Ex Parte Farooq et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

11308396 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MUKTA GHATE FAROOQ,
JASVIR SINGH JASPAL, WILLIAM FRANCIS LANDERS,
THOMAS E. LOMBARDI, HAI PHAM LONGWORTH,
H. BERNHARD POGGE, and ROGER A. QUON
________________

Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Summary
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 12-15, and 17-20.1
Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Minda (US 2005/0258540 A1; published Nov. 24,
2005) in view of Cheng (US 2005/0167837 A1; published Aug. 4, 2005).
Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Minda in view of Cheng and further in view of A. Kohn et al.,
Evaluation of Electroless Deposited Co(W,P) Thin Films as Diffusion
Barriers for Copper Metallization, 55 MICROELECTRONIC ENG’G 297-303
(2001).
We affirm.
The Claimed Invention
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A method of manufacturing a structure, comprising the steps of:
depositing a high temperature diffusion barrier metal cap
on a metal layer formed in a first dielectric layer;
depositing a second dielectric layer comprising an Oxide
layer, a Nitride layer, and a Polyimide layer on the high temperature
diffusion barrier metal cap and first dielectric layer;

1 Appellants’ Brief (Br.) was filed on March 16, 2009. Three corrected
pages were filed on April 16, 2009. Although the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.), mailed on July 24, 2009, identified claims 1, 3, 6-11, 17, 19, and 20
as being on appeal (Ans. 3), claims 2-11 had been canceled prior to July 24,
2009. Appellants’ Reply Brief filed on September 24, 2009, confirms this
status as correct (Reply Br. 1).
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

3
etching a via into the Oxide layer, the Nitride layer, and
the Polyimide layer, exposing the high temperature diffusion barrier
metal cap;
depositing an under bump metallurgy layer in the via
containing the Oxide layer, the Nitride layer, and the Polyimide layer;
and
forming a C4 ball on the under bump metallurgy layer,
wherein the under bump metallurgy layer is deposited directly
on the high temperature diffusion barrier metal cap and comprises one
or a combination of Titanium Tungsten, Chromium Copper, or Nickel.

ANALYSIS
Both the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer rely upon the
same statutory basis (35 U.S.C. §103(a)) and the same references. The
Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s Answer, however,
interprets and applies the primary reference, Minda, differently than the
interpretation and application in the Final Rejection (Ans. 3-4, 7-8; compare
Final Rejection 2). Appellants’ opening brief responded to the Final
Rejection’s interpretation (Br. 6-13). Appellants’ Reply Brief responds only
to the new interpretation (Reply Br. 2). We therefore consider only the
arguments in the Reply Brief.
Appellants’ arguments are directed to a single phrase in method
claims 1 and 12: “depositing an under bump metallurgy . . . directly on the
high temperature diffusion barrier metal cap.” Br. 3. Appellants do not
separately argue (1) dependent method claims 14 and 15; (2) apparatus
claims 17, 19, and 20; or (3) the rejection of claims 13 and 18, which are
based on Kohn in addition to Minda and Cheng.
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

4
Accordingly, we treat all claims as a group which stands or falls with
our resolution of the above phrase as recited in representative independent
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).
I.
Because Appellants impliedly agree with the Examiner’s designation
of Minda’s element 102 as claim 1’s recited high temperature diffusion
barrier metal cap (compare Ans. 3 with Reply Br. 2, last two lines; 3, the
indented paragraph; 4, the non-indented paragraph; 5, line 2), the dispositve
question on appeal is whether Minda teaches depositing an under bump
metallurgy layer directly on element 102.
The Examiner found that Minda has an under bump metallurgy layer
comprising elements 107 and 106 (Fig. 5; Ans. 4), and since there are no
intervening layers between layer 106 and the high temperature diffusion
barrier, found that the combination of layers is directly on the high
temperature diffusion barrier. Ans. 7.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has impermissibly altered the
teachings of Minda, which designates element 107 as an under bump
metallurgy (UBM) film and layer 106 as a barrier metal film. Reply Br. 3-4.
In addition, Appellants contend that the under bump metallurgy layer 107 is
not deposited directly on cap layer 102 because layer 106 (comprising layers
112 and 113) and layer 111 intervene between under bump metallurgy layer
107 and cap 102. Appellants also point out that the purpose of Minda’s
barrier metal film 106 is to prevent tin from being diffused from the solder
ball 108. Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants also suggest that elements 107 and 106
must be different because they are processed differently. Id.
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

5
Accordingly, Appellants contend (1) that the Examiner cannot
designate both layers 107 and 106 as the recited UBM layer in contradiction
of Minda’s explicit teachings and in disregard of their separate functions;
and further contend that (2) “[a]ltering these layers to account for different
structure will destroy its function.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
Regarding the last argument, we find that the Examiner does not propose to
alter Minda in any way. Merely attaching different names to elements does
not alter their structural relationship or their functionality.
Appellants’ remaining arguments are also unpersuasive. Appellants’
Specification does not define an under bump metallurgy layer as being
limited to any specific functions or structures. Instead, Appellants’
Specification broadly states that it was well known in the art that lead-free
and tin-rich solders (present in Minda; see ¶ [0025]) require a robust barrier
metallurgy under the solder bump in order to withstand aggressive high-
temperature and electromigration requirements. Therefore, Appellants state,
in a C4 structure, “a metal stack known as the under bump metallurgy
(UBM) . . . is typically interposed between the solder bump and the IC
device.” Spec. ¶ 4.
As such, an UBM layer, such as Minda’s element 107, is interposed
between Minda’s solder ball and its cap 102 at least for the purpose of
providing a barrier metallurgy. That is, just as Minda’s layer 107 comprises
films 114 and 115 (Fig. 5) and Minda’s layer 106 comprises films 112 and
113 (Fig. 4), Minda’s layers 107 and 106 together form an under bump
metallurgy stack that provides a barrier metallurgy with a multi-layered
layer. Appellants have not produced any evidence that a “layer” must be a
single layer – that a “layer” cannot comprise sub-films.
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

6
Moreover, because Appellants define an under bump metallurgy layer
as providing a barrier, Minda’s barrier multi-layer 106 underneath solder
ball 108, standing alone, can also be considered to be an under bump
metallurgy layer with its Titanium-Tungsten sub-film 113 in direct contact
with cap 102. See Fig. 4; ¶ 0070. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (noting there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a
reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not
required).
Accordingly, we find that Minda’s multi-layer 106, either alone or in
combination with multi-layer 107, may be reasonably interpreted as a multi-
layer under bump metallurgy “layer.”
II.
Appellants also contend that layers 106 and 107 are not in physical
contact with one another because Minda’s layer 111 intervenes. Therefore,
Appellants contend, layers 106 and 107 cannot together constitute the recited
UBM layer because they are not adjacent and do not contact each other.
Reply Br. 6-7.
As noted above, though, claim 1 does not require the UBM layer to
comprise a single layer without sub-films. Claim 1 is broad enough to
include a multi-film layer whose constituent parts include, in combination,
the sub-films of layers 106, layer 111, and the sub-films of layer 107.
III.
Finally, Appellants contend that because the materials specifically
recited in claim 1, “one or a combination of Titanium Tungsten, Chromium
Copper, or Nickel,” form a single UBM layer, it is improper for the
Examiner to assert that the two non-adjacent layers 106 and 107 constitute
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

7
the recited UBM layer. In effect, Appellants contend that the term “layer” of
claim 1 requires a single homogeneous UBM layer.
Even if we were to assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the
claim term “layer” must be interpreted so narrowly as being limited to a
single-film layer, Appellants’ arguments would still be unpersuasive.
Barrier layer 106 includes a lowermost sub-film 113. This sub-film 113 is
composed of Titanium-Tungsten, and it directly contacts high temperature
diffusion barrier metal cap 102 (Minda ¶ [0069]; Fig. 4). As such, sub-film
113, itself, may be reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the contested
“layer” recited in claim 1.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim and all
other claims on appeal because Appellants did not separately argue their
patentability.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 12-15, and 17-20 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2010-002336
Application 11/308,396

8

babc