Ex Parte Chi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

12786008 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121786,008 05/24/2010
112165 7590 08/26/2016
STATS ChipPAC/PATENTLAWGROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HeeJo Chi
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.
2515.0216 2001
EXAMINER
BOYLE, ABBIGALE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEEJO CHI, NAMJU CHO,
and JUNWOO MYUNG
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--18, 20, and 26-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief dated May 30, 2013 ("Br.").
1. A method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a temporary carrier;
providing a plurality of first semiconductor die including an
active surface and back surface opposite the active surface;
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
mounting the back surface of the first semiconductor die to the
temporary carrier;
mounting a plurality of second semiconductor die over the first
semiconductor die with an active surface of the second semiconductor
die oriented toward the active surface of the first semiconductor die;
forming a plurality of bumps over the active surface of the first
semiconductor die around a perimeter of the second semiconductor
die·
'
depositing an encapsulant over the first semiconductor die,
second semiconductor die, and temporary carrier;
forming a plurality of conductive vias partially through the
encapsulant around the first and second semiconductor die;
removing a first portion of the encapsulant and the first
semiconductor die to expose the conductive vias;
forming a first interconnect structure over the encapsulant and
the back surface of the first semiconductor die, the interconnect
structure being electrically connected to the conductive vias; and
removing the temporary carrier.
A---- T\ __ 1"'\ 11 fiPP· DL .)L,-.).).
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jung 1 in view of Klein et al. 2 and Ogawa et al.; 3
(2) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung in view of
Klein and Ogawa, and further in view of Houghton et al.; 4
(3) claims 8-13, 26-29, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jung in view of Klein; and
1 US 2009/0008762 Al, published January 8, 2009 ("Jung").
2 US 2005/0242422 Al, published November 3, 2005 ("Klein").
3 US 2004/0201085 Al, published October 14, 2004 ("Ogawa").
4 US 6,075,700, issued June 13, 2000 ("Houghton").
2
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
(4) claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung in view
of Klein, and further in view of Ogawa.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Jung discloses a method of making a semiconductor
device comprising, inter alia, the steps of providing carrier 100; providing a
plurality of first semiconductor die 200'; and mounting the first semiconductor die
to the carrier as recited in claim 1. Final 2-3; see also Final 13. 5
Claim 1 recites the steps of "mounting a plurality of second semiconductor
die over the first semiconductor die with an active surface of the second
semiconductor die oriented toward the active surface of the first semiconductor
die" and "depositing an encapsulant over the first semiconductor die, second
semiconductor die, and temporary carrier." 6, 7 Br. 32.
The Examiner finds Jung discloses stacking chips vertically on top of each
other. Final 4; see also Final 13. However, the Examiner finds Jung "do[ es] not
explicitly disclose mounting a plurality of second semiconductor die over the first
semiconductor die with an active surface of the second semiconductor die oriented
toward the active surface of the first semiconductor die (i.e. flip-chip)" as recited in
5 Final Office Action dated January 14, 2013.
6 Independent claims 8 and 26 recite similar limitations. Claim 8 recites the steps
of "mounting a second semiconductor die face-to-face to the first semiconductor
die" and "depositing an encapsulant over the first semiconductor die, second
semiconductor die, and carrier." Br. 34. Claim 26 recites the steps of "mounting a
first semiconductor die face-to-face over a second semiconductor die" and
depositing an encapsulant over the first semiconductor die and second
semiconductor die." Br. 37.
7 The Appellants argue that semiconductor die 200' is not mounted to carrier 100.
Br. 10. For the reasons set forth below, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained.
Therefore, it is not necessary to address the Appellants' argument.
3
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
claim 1. Final 4; see also Final 14. The Examiner, nonetheless, finds Klein
discloses that limitation. Final 4--5, 14. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stack the vertically mounted
semiconductor dies of Jung in a flip-chip formation as disclosed in Klein. Final 5,
14.
The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the
Examiner's factual findings or obviousness conclusion, identified in the preceding
paragraph, are erroneous. Rather, the Appellants argue that Klein "does not teach
or suggest depositing an encapsulant over the first semiconductor die, second
semiconductor die, and temporary carrier" because the encapsulant, in Klein, is
only formed over the first semiconductor die and the edges of the second
semiconductor die. Br. 11.
The Appellants' argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (test for obviousness "is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art"). The Examiner relies on Jung, not Klein, to teach depositing an
encapsulant. Ans. 6. In the structure of Jung, as modified by Klein, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that encapsulant would be
deposited over the first semiconductor die, the second semiconductor die, and the
temporary carrier as claimed.
