Ex Parte Gasner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

11737395 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN T. GASNER, MICHAEL D. CHURCH, SAMEER D.
PARAB, PAUL E. BAKEMAN, JR., DAVID A. DECROSTA, ROBERT L.
LOMENICK, and CHRIS A. McCARTY
____________

Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-20, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A semiconductor structure, the structure
comprising:

at least one active device located in a substrate and
directly under a bond pad;

a conductor located between the bond pad and the
substrate, the conductor having a plurality of gaps; and

insulating material filling the gaps, the insulating
material being harder than the conductor.

Prior Art
Theurer US 4,892,151 Jan. 9, 1990
Yamazaki US 4,893,151 Jan. 9, 1990
Beilin US 5,916,453 June 29, 1999
Izumitani US 2003/0080428 A1 May 1, 2003
Ma US 6,656,329 B1 Dec. 2, 2003
Ohashi US 6,730,590 B2 May 4, 2004
Fujita US 6,795,675 B2 Sept. 21, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ohashi, Yamazaki, and Beilin.
Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395

3
Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Izumitani, Fujita, Yamazaki, and Ma.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 9, and 12.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8
Appellants contend that the layer M4 shown in Figure 21 of Ohashi
forms different interconnects, or conductors, but does not teach a conductor
having a plurality of gaps as shown in Figure 2 of Appellants’ Specification.
App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner finds that the layer M4 of
Ohashi teaches a single conductor. Ans. 18-19.
We agree with the Examiner. The elements of metal layer M4 shown
in Figure 21 of Ohashi appear to represent a single conductor. For example,
if the elements of metal layer M4 were separate conductors, then one of the
conductors of M4 would be electrically isolated, which defeats the purpose
of having a conductor. Weighing the evidence before us, we find that the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
elements of M4 are a single conductor. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
Figure 21 also shows areas of insulating film 129 separating the
elements of metal layer M4. Although the areas of insulating film do not
appear to be identical to the gaps shown in Figure 2 of Appellants’
Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395

4
Specification, Appellants have not provided a definition of “gaps” that
excludes the areas of insulating film separating elements of conductor M4.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability for
claims 2-4, 6, and 8, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, 19, and 20
Appellants contend that Figure 33 of Izumitani shows separating a
plurality of conductors, but does not teach a single conductor having a
plurality of gaps. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds that the
conductor 117 shown in Figure 33 is a single conductor. Ans. 21-22. We
agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the final
rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants also contend that the three unlabeled structures under the
bond pad shown in Figure 33 are not an active device. App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 3. According to Appellants, the unlabeled structures do not have any
source/drain regions, and are therefore not MOSFET active devices. Reply
Br. 3. The Examiner finds that although one MOSFET 106 shows
source/drain regions 105, the remaining unlabeled structures which do not
explicitly show the source drain regions are still active devices. Ans. 23.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the
Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-8, which
fall with claim 1. Appellants present arguments for claims 10, 11, 19, and
Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395

5
20 similar to those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 11, 13-14), which we find
unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claims 9, 13, 14, 15, and 17
Appellants contend that the combination of Izumitani, Fujita,
Yamazaki, and Ma does not teach “a bond pad formed on the top of the
metal layer directly over the at least one active device.” App. Br. 10. We
find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of
claims 1-8 above.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 15 and
17 (App. Br. 12-13) similar to those presented for claims 9 which we find
unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claims 12 and 16
Appellants contend that the combination of Izumitani, Fujita,
Yamazaki, and Ma does not teach “the at least one insulating layer … has a
thickness selected to prevent cracking” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 11-
12. The Examiner finds that paragraph 120 of Izumitani describes an
insulation layer that offers higher resistance to cracks, which teaches “a
thickness selected to prevent cracking” within the meaning of claim 12.
Ans. 24. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 16 similar
to those presented for claim 12 (App. Br. 13), which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2009-014942
Application 11/737,395

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ohashi, Yamazaki, and Beilin is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Izumitani, Fujita, Yamazaki, and Ma 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis