Ex Parte Bchir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12476928 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/476,928 0610212009
23696 7590 05/06/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Omar J. Bchir
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
082586 6373
EXAMINER
LEE, JAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OMAR J. BCHIR and
LILY ZHAO
Appeal2014-005612
Application 12/476,928
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-2, 5---6, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Conn et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,667,473
Bl; issued Feb. 23, 2010 hereafter "Conn") in view ofMayder et al. (U.S.
Pub. No. 2007 /0278002 Al; published Dec. 6, 2007 hereafter "Mayder").
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is stated to be "QUALCOMM Incorporated".
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005612
Application 12/476,928
We AFFIRM.
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis added):
1. A pillar for flip chip interconnect, comprising:
a body composed of an electrically conductive material, the
body including an exposed surface for coupling the electrically
conductive material and a solder material, wherein the body is
connected to and extends from a die of a flip chip package and the
solder material is disposed on a substrate of the flip chip package;
a solder wicking inhibitor deposited on the sides of the body,
wherein the solder wicking inhibitor resists wicking of the solder
material along the sides of the body, wherein the solder wicking
inhibitor comprises a polymer.
17. A flip chip interconnect in an electronic package,
compnsmg:
means for coupling a die to a substrate; and
means for inhibiting solder wicking along the sides of the
means for coupling, wherein the means for inhibiting solder wicking
comprises a polymer;
wherein, the means for coupling includes an exposed surface of
electrically conductive material for contacting with solder material
coupled to the substrate.
Appellants argue the claims as a group, and focus on independent
claim 1 (App. Br. generally). Appellants rely upon the arguments for claim
1 for independent claim 17 as well as for the dependent claims (App. Br. 8).
Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
2
Appeal2014-005612
Application 12/476,928
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability.
However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject
matter of representative claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable under § 103 in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements
would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). "[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that it would not have
been obvious to use the epoxy (i.e., polymer) material disclosed by Mayder
as an alternative for the solder wicking inhibitor material 414 of Conn (e.g.,
App. Br. 5). Likewise, Appellants' argument that, contrary to the
Examiner's position, Mayder does not disclose a solder wicking inhibitor
material applied to a body of a pillar as opposed to an application of material
to "fill up a via hole" (App. Br. 5), is also not persuasive.
First, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position that Figure 4 of Conn shows a solder wicking inhibitor 414 on sides
of body 412 (Ans. 3). Conn further discloses that "other materials may be
used for conductive post 412 and I or outer sheath 414" (Ans. 3).
3
Appeal2014-005612
Application 12/476,928
Second, with respect to Appellants' argument that it would not have
been obvious to use the epoxy (polymer) solder wicking inhibitor of Mayder
as an alternative for the aluminum solder wicking inhibitor 414 of Conn
(Ans. 3), it is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to
take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also
the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to
draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968). As pointed out by the
Examiner, Mayder exemplifies that an epoxy (polymer) material is a known
material to inhibit solder wicking (Ans. 3). Contrary to Appellants'
argument, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position
that an artisan would have reasonably inferred that the epoxy polymer of
Mayder may be used to inhibit solder from wicking along a surface (see also
Mayder, i-f8), and would have been reasonably expected to function
comparable to the solder wicking material which is shown on the body pillar
of Conn (Ans. 3).
Appellants have not provided persuasive reasoning or credible
evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have, using no more
than ordinary creativity, predictably used an epoxy solder wicking material
as exemplified in Mayder on any surface, such as the pillar body as
exemplified in Conn, and not only for the surfaces of the via holes as
exemplified in Mayder (e.g., Ans. 3; App. Br., and Reply Br. generally).
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the epoxy
material disclosed in Mayder in place of the aluminum wicking inhibitor in
4
Appeal2014-005612
Application 12/476,928
the flip chip interconnect taught in Conn. "Obviousness does not require
absolute predictability of success ... all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success." In re Kubin, 561F.3d1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(citing Jn re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of all the claims
on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5