11451372 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Fujita et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 31, 2012

11451372 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte KOICHI FUJITA, YOJI MARUYAMA, and KENJI HINO ________________ Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 – 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention The invention is directed to a molded package having an improved heat dissipation effect and improved high-frequency characteristics and capable of performing electrical grounding and heat dissipation separately from each other (see Spec. 2, ll. 20 – 24). Exemplary Claim 1. A semiconductor device having a molded package comprising: a semiconductor chip; a thick-film lead electrode having opposed upper and lower surfaces and a thickness between the upper and lower surfaces, the semiconductor chip being die-bonded to the upper surface of the thick-film lead electrode; a thin-film lead electrode having opposed upper and lower surfaces and a thickness between the upper and lower surfaces, the thickness of the thin-film lead electrode being smaller than the thickness of the thick-film lead electrode; a wire bonded to the semiconductor chip and to the upper surface of the thin-film lead electrode; and a molding material encapsulating the semiconductor chip and the wire and only partially encapsulating the thick-film and thin-film lead electrodes, the molding material having opposed upper and lower surfaces, wherein Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 3 a portion of the lower surface of the thick-film lead electrode is exposed at and on the lower surface of the molding material as a heat dissipating electrode, a portion of the upper surface of the thin-film lead electrode is exposed at and on the upper surface of the molding material as an input/output electrode, and a portion of the upper surface of the thick-film lead electrode is exposed at and on the package upper surface of the molding material as a grounding electrode. Evidence and Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carter (US 5,594,234), Komatsu (JP Pub. No. 04- 174547), and Bai (US 2002/0041039 A1) (Ans. 3 – 6).1 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in relying on Bai to teach or suggest limitations of claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Carter to teach, among other things, an encapsulated semiconductor chip having first and second electrodes (see Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Carter Fig. 3)). The Examiner relies on Komatsu to teach or suggest that electrodes on semiconductor chips such as Carter’s may have different thicknesses (i.e., that one electrode can be a thin-film lead electrode and the other a thick-film lead electrode) (see Ans. 5 (citing Komatsu Fig. 2)). The Examiner further relies on Bai’s teaching of grinding an 1 Claims 3 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carter, Komatsu, Bai, and other references (Ans. 7 – 10). However, these claims are not argued separately (see App. Br. 5). Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 4 encapsulant to a desired thickness to show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the structure of Carter and Komatsu to expose the upper surfaces of the first and second electrodes (see Ans. 5 – 6 (citing Bai ¶ [0008])). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in relying on Bai’s method teachings because claims 1 – 8 are all directed to structures (see App. Br. 5 – 6). Appellants submit that “[t]he Board should not permit the mixing of different kinds of prior art, i.e., processing a hypothetical structure based on a method step to suggest a structure” (App. Br. 6). However, the Examiner’s findings are proper as they provide usable evidence of “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Bai’s teachings are not narrowly limited to the method that is described. Prior art references must be considered for everything taught by way of technology; a prior art reference is not limited to the particular invention described and protected. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Appellants argue that “Bai teaches against the use of the kind of wire- bonded semiconductor device packages described by Carter and Komatsu” (App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants submit that Bai’s disclosure shows “that one of skill in the art cannot make a thin semiconductor packaged structure if a semiconductor chip is mounted on lead frame and connected by wires to leads of the lead frame” (App. Br. 7). Appellants emphasize that Bai discloses that “the thickness of the conventional wire-bonded packages are ‘restricted by the height of the wire loop and the bonding area on the substrate . . .’” (App. Br. 6 (citing Bai ¶¶ [0002] and [0003])). However, Bai Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 5 merely acknowledges that the wire loop and bonding area limit how thin a semiconductor package can be made. Appellants do not sufficiently demonstrate how this acknowledgement would discourage or lead an artisan of ordinary skill away from applying Bai’s grinding technique to the extent possible given the constraints of a conventional wire-bonded package. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants also argue that “[i]f the method of Bai is applied to the hypothetical structure constructed from Carter and Komatsu, the operability of that hypothetical structure is destroyed” (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants argue that “Bai cannot be successfully applied to expose, at the upper surface, i.e., the ground surface, of the encapsulant, leads of the Carter lead frame, without severing the bonding wires of Carter” (App. Br. 10). However, Appellants provide no evidence, other than attorney arguments, to support this argument. Appellants’ attorney arguments do not take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 – 8, which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 5). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 8. 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 Appeal 2010-000655 Application 11/451,372 6 tj