Ex Parte Filipovic et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 201612101003 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/101,003 112449 7590 Roark IP 1438 Dahlia Loop San Jose, CA 95126 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 04/10/2008 Zlatko Filipovic 08/19/2016 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. MM103 7341 EXAMINER YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2899 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZLATKO FILIPOVIC and WEIPING WANG Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 26-32, 35--40, and 42--44.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Micro Mobio Corporation (Br. 3). 2 Claims 1-25, 33, 34, and 41 have been canceled. (Br. 32-35 - Claims App'x.) Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to compact packaging for a power amplifier module (Spec. Title). Exemplary claim 26 under appeal reads as follows: 26. A power-amplifier device: printed circuit board comprising an external circuit; a die carrier, comprising: upper electric pads on an upper carrier surface; and lower carrier electric pads on a lower carrier surface, wherein the upper electric pads are paired with the lower electric pads, wherein each pair of the upper electric pads and the lower electric pads is electrically connected through the die carrier; wherein the die carrier is configured to be mounted on the printed circuit board to allow the lower carrier electric pads to be electrically connected to the external circuit of the printed circuit board; and a semiconductor die, comprising: a power amplifier configured to amplify an input signal received at an input node and to output an amplified signal at an output node; upper electric terminals on an upper die surface, wherein two of the upper electric terminals are respectively electrically connected to the input node and the output node; and lower die electric terminals on a lower die surface, where the upper electric terminals are paired with the lower electric terminals, wherein each pair of the upper electric terminals and the lower electric terminals is electrically connected to carry RF signals through the semiconductor die, 2 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 wherein the semiconductor die is configured to be mounted on the die carrier to allow the lower die electric terminals to be electrically connected to the upper electric pads on the die carrier. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 26, 27, 29-32, 35--40, and 42--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichitsubo (US 2006/0290421 Al; Dec. 28, 2006) and Hsieh (US 6,483,186 Bl; Nov. 19, 2002) (Final Act. 3-13). Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichitsubo, Hsieh, and Steddom (US 2004/0080917 Al; Apr. 29, 2004) (Final Act. 13). Appellants' Contentions Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because: (1) Claim 26 requires a die carrier, whereas Ichitsubo's substrate 520 is a semiconductor die with its own passive circuitry and cannot be considered a die carrier (Br. 23-24). (2) Ichitsubo's via holes provide grounding and heat transfer functions, whereas claims 26, 43, and 44 require a connection between upper and lower terminals to carry RF signals (Br. 24--26). (3) The combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh does not teach upper and lower terminals of a semiconductor die being electrically connected to carry RF signals, because Ichitsubo teaches only ground vias through a semiconductor die and Hsieh teaches only non-RF signal vias through an 3 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 insulating substrate (Br. 26-28). The Examiner has not articulated a motivation to modify Ichitsubo to put RF signal vias through the semiconductor die itself (id.). ( 4) The combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh is improper, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be lead away from using the uneven, crenelated active surface of Ichitsubo' s semiconductor die in the flip-chip structure with a downward-facing active surface of Hsieh (Br. 28-29). ( 5) Ichitsubo' s via holes are designed for optimal grounding and heat dissipation, and modifying Ichitsubo' s die structure as suggested by the Examiner would change its principle of operation, thus the combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh is improper (Br. 29-30). 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Br. 16----'30) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' above contentions (1}---(5). We adopt as our own 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-13) and 2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-5) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 3 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 27-32, 35--40, and 42. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further. 4 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 Issue 1: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding Ichitsubo teaches "a die carrier" as recited in claim 26? Appellants' contention (1) that Ichitsubo's substrate 520 is not a die carrier does not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants' disclosure of "die carrier" does not preclude a supporting substrate that contains passive circuitry, and therefore Ichitsubo's substrate 520 is a die carrier that carries active semiconductor die 530 (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3 (citing Ichitsubo Fig. 5; i-f 52)) (see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution)). Issue 2: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh teaches "each pair of the upper electric terminals and the lower electric terminals is electrically connected to carry RF signals through the semiconductor die" as recited in claim 26, and the similar limitations of claims 43 and 44? Appellants' contentions (2) and (3), regarding the purpose of the vias in Ichitsubo and Hsieh, are not persuasive of Examiner error, because Appellants are essentially attacking each reference individually where the rejection is based on the combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references.")). The Examiner finds Ichitsubo 5 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 teaches RF signals are sent from upper terminals of a power amplifier on the top surface of semiconductor die 530 to lower terminals 538 on the bottom surface of the die; however, Ichitsubo is silent as to how these electrical connections are made (Ans. 3--4 (citing Ichitsubo Fig. 5; iii! 51, 55-57)). The Examiner relies on Hsieh to teach the concept of vias passing through a substrate to connect terminals on the top surface of the substrate to terminals on the bottom surface (Ans. 4 (citing Hsieh Figs. 5 and 6; col. 4, 11. 13-23)). When combining references, "a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would have recognized the ability to use through-substrate vias, such as the vias of Hsieh, to form the required electrical connections between the upper and lower terminals of Ichitsubo' s active die 530. Further, we find the Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness:" using through-vias to conduct the RF signals of Ichitsubo would have avoided parasitic conductance and capacitance (Ans. 4 (citing Hsieh col. 4, 11. 13-23). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We observe that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings in response to Appellants' contentions (2) and (3). Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, in light of the discussion above, we find no error in the Examiner's rejections. 6 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 Issue 3: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 26, 43, and 44 over Ichitsubo and Hsieh because the references are not properly combinable? Appellants' contentions (4) and (5) that Hsieh teaches away from the combination and would change the principle of operation of Ichitsubo are not persuasive of Examiner error in the rejections, because Appellants have mischaracterized the Examiner's rejection. The proffered combination of Ichitsubo and Hsieh does not require Ichitsubo' s active die to be used in a flip-chip configuration, rather the combination incorporates the concept of Hsieh's through-vias to conduct Ichitsubo's RF signals through the die, while maintaining the chip configuration of Ichitsubo (Ans. 4--5). Further, the combination of Hsieh with Ichitsubo does not require changing or removing Ichitsubo' s grounding or heat dissipation vias, rather it incorporates additional vias to conduct the RF signals between terminals (Ans. 3-5). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 26, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ichitsubo and Hsieh. 7 Appeal2015-004136 Application 12/101,003 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 26-32, 35--40, and 42- 44 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation