interpret the term
“via extension” as reading on an arbitrarily designated upper portion of the
via itself. We determine that such an interpretation is not reasonable.
As noted above, the Examiner determines that an arbitrary upper
portion of a via can be considered a via extension. That determination
essentially renders the term “via extension” superfluous because every via
has an upper portion. “[I]nterpretations that render some portion of the
claim language superfluous are disfavored.” Power Mosfet Techs., LLC v.
Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed.Cir.2004). “Claims must be
Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259

5
interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Info-
Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC, 783 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must
be considered in judging the patentability of [a] claim against the prior art.
If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the
claim, the subject matter does not become obvious—the claim becomes
indefinite.”).
Claim 1 recites a “via” and a “via extension” as distinct components
of the apparatus. See Claims Appendix. It also recites that the vias have
“ends,” and that the “via extensions” are “on each of the first ends” of
certain vias. See id. Thus, the plain language of claim 1 indicates that via
extensions are not merely arbitrarily designated upper portions of the vias
themselves.
The Specification also refers to and depicts via extensions as
structures that are distinct from the vias themselves. E.g., Spec. 11:20–28,
Fig. 6 (e.g., via 160 and extension 170). The Appellant and the Examiner
appear to agree that the via extensions are also formed separately from the
vias themselves. See generally Final Act.; Ans.; Appeal Br.; see also
Spec. 11:27–28 (describing extensions “formed through the passivation
structure 60”). The Examiner identifies nothing in the claims or the
Specification that indicates that the via extension could simply be an
arbitrarily designated upper portion of the via itself.
We determine that structures such as Cobbley’s Figure 7A, in which
the vias appear to be integral, monolithic structures with no evident basis to
distinguish any part from another, do not possess “via extension[s]” within
Appeal 2021-001906
Application 15/247,259

6
the scope of claim 1; such structures are simply “vias” and do not have
“extensions.”
On this record, the Examiner has not adequately established that
Cobbley anticipates claim 1. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Because all other claims on appeal depend from claim 1, and the
Examiner’s analysis of those claims does not remedy the error identified
above, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–9.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 102(e) Cobbley 1–9

REVERSED