Claim 1 also recites the step of "forming a plurality of conductive vias
partially through the encapsulant around the first and second semiconductor die." 8
8 Independent claims 8 and 26 recite a similar limitation. Claim 8 recites the step
of "forming a plurality of conductive vias partially through the encapsulant around
the first and second semiconductor die" (Br. 34), and claim 26 recites "forming a
4
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
Br. 32. The Appellants argue that Jung does not teach or suggest this step because
conductive structures 140 in Jung (corresponding to the claimed conductive vias)
are formed prior to depositing molding part 150 (corresponding to the claimed
encapsulant ). Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner correctly concludes that "[t]he claims simply
require 'depositing an encapsulant' and 'forming a plurality of conductive vias
(partially) through the encapsulant', without any identification of the order of steps
performed." Ans. 7. That is, the claimed "depositing" and "forming" steps at
issue are broad enough to include the simultaneous ( 1) deposition of an
encapsulant over first and second semiconductor dies and a temporary carrier and
(2) formation of a plurality of conductive vias through the encapsulant. 9
The Examiner finds:
Jung discloses forming encapsulant over [conductive structures 140],
so the deposition of the encapsulant is happening concurrently with
the formation of the conductive vias partially through the encapsulant.
In other words, in Jung, the formation of the plurality of conductive
vias partially through the encapsulant occurs when the encapsulant is
deposited over said [conductive structures 140].
Ans. 7 (emphasis added). Significantly, the Appellants do not direct us to any
credible evidence demonstrating that the Examiner's findings are erroneous.
plurality of conductive vias through the encapsulant around the first and second
semiconductor die" (Br. 37).
9 The Examiner indicates that "[ t ]he Appellant's argument would be persuasive if
the limitations of the claims specified that the formation of the vias was after the
deposition of the encapsulant; however, the current claim language does not
include such a limitation." Ans. 7; see also Icon Health, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) ("applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope").
5
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
Finally, claim 1 recites the step of "removing a first portion of the
encapsulant and the first semiconductor die to expose the conductive vias." Br. 32
(emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Jung, as modified by Klein, teaches removing portions
of the encapsulant and the second semiconductor die to expose conductive vias.
Final 5. However, the Examiner finds the combined teachings of Jung and Klein
"do not explicitly disclose removing a first portion of the first semiconductor die if
the die is mounted with the active surface facing away from the temporary
carrier." 1° Final 6 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Ogawa
discloses a method for forming a semiconductor structure comprising, inter alia,
the steps of mounting two semiconductor chips face-to-face and removing a
portion of both semiconductor dies (in separate steps) as well as removing a
portion of an encapsulant to expose conductive vias. Final 6. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to
remove portions of both the first and second semiconductor dies and multiple
portions of encapsulant of Jung in view of Klein ... by the method of Ogawa."
Final 6 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellants argue that in Jung, multilayer structure 110, 120, 130 is
formed over carrier 100 and first semiconductor chip 200' is attached to the
multilayer structure. Br. 14--15, 24--25. The Appellants argue that "[p]olishing the
backside of semiconductor chip 200' ... would require the multilayer structure to
be removed [and r ]emoving the multilayer structure in Jung would negate the
purpose of mounting semiconductor chip 200' to the multilayer structure, and
10 The Examiner finds Jung discloses "removing a first portion of the first
semiconductor die if the die is mounted with the active surface facing the
temporary carrier." Final 4 (emphasis added).
6
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
further, would remove the requisite interconnect structure in Jung." Br. 15-16,
25-26.
The Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error. As illustrated in
Jung Figures 17 and 30 the multilayer structure, comprising a conductive
redistribution layer 120 formed between dielectric layers 110 and 130, is not
removed in the method of Jung, but rather forms part of the final semiconductor
package. Thus, in the modified structure of Jung, comprising first semiconductor
die mounted on the multilayer structure and second semiconductor die mounted
over the first semiconductor die, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
removed a portion of the first semiconductor die to expose conductive vias, as
proposed by the Examiner. For this reason, the§ 103(a) rejections of claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 4--7 are not sustained. 11
Claim 14 also recites that a portion of the encapsulant and the first
semiconductor die are removed to expose conductive vias. Br. 3 6. The Examiner
relies on the same findings of fact and conclusions of law relied on in the rejection
of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claim 14 and dependent claims 15-18 and 20 is not sustained.
Claim 8, on the other hand, recites the step of "removing a portion of the
encapsulant and a portion of a back surface of the first or second semiconductor
die to expose the conductive vias." Br. 34 (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 26
recites the step of "removing a first portion of the encapsulant and a portion of the
11 The Examiner's reliance on Houghton in the rejection of claim 6 does not cure
the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. See Final 12 (relying on Houghton to
show that "it is conventional to provide shields on the edges of packages,
specifically surrounding and external to heat sinks of packages, to reduce emitted
RF noise in die packages").
7
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
second semiconductor die to expose the conductive vias." Br. 38 (emphasis
added). There is no dispute on this record that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to remove a portion of a back surface of a second
semiconductor die based on the combined teachings of Jung and Klein. Therefore,
the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8-13, 26-29, 31, and 32 is sustained.
Claim 30, which depends from claim 26, recites "further including removing
a second portion of the encapsulant and a portion of the.first semiconductor die."
Br. 38 (emphasis added).
In the rejection of claim 30, the Examiner relies on Ogawa to establish that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove a portion of
the first semiconductor die in the modified structure of Jung. Final 19-20. For the
reasons set forth above, the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported
by the record. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 30 is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung in view of Klein and Ogawa is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jung in view of Klein and Ogawa, and further in view of
Houghton is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-13, 26-29, 31, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung in view of Klein is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jung in view of Klein, and further in view of Ogawa is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
8
Appeal2014-001925
Application 12/786,008
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9