Ex Parte Foong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2012

11125396 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 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.
11/125,396 05/04/2005 Yin Lye Foong 0180325 2288
25700 7590 06/27/2012
FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
ARORA, AJAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2012 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 YIN LYE FOONG, CHENG SIM KEE, LAY HONG LEE and
MOHAMED SUHAIZAL BIN ABU-HASSAN
____________

Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25-27 and 34
1
. We
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a method for manufacturing
a multi-chip module that mitigates wire breakage. A first semiconductor chip
is mounted and wirebonded to a support substrate. A spacer is coupled to the
first semiconductor chip. A support material is disposed on the spacer and a
second semiconductor chip is positioned on the support material. The second
semiconductor chip is pressed into the support material squeezing it into a
region adjacent the spacer and between the first and second semiconductor
chips. Alternatively, the support material is disposed on the first
semiconductor chip and a die attach material is disposed on the spacer. The
second semiconductor chip is pressed into the die attach material and the
support material, squeezing a portion of the support material over the spacer
edges. Wirebonds are formed between the support substrate and the first and
second semiconductor chips. Abs; see Spec 2, ll. 6-28.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed
limitations in italics):
A method for manufacturing a multi-chip module,
comprising the steps of:
providing a support substrate having first and second
major surfaces, wherein the support substrate has a chip
receiving area and a plurality of bonding pads;

1
Claims 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 28-33 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

3
coupling a first semiconductor chip to the chip receiving
area, the first semiconductor chip having a plurality of bonding
pads;
coupling a first bonding pad of the plurality of bonding
pads of the first semiconductor chip to a first bonding pad of
the plurality of bonding pads of the support substrate;
coupling a spacer to a central portion of the first
semiconductor chip;
disposing an uncured support material on at least one of
the spacer or the first semiconductor chip;
positioning a second semiconductor chip on the uncured
support material, the second semiconductor chip having a first
major surface and a plurality of bonding pads, wherein
positioning the second semiconductor chip squeezes the
uncured support material in a lateral direction, thereby causing
the uncured support material to substantially fill a region
between the first and second semiconductor chips so as to
provide support for a peripheral portion of the second
semiconductor chip; and
coupling a first bonding pad of the plurality of bonding
pads of the second semiconductor chip to a second bonding pad
of the plurality of bonding pads of the support substrate.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25-27 and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goller (6,710,455) and Kim
(2004/0201088).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goller, Kim and Kang (6,943,294).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Goller
and Kim render obvious the invention of claim 1 on the basis that Goller
teaches a hardened support material that defines the spacing between
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

4
semiconductor chips, and teaches away from using an uncured support
material?
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Goller,
Kim and Kang render obvious the invention of claim 11 on the basis that the
proposed modification would render the invention described by Goller
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Rejection Based on Goller and Kim
The Examiner relies on Goller, referring to Goller’s Figure 6
reproduced below, for teaching coupling a spacer 14 to a central portion of a
first semiconductor chip 4, disposing a support material 16 on the first
semiconductor chip 4 and positioning a second semiconductor chip 6 on the
support material 16 or spacer 14. Ans. 5.
Goller’s Figure 6 is reproduced below:

Figure 6 depicts an electronic component.
The Examiner further finds that the positioning of the second semiconductor
chip 6 over the support material 16 is such that the weight of the second
semiconductor chip 6 will exert a force on the support material 16, thereby
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

5
squeezing the support material 16 in a lateral direction. Id. However, the
Examiner finds that Goller does not teach that the support material 16 is an
uncured support material. Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds, referring to Kim’s Figures 10 and 12 reproduced
below, that Kim teaches a first semiconductor chip 210 and a second
semiconductor chip 310 with intervening uncured support material 170, 270.
Ans. 6 (citing ¶ 0043).
Kim’s Figures 10 and 12 are reproduced below:

Figures 10 and 12 depict a manufacturing process for a semiconductor
multi-chip package.
The Examiner further finds that Kim teaches the positioning the second
semiconductor chip 310 squeezes the uncured support material 170, 270
thereby causing the uncured support material to substantially fill a region
between the first and second semiconductor chips. Id. (citing ¶ 0047, Figs.
10-11). The Examiner also finds that Kim’s uncured support material 170, 270
inherently functions to provide support for the peripheral portion of the second
semiconductor chip 310 because any support for the second semiconductor chip
supports (although to variable extents) any and every part of the second
semiconductor chip. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

6
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Goller so that
the support material is an uncured support material, wherein positioning the
second semiconductor chip squeezes the uncured support material in a
lateral direction thereby causing the uncured support material to
substantially fill a region between the first and second semiconductor chips
so as to provide support for a peripheral portion of the second semiconductor
chip. Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that one with ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of using a deformable
material to fill the space between the first and the second semiconductor
chips which may have fragile interconnects, thus mitigating bending of
fragile structures during a subsequent encapsulation process. Ans. 6-7 (citing
¶ 0049).
Appellants argue that when Goller’s second semiconductor chip 6 is
placed on the adhesive frame 16 (i.e., support material), the adhesive frame
16 is in a hardened condition which prevents the adhesive frame 16 from
being squeezed so that it can substantially fill a region between the first and
second semiconductor chips 4 and 6. Br. 8-9 (citing Goller col. 5, ll. 59-62;
Fig. 6). Related to the previous argument, Appellants assert that since
Goller’s Figure 6 shows that the adhesive frame 16 is not situated in close
proximity to a peripheral portion of second semiconductor chip 6 and
because the adhesive frame 16 is in a hardened condition when the
semiconductor chip 6 is placed on the adhesive frame 16, the adhesive frame
is prevented from being squeezed by semiconductor chip 6 to substantially
fill the region between first and second semiconductor chips 4 and 6 and
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

7
cannot provide support for the peripheral portion of the second
semiconductor chip 6. Br. 8-10 (citing Goller col. 5, ll. 59-62).
Appellants’ arguments are unsupported by objective evidence and are
therefore unpersuasive. It is well known that different materials have varying
levels of hardness that may or may not allow extrusion of the material upon
the application of pressure. Appellants do not direct us to objective evidence
to demonstrate that: (1) Goller’s adhesive frame 16, in its hardened
condition is incapable of being squeezed when the second semiconductor 6
is placed on the adhesive frame 16; and (2) Goller’s adhesive frame 16 is
incapable of providing some support for the peripheral portion of the second
semiconductor chip 6. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of
evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782
(CCPA 1977) see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Appellants also argue that since Goller’s adhesive frame 16 is utilized
to define the spacing between the semiconductor chips 4 and 6, Goller
teaches away from utilizing an uncured support material. Br. 9. Appellants
argue that an uncured support material, such as Kim’s interposer material
170, 270, being a spreadable material, would not be reasonably utilized to
define the spacing between the first and second semiconductor chips 4 and 6.
Br. 11.
Appellants do not direct us to objective evidence to demonstrate that:
(1) an uncured material, or Kim’s interposer material 170, 270 is necessarily
a spreadable material; and (2) that one with ordinary skill in the art would
not utilize an uncured material to define the spacing between the first and
second semiconductor chips. Appellants further do not direct us to where
Goller suggests that any developments based on its disclosure would be
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

8
unlikely to produce the objective of Appellants’ invention (i.e., providing a
support material that can be squeezed in a lateral direction to substantially
fill a region between semiconductor chips). See Syntex (U.S.A.) v. Apotex,
Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The teaching of something
different does not constitute a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (if a reference merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
investigation into the invention claimed, it does not teach away).
In addition, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that since
Goller’s adhesive layer 14 (identified by the Examiner as the claimed
spacer) is utilized to bond second semiconductor chip 6 to first
semiconductor chip 4, adhesive layer 14 is not and cannot be a spacer as
required by claim 1. Br. 9. Appellants’ argument is conclusory and does not
meaningfully explain why an adhesive layer cannot be a spacer.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13,
16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25-27 and 34 as obvious over Goller and Kim.
Rejection Based on Goller, Kim and Kang
Claim 11, dependent from claim 1, recites: “the spacer comprises a
third semiconductor chip having first and second major surfaces and at least
one bonding pad.” The Examiner does not rely on Goller or Kim for
teaching the limitations of claim 11. Ans. 14. Instead, the Examiner finds,
referring to Kang’s Figure 1 reproduced below, that Kang teaches a spacer
1401, 1302 and 1402 that comprises a third semiconductor chip 1302 having
first and second major surfaces and a bonding pad 145. Id.
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

9
Kang’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts a die assembly.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
combination of Goller and Kim so that the spacer would comprise a third
semiconductor chip having first and second major surfaces and a bonding
pad and would have been motivated to do so to provide additional circuit
functionality without increasing package size. Ans. 14-15.
Appellants argue that replacing Goller’s adhesive layer 14 (identified
by the Examiner as the claimed spacer) with Kang’s spacer assemblies 1401,
1402 and die 1302, would result in a structure that would be substantially
different functionally and structurally compared to Goller’s disclosed
structure. Br. 13. Appellants assert that, for example, Goller’s adhesive
frame 16 would no longer define the spacing between the semiconductor
chips 4 and 6 and the adhesive frame 16 could no longer operate as intended
in Goller. Br. 13.
Appellants’ argument that the proposed modification would render
Goller unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of
operation is unpersuasive. While the use of a Kang’s spacer comprising a
semiconductor chip 1302 as proposed by the Examiner, may render Goller’s
Appeal 2009-015266
Application 11/125,396

10
adhesive frame 16 redundant, Appellants do not present sufficient persuasive
argument or objective evidence to demonstrate that the proposed
modification would render Goller’s adhesive frame 16 incapable of assisting
with defining the spacing between the semiconductor chips 4 and 6.
For these reasons, in addition to those addressing claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13,
16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25-27 and 34, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-11 as
obvious over Goller, Kim and Kang.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23,
25-27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goller and Kim.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goller, Kim and Kang.
TIME PERIOD
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tj