Ex Parte Ararao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 21, 2009

10721916 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VIRGIL COTOCO ARARAO, IL KWON SHIM,
SENG GUAN CHOW and SHEILA MARIE L. ALVAREZ
____________

Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 21, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and R. EUGENE VARNDELL, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-10 and 21-30. Claims 11-20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to semiconductor package heat spreaders
formed from a unitary metallic plate (Spec. 3:23-25). As depicted in
Appellants’ Figure 2, the cross-sectional profile of the heat spreader in one
dimension is constant and does not change in the horizontal direction
perpendicular thereto. According to Appellants, this provides for highly
efficient and inexpensive fabrication of the heat spreader, such as by
continuous metal forming and/or extruding operations which allow a large
number of such heat spreaders to be formed in a single metal stamping,
continuous metal forming, and/or extruding operation from a single, unitary
piece of metallic material such as a metallic Cu sheet. (Spec. 6:16-24).
Independent Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method for fabricating a semiconductor heat spreader,
comprising:

providing a unitary metallic plate; and

forming the unitary metallic plate into:

a panel;

channel walls depending from the panel to define a channel
between the channel walls and the panel for receiving a
semiconductor therein;

at least two feet extending from respective channel walls for
attachment to a substrate;

at least one external reversing bend; and

a cross-sectional profile of the plate that is substantially
constant along at least one horizontal direction that is perpendicular to
the cross-sectional profile of the plate.
Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Hawthorne US 6,008,991 Dec. 28, 1999

Claims 1-10 and 21-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hawthorne.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The issue specifically turns on whether Hawthorne
anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention by disclosing the step of forming a
heat spreader formed of a unitary metallic plate having “a cross-sectional
profile of the plate that is substantially constant along at least one horizontal
direction that is perpendicular to the cross-sectional profile of the plate,” as
recited in claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification, as shown in Figure 2, describes the
heat spreader 200 as follows:
The heat spreader 200 is formed from a single metallic plate,
preferably copper (Cu). As can be seen in FIG. 2, the cross-sectional
profile of the heat spreader 200 in one dimension (horizontally
transversely as depicted in FIG. 2) is constant and does not change in
the horizontal direction perpendicular thereto, depicted by an arrow
202. This provides for highly efficient and inexpensive fabrication of
the heat spreader, such as by continuous metal forming and/or
extruding operations. A large number of such heat spreaders can thus
be formed in a single metal stamping, continuous metal forming,
Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

4
and/or extruding operation from a single, unitary piece of metallic
material such as a metallic Cu sheet.
Heat spreaders, such as the heat spreader 200, that are thus
formed in a single metal stamping, continuous metal forming, and/or
extruding operation ("unitary metal forming") will have characteristic
physical properties in the final product that are a result of such unitary
forming processes.
(Spec. 6:17-28).

2. Hawthorne in Figure 3 discloses a packaged integrated circuit
device incorporating a tape with laminated dielectric and conductive leads
and a heat spreader or rigid support member having alignment pins (col. 4,
ll. 57-67).
3. Hawthorne’s heat spreader is formed of a rigid, strong, self-
supporting, thermally conductive material such as a suitable metal or a
polyphenylene sulfide (PFS) (col. 5, ll. 20-23).
4. Hawthorne discloses that the heat spreader is either molded or
stamped in the configuration shown, having a somewhat raised central die
receiving section 68 surrounded by lateral sections 70, each of which is
formed with an integral standoff pin, such as standoff pins 72a and 72b (col.
5, ll. 29-33).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of Claims
The scope of the claims in patent applications is determined not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[T]he words
Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

5
of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
Cir. 1996)). Furthermore, the specification is the single best guide to the
meaning of a claim term. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315.
2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’
a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
ANALYSIS
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification to the claim term without importing limitations, we find the
Examiner’s interpretation (Ans. 7-8) of the claim term “substantially
constant” not to be supported by factual evidence. In fact, Appellants have
clearly set forth (Reply Br. 2-5) what a “substantially constant cross-
sectional profile” means by pointing to page 6 of the Specification for such
description. The portion of the Specification relied on by Appellants states
that the cross-sectional profile in one direction does not change and provides
for efficient fabrication of the heat spreader by continuous metal forming
and/or extruding operations (FF 1). Following the principles set forth by the
Phillips decision guiding us to consult the specification to give meaning to a
claim term, without importing limitations from the specification,
Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

6
“substantially constant” would have been understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art to mean not changing in the general cross-sectional profile
along the entire length of the heat spreader.
As described above, Hawthorne provides for a heat spreader that is
either stamped or molded having a somewhat raised central section
surrounded with flat lateral sections (FF 2-4). We disagree with the
Examiner’s characterization of the heat spreader of Hawthorne as having a
substantially constant cross-sectional profile along one horizontal direction
that is perpendicular to the cross-sectional profile of the plate (Ans. 7). As
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 15-17), the cross-sectional profile of the heat
spreader in Hawthorne, while constant along a portion of its length, is not
substantially constant along the entire length of the heat spreader in any
direction. Specifically, the raised central die receiving section makes the
profile of the heat spreader non-constant along any of the horizontal
directions (FF 4).
We also disagree with the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 6) that since
Hawthorne indicates the drawings not to be to scale, except in Figure 5, the
cross-sectional profile depicted in Figure 5 meets the claim language. Based
on a review of Figure 5 of Hawthorne, we find that while the central die
receiving section may not be raised, a cavity is formed by a central section
for receiving die 44’ that is thinner than the surrounding portions.
Therefore, the cross-sectional profile of the heat spreader depicted in Figure
5 of Hawthorne changes along each axis and is not substantially constant in
any direction.

Appeal 2008-5995
Application 10/721,916

7
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie case that Hawthorne anticipates claim 1 or other independent
claims 9, 21, and 29 which include similar limitations related to a
“substantially constant” cross-sectional profile. Therefore, in view of our
analysis above, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1,
9, 21, and 29, nor of any claims dependent thereupon, as anticipated by
Hawthorne.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-10 and 21-30 is
reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 330
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087