Ex Parte Chow et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2012

11670714 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2012)

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.
11/670,714 02/02/2007 Seng Guan Chow 27-311 7634
22898 7590 01/05/2012
LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
EXAMINER
TRICE, KIMBERLY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SENG GUAN CHOW, IL KWON SHIM,
and BYUNG JOON HAN
_____________

Appeal 2009-013153
Application 11/670,714
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 12.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an integrated circuit package system with
an integrated interposer between two dies. See paragraphs 10, 38 and Figure
Appeal 2009-013153
Application 11/670,714

2

1 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and is reproduced below:
1. An integrated circuit package system comprising:
providing a base substrate;
attaching a base die over the base substrate;
attaching an integrated interposer having interposer circuit
devices, over the base die;
connecting the base die electrically by a base package
connector to the integrated interposer on the same side as the base die;
forming a package system encapsulant having an encapsulant
cavity exposing at least a portion of the integrated interposer on a side
opposite the base die.

REFERENCES
Rolda, Jr. US 2002/0030261 A1 Mar. 14, 2002
Shim US 2005/0090050 A1 Apr. 28, 2005

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Shim in view of Rolda. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer.
1

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 13 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 is in error.
2
These

1
Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated April 1, 2009.
2
Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated December 24, 2008,
and Reply Brief dated June 1, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013153
Application 11/670,714

3

arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Shim and Rolda teaches or suggests an integrated interposer
with interposer circuit devices as claimed?
3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Shim and Rolda teaches an integrated interposer with
interposer circuit elements as recited in claims 1 and 6. The Examiner’s
rejection relies upon Rolda to teach this feature and the Examiner has not
found that Shim teaches this feature. Appellants argue that Rolda teaches
wires or conductive paths on the interposer but does not teach circuit devices
as claimed. Brief 12. The Examiner responds to this argument by finding
that Appellants’ Specification identifies that the circuit devices includes
passive elements and as such includes the metal traces of Rolda.
4
Answer 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation is contradictory to the
Specification which identifies circuit elements as distinct from traces. Reply
Brief 3-4. We concur with Appellants, paragraphs 47 and 49 of Appellants’
originally filed Specification identify that the interposer includes vias
(conductive leads) between outer leads and between the packages and
interposer circuit devices. Accordingly, when interpreted in light of the
Specification, we construe the claim term circuit devices as not including the

3
We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues however we
do not reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
4
The Examiner has not found that the second reference Shim teaches circuit
devices on the interposer.
Appeal 2009-013153
Application 11/670,714

4

metal traces connecting the circuit devices, pads and dies. Thus, we do not
find that the Examiner has shown the combination of the references teach or
suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6, accordingly we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD