Ex Parte Ha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

11536502 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 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.
11/536,502 09/28/2006 Jong-Woo Ha 27-290 9115
22898 7590 01/30/2012
LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
EXAMINER
PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2012 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 JONG-WOO HA and BUMJOON HONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

5. W
parti
techn
repro
pack
lead-
bum
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Appellan
e have jur
We AFF

The clai
cularly to
ology. (S
duced bel
Figure 2
age system
finger sys
p bond 124
01841
/536,502
ts appeal
isdiction u
IRM.
ms genera
an integrat
pec. Para.
ow:
depicts a
200 inclu
tem 118, a
, and a sta
STATEM
under 35 U
nder 35 U
THE I
lly relate to
ed circuit
[0004].)
cross-secti
ding a fir
second le
cking sup
2
ENT OF C
.S.C. § 13
.S.C. § 6(
NVENTIO
integrate
package sy
Figure 2 o
onal view
st device 1
ad finger s
port system
ASE
4 from a r
b).
N
d circuits,
stem emp
f Appellan
of an integ
02, a seco
ystem 120
202. (P
ejection o
and more
loying bu
ts’ Specifi

rated circ
nd device
, a wire bo
ara. [0012
f claims 1
mp bond
cation is
uit
104, a firs
nd 122, a
], [0040].)
-
t

Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit package system comprising:
providing an electrical interconnect system including a first
lead-finger system and a second lead-finger system;
connecting a first device to the first lead-finger system with a
wire bond;
stacking a second device over the first device; and
connecting the second device to the second lead-finger system
with a bump bond.
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 15.)

THE REJECTIONS2
(I) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Akram et al. (US 2005/0189623 A1,
published September 1, 2005). (Examiner’s Answer, dated July
22, 2009, “Ans.” 3-4.)

(II) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Nagao (US 6,677,674 B2, issued January 13,
2004) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2004/0021230 A1, published
February 5, 2004 ). (Ans. 4-5.)

1 Appeal Brief filed May 19, 2009, hereinafter “App. Br.” and “Claims
App’x,” respectively.
2 Appellants also argue the Examiner’s objection to the title. (App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Brief, dated September 23, 2009, “Reply Br.” 3-4.) However, as
pointed out by the Examiner, whether the title has been properly objected to
is petitionable subject matter and not appealable subject matter. (Ans. 2.)
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Accordingly, the Examiner’s objection to the title is
not before us on appeal.
App
App

App
print
indic
Akra
foun
20 o
cann
print
cont
seco
(both
discl
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Rejectio
The Exa
ellants’ cla
Figure 1
ed circuit
ate the co
m. (See A
d that elem
f Figure 1
Appellan
ot be part
ed conduc
end that A
nd lead-fin
designate
osed in Ak
01841
/536,502
n I
miner foun
ims 1, 2, 4
above is a
board asse
rresponden
kram, Par
ent 30 of
correspon
ts argue th
of a lead-f
tive eleme
kram does
ger system
d as 44) p
ram as on
I
d that Fig
, and 5, as
cross-sec
mbly, whi
ce betwee
a. [0020];
Figure 1 c
ds to a sec
at the top
inger syste
nt on a sub
not disclo
,” as recit
ointed to b
e substrate
4
SSUES
ure 1 of A
follows:
tional sche
ch has bee
n the claim
Ans. 3, Ap
orrespond
ond device
ographic c
m becaus
strate. (A
se “a first
ed in claim
y the Exa
. (App. B
kram depi

matic illu
n annotate
ed eleme
pendix.)
s to a first
. (Ans. 3.
ontact 46
e it is not a
pp. Br. 15
lead-finge
1, becau
miner in a
r. 19.)
cts all asp
stration of
d by the E
nts and tho
The Exam
device and
)
taught by
lead, but
.) Appell
r system a
se the two
nnotated F
ects of

Akram’s
xaminer t
se in
iner also
element
Akram
rather a
ants furthe
nd a
“systems”
igure 1 are
o
r

Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

5
Regarding claim 2, Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the claimed stacking support system and bump
bonds are two disparate structures. (App. Br. 17.) Appellants also argue
that the claims require that the stacking support system be part of the
electrical interconnect system. (App. Br. 13, 17.)

Rejection II
The Examiner found that Nagao discloses the limitations of claim 1,
except that Nagao fails to disclose that a bump bond is used to connect a
second device to the second lead-finger system. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner
found, however, that Tsai teaches that connecting a device using a bump
bond greatly reduces the stacking height of the package. (Ans. 5.) The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to use Tsai’s bump bond to connect Nagao’s second device to the
second lead-finger system to reduce the stacking height of the package.
(Ans. 5.)
Appellants argue that Nagao does not disclose a first and second lead
finger system because the element pointed to by the Examiner is merely a
lead and not a lead-finger system. (App. Br. 20-21.) Appellants also argue
that the arc height of a bond wire within Nagao’s configuration would not be
a concern for one of ordinary skill in the art such that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have replaced the bond wire in Nagao with a bump bond as
disclosed in Tsai. (App. Br. 22-23.)
Therefore, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Akram discloses
“providing an electrical interconnect system including a first lead-
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

6
finger system and a second lead-finger system,” as recited in claim
1?
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the bottom row of
topographic contacts depicted in Figure 1 of Akram discloses a
“stacking support system,” as recited in claim 2?
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the lead disclosed in
Nagao is a “second lead finger system,” as recited in claim 1?
(4) Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been
obvious to employ a bump bond to connect Nagao’s second device
to the second lead-finger system in Nagao in view of Tsai?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court explained that “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . §103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

7
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Appellants’ Specification discloses an electrical interconnect
system 116, which includes a first lead-finger system 118 and a
second lead finger system 120. (Para. [0028]; Fig. 1.)
2. Appellants’ Specification discloses:
By way of example, the electrical interconnect system 116
may include a structure with dual in-line leads, quad flat
pack leads, gull-wing leads, j-leads, leadless leads that wrap
around the package edge to maintain a low profile, downset
leads, pin leads, and/or ball leads. However, it is to be
understood that the present invention is not to be limited to
these examples. In accordance with the invention, the
electrical interconnect system 116 may include any electrical
interconnection structure (i.e. - leads) that facilitates the
incorporation of the integrated circuit package system 100
into a higher-level assembly, such as a printed circuit board
or other suitable structure for supporting the integrated
circuit package system 100.

(Para. [0033].)

3. Akram discloses:
The intermediate substrate 40 is positioned between the first
active surface 22 of the first semiconductor die 20 and the
second active surface 32 of the second semiconductor die 30
such that a first surface 42 of the intermediate substrate 40
faces the first active surface 22 and such that a second
surface 44 of the intermediate substrate 40 faces the second
active surface 32. For reasons illustrated in further detail
herein, the intermediate substrate 40 defines a passage 45
extending from the first surface 42 of the intermediate
substrate 40 to the second surface 44 of the intermediate
substrate 40. The intermediate substrate 40 further includes
a network of conductive contacts 46 formed thereon. As is
described in further detail herein the conductive contacts 46,
which may embody printed conductive lines, wires, traces,
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

8
and combinations thereof, electrically couple the various
components of the printed circuit board assembly 10 to the
printed circuit board 50 and to each other.

(Para. [0023]; Fig. 1.)

4. Akram discloses that a “conductive line may comprise an
electrically conductive lead, trace, bond wire, etc.” (Para. [0025].)
5. Figures 1 and 4 of Akram depict a plurality of topographic contacts
12, which are located between a plurality of semiconductor dies.
(Fig. 1; Fig. 4; Para. [0034].)
6. Nagao discloses a lead 11 comprising a front and rear surface,
which surfaces are separately connected to first and second
semiconductor chips. (Col. 6, ll. 47-52; Fig. 2.)
7. Nagao discloses a configuration wherein electrode pads on four
sides of two stacked semiconductor chips can be split into two
groups such that one group can be used for bump bonding and
another group for wire bonding. (Col. 9, ll. 52-56; Fig. 6C.)
8. Tsai discloses that due to the arc height of a wire bond, a bump
bond can help to reduce stacking height in a stacking
semiconductor packaging device. (Para. [0031].)

ANALYSIS
Issue One
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Akram fails to
disclose a first and second lead finger system because the topographic
contacts of Akram are not leads. Appellants’ Specification broadly discloses
an electrical interconnect system, which includes a first and second lead
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

9
finger system, as including any lead that facilitates the incorporation of the
integrated circuit package system into a higher-level assembly. (FF 1-2.)
The Specification does not provide a specific definition of “lead-finger”
which would limit it to a specific structure. Appellant has not provided
sufficient evidence that the leads described in Akram are not lead-fingers as
recited in the claims. In this regard, Appellants’ arguments that the present
claims are distinguished over Akram because Akram fails to disclose a
leadframe are not persuasive because insufficient evidence has been
presented to distinguish the two. (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Brief 4.) Further,
contrary to Appellants’ contention, Akram discloses that its topographic
contacts are leads. Akram discloses that its network of conductive contacts
comprise printed conductive lines, which comprise electrically conductive
leads. (FF 3-4.) The Specification clearly states that “any electrical
interconnection structure (i.e. - leads) that facilitates the incorporation of the
integrated circuit package system 100 into a higher-level assembly” can be
used. (FF 2.)
Akram further discloