Ex Parte Daubenspeck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2014

12344711 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte TIMOTHY H. DAUBENSPECK,
JEFFREY P. GAMBINO,
CHRISTOPHER D. MUZZY,
WOLFGANG SAUTER,
and TIMOTHY D. SULLIVAN
__________

Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 10, 12-14, and 22-26.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Appellants’ invention is said to relate “to integrated circuits, and more
particularly, to structures with improved solder bump connections and methods of
fabricating such structures.” Spec. ¶ [0001].
According to the Appellants’ Specification, high temperature C4 (Controlled
Collapse Chip Connection) bumps are conventionally made from leaded solder.
Lead is known to mitigate thermal coefficient mismatch between a chip and a
substrate, and thus, stresses imposed during a cooling cycle are mitigated by the C4
bumps. Spec. ¶ [0002]. However, the Appellants disclose that lead-free
requirements are being imposed by many countries. With these lead-free
requirements, defects in C4 interconnections (e.g., cracks in chip metallurgy under
C4 bumps or “white bumps”) are said to be a concern. Spec. ¶ [0003].
The Appellants disclose that there is a need to overcome the deficiencies of
lead-free solder bumps. Spec. [0006]. In one aspect of the Appellants’ invention,
a capture pad is formed over an insulative material and a contact pad, the capture
pad is segmented, and a solder bump is formed over the capture pad and between
the segments. Spec. ¶ [0007]; Appellants’ FIG. 9. Appellants’ FIG. 6, reproduced
below, illustrates a segmented capture pad structure (30) according to one
embodiment of the invention. Spec. ¶ [0026].

1 Claims 1-9 and 21 are also pending and are allowed. Advisory Action dated
March 28, 2011.
Appeal
Applica

T
a
fl
st
M
d
p
2
T
Spec. ¶
during c
metal, w
line) int
2012-0020
tion 12/34
Appellan
stru
he Appell
The s
dvantages
exibility f
resses, as
etallurgy]
eformation
ortions, di
6 and awa
his will pr
[0025]; se
ool down
here it wo
erconnect
13
4,711
ts’ FIG. 6
cture 30 c
ants disclo
egments o
such as, fo
or a C4 str
well as eff
fatigue cr
can be ab
recting the
y form [sic
event the f
e also Spe
from bein
uld otherw
structures
depicts a t
omprising
a captur
se:
f the captu
r example
ucture in r
ective crac
ack initiat
sorbed by
stresses in
, from] th
ormation
c. ¶ [0032
g translate
ise termin
20 and pa
3
op view o
openings
e pad area

re pad stru
, lateral (e
esponse to
kstop for
ion. More
the movem
to the und
e metal pa
of white bu
] (opening
d along th
ate to the
ds and wir
f a segmen
32a arrang
30a.
cture 30 p
.g., side to
white bum
C4:BLM
specifical
ent of th
erlying in
ds, wires a
mps.
s 32 stop s
e length of
underlyin
es 18); Sp

ted captur
ed around
rovide ma
side) ben
ps shear
[Ball Limi
ly, the C4
e segment
sulative m
nd interco
hear stress
the captu
g BEOL (b
ec. ¶ [003
e pad

ny
d
ting
stress
ed
aterial
nnects.
es created
re pad to a
ack end o
1] (pattern

f
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

4

interruptions in the segmentation pattern “act as termination points for the
propagation of any crack”).
The Appellants disclose that “[t]he movement of the segmented portions of
the BLM is facilitated by the softness of the underlying polymeric material (PSPI);
however, it is noted that is not absolutely necessary to have such a soft material for
the invention to work in its intended manner.” Spec. ¶ [0034].
Claim 10, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated May 31, 2011 (“App. Br.”). The
limitation at issue is italicized.
10. A method of manufacturing a package, comprising:
heating the package to a set temperature in order to form solder
interconnection joints;
cooling the package to solidify the solder interconnection
joints; and
moving at least one segmented portion of a ball limiting
metallurgy of the package to terminate fatigue crack initiation.
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Seshan 4022; and claims 10 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Seshan 5953 in view of Yamada.4
The rejections are sustained for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer dated August 19, 2011 (“Ans.”). We add the following for emphasis.

2 US 7,034,402 B1, issued April 25, 2006.
3 US 6,610,595 B2, issued August 26, 2003.
4 US 2006/0278984 A1, published December 14, 2006.
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

5

B. DISCUSSION
1. Claim 10
The Examiner finds that Seshan 402 and Yamada both disclose a segmented
ball limiting metallurgy (BLM) or a segmented under bump metallurgy (UBM).5
The Examiner also finds that Seshan 402 and Yamada both inherently describe the
step of “moving at least one segmented portion of a ball limiting metallurgy of the
package to terminate fatigue crack initiation” as recited in claim 10. Ans. 5, 7-8.
a. Seshan 402
FIGS. 2a and 2b of Seshan 402 illustrate an embodiment of a ball limiting
metallurgy according to one embodiment of the invention. In that embodiment, the
ball limiting metallurgy is split into two segments 24n. Seshan 402 discloses that
“[t]he gap 23 between the segments 24n will block the propagation of a defect
arising in any individual segment 24n.” Seshan 402, at col. 2, l. 62-col. 3, l. 2.
There is no dispute on this record that the segmented ball limiting
metallurgy illustrated in FIGS. 2a and 2b stops cracks that are initiated during
operation of the Seshan 402 semiconductor device. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3.6
The issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has demonstrated that Seshan 402
inherently describes “moving at least one segmented portion of a ball limiting
metallurgy . . . to terminate fatigue crack initiation” during manufacture of a
package as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 9.

5 The phrase “ball limiting metallurgy (BLM)” and “under bump metallurgy
(UBM)” are used synonymously throughout the record. See, e.g., Seshan 402, col.
1, ll. 20-22.
6 Reply Brief dated October 19, 2011.
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

6

FIGS. 6a-6f of Seshan 402 illustrate a process for forming a segmented ball
limiting metallurgy. Seshan 402, col. 2, ll. 38-39. The Examiner finds this
embodiment inherently describes the claimed moving step.7 Ans. 4-5. In
particular, the Examiner finds:
Seshan [402] discloses a segmented ball limiting metallurgy (Fig. 2a
& 2b). The segmented ball limiting metallurgy has a coefficient of
thermal expansion which is distinct from that of the passivation layer,
which Seshan [402] discloses as polyimide (Col. 3, lines 36-39).
When the structure of Seshan [402] is heated to form the solder
interconnection joints the various materials present will swell to a
degree determined by their coefficient of thermal expansion which is
inherent in each material. This swelling action causes stresses as
layers expand at differing rates which may result in delamination or
cracking. The segmented nature of the ball limiting metallurgy
disclosed by Seshan [402] allows the segments of the ball limiting
metallurgy to move, more specifically flex, independently of each
other during the heating process and thereby reduce the stresses on the
ball limiting metallurgy, said stresses being what causes fatigue cracks
to initiate.
Ans. 5. The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the
Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Claim 10 recites “[a] method of manufacturing a package.” App. Br.,
Claims App’x. Significantly, the Appellants do not explain, in any detail, why the
steps illustrated in FIGS. 6a-6f of Seshan 402, which are directed to forming a ball
limiting metallurgy, do not constitute steps in manufacturing a package, especially
where the ball limiting metallurgy is a critical element of the package. See In re

7 The Examiner finds that the heating and cooling steps recited in claim 10 are
described in column 4, lines 20-22 of Seshan 402. The Examiner finds that the
moving step recited in claim 10 is inherent in at least the heating step disclosed in
Seshan 402 as explained, infra. Ans. 4-5.
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

7

ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (during
examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification).
The Appellants have failed to direct us to any error in the § 102(b) rejection
of claim 10. Therefore, the rejection is sustained.
Claim 14 depends from claim 10. The Appellants do not present separate
arguments in support of the patentability of claim 14. Therefore, the § 102(b)
rejection of claim 14 is also sustained.
b. Yamada
There is no dispute on this record that the UBM structure disclosed in
Yamada reduces stress. App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds that the stress-relieving
properties of Yamada’s structure prevent the termination of fatigue crack initiation.
Ans. 15; see also Reply Br. 15 (“Appellants do not admit, nor argue, that the
openings in Yamada prevents the termination of fatigue crack initiation.”).
The Appellants argue that Yamada’s “UBM is not segmented as in the
claimed invention; instead, the diffusion film 152 is segmented, and then filled
with the UBM 112.” App. Br. 14. The Appellants argue that “unlike that of the
claimed invention, the solder ball bump would not be formed in any plurality of
openings as in the present invention and, hence would not stop initiation of any
fatigue cracks as recited in the claimed invention.” App. Br. 15.
Contrary to the Appellants’ argument, claim 10 does not recite a solder ball
bump formed in a plurality of openings in a ball limiting metallurgy. Claim 10
merely recites the step of “moving at least one segmented portion of a ball limiting
metallurgy . . . to terminate fatigue crack initiation.” App. Br., Claims App’x.
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

8

The Examiner finds that the UBM disclosed in Yamada is segmented
because “the UBM is divided by diffusion film 153 into a myriad of smaller pieces
or segments.” Ans. 11. The Examiner’s finding is supported by the record. See,
e.g., Yamada FIG. 1.
Similar to Seshan 420, the Examiner finds that when Yamada’s segmented
UBM is heated to form solder interconnection joints, the moving step recited in
claim 10 is inherent in the disclosure of Yamada. Ans. 7-8. The Appellants do not
direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the Examiner’s findings are
erroneous. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Claim 26 depends from claim 10. The Appellants do not present separate
arguments in support of the patentability of claim 26. Therefore, the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 26 is also sustained.
2. Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites that “the movement absorbs
stresses, which cause the fatigue crack initiation.” App. Br., Claims App’x.
The Appellants argue that “the Examiner only refers to claim 10, for the
features of claim 12” but points out that “‘[a]ll words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.’” App.
Br. 11 (quoting MPEP § 2143.01).
Contrary to the Appellants’ argument, the Examiner does consider the words
of claim 12 in the rejection on appeal. The Examiner correctly concludes that
“claim 12 [recites] the mechanism of how the movement step terminates fatigue
crack initiation, by absorbing stresses.” Ans. 10; see also Spec. ¶ [0025]. The
Examiner then finds that “[t]his mechanism is also inherent in the disclosure of
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

9

Seshan [402] discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above because the absorption
of stresses via movement is how Seshan [402] terminates fatigue cracks.” Ans. 10.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants argue that “[t]here are many different
mechanisms, other than absorption, that can stop crack propagation during the
operation of the chip package.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added). However, as
discussed above, the embodiment of Seshan 402 relied on by the Examiner (i.e.,
FIGS. 6a-6f) is directed to manufacturing a package, not operating a package.
Thus, the Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
The § 102(b) rejection of claim 12 is sustained.
3. Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising directing the
stresses into an underlying flexible insulative material for flexibility
of a ball limiting metallurgy or under bump metallurgy segments and
away from metal pads, wires and interconnects thereby preventing the
formation of white bumps.
App. Br., Claims App’x.
The Examiner finds that the subject matter recited in claim 13 is inherent in
the structure of Seshan 402 which comprises segmented ball limiting metallurgy
24N over flexible insulative material 23 (i.e., polyimide). Ans. 6.
The Appellants argue that Seshan 402 does not disclose that the polyimide
layer is of a thickness to allow it to be flexible.8 App. Br. 12. However, the

8 The Appellants disclose that the insulative material “can range in thickness from
about 5 to 10 microns in height; although other dimensions are also contemplated
by the invention.” Spec. ¶ [0022]. Seshan 402 does not expressly disclose the
thickness of passivation or polyimide layer 23. However, in one embodiment, we
Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

10

Examiner finds that the flexibility of a material “is intrinsic to the material itself”
regardless of its thickness. Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds that when the
package of Seshan 402 is heated (col. 4, ll. 20-22), at least some of the stresses
generated will be necessarily directed to the polyimide layer and away from metal
pads, wires, and interconnects, thereby preventing the formation of white bumps.
Ans. 6, 11. The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the § 102(b) rejection of claim 13 is sustained.
4. Claims 22-25
Claim 22 depends from claim 10 and recites that “the segmented portion
comprises openings of various shapes and sizes.” App. Br., Claims App’x. Claim
23 depends from claim 10 and recites that “the segmented portion comprises a
plurality of rows of openings.” App. Br., Claims App’x. Claims 24 and 25 both
depend from claim 10 and recite that the segmented portion comprises “openings
in the form of a non-contiguous plurality of openings” and “openings comprising
arc-shaped openings surrounding other openings,” respectively. App. Br., Claims
App’x.
Referring to Yamada FIG. 7, the Examiner finds “a plurality of openings in
UBM 112 are configured in a plurality of rows” as recited in claim 23. Ans. 13;
see also Ans. 8. Likewise, the Examiner finds that Yamada FIG. 7 shows openings
as recited in claims 22, 24 and 25. Ans. 8.
The Appellants argue that Yamada FIG. 7 does not show openings as recited
in claims 24 and 25 since the slits or spaces in UBM 112 are filled with film 153.

note that layer 23 is the sum of the thicknesses of vias 22N and bond pad 21b. See
Seshan 402, FIG. 6a.

Appeal
Applica

App. Br
opening
In
below, i

T
with film
opening
points o
with sol
Appella
2012-0020
tion 12/34
. 19-20. A
s, much le
response
llustrating
U
he Examin
153 doe
s in UBM
ut that ope
der. Ans.
nts’ ball li
13
4,711
s to claim
ss in rows
, the Exam
two rows
Annotated
BM 112 h
er explain
s not mean
112.” An
nings 32 i
13; see Ap
miting me
23, the A
.” App. B
iner refers
of openin
Yamada F
aving ope
s, “[t]he f
that the o
s. 13; see
n the App
pellants’
tallurgy 30
11
ppellants c
r. 19.
to an ann
gs in UBM
IG. 7 dep
nings arra
act that the
penings no
also Ans.
ellants’ ba
FIG. 9. Th
comprise
ontend th
otated Yam
112. An
icts a top v
nged in tw
openings
longer ex
14-15. Mo
ll limiting
us, to the
s “opening
at “FIG. 7
ada FIG.
s. 13-14.

iew of
o rows.
[in UBM
ist; they r
reover, th
metallurgy
extent tha
s” as reci
does not s
7, reprodu
112] are fi
emain
e Examine
are filled
t the
ted in the
how
ced
lled
r

Appeal 2012-002013
Application 12/344,711

12

claims on appeal, Yamada’s UBM 112 comprises openings within the scope of
claims 23-25. See In re ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1379 (during examination,
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification). The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 23-25 is sustained.
The Appellants do not dispute that Yamada FIG. 7 shows openings as
recited in claim 22. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 22 is also sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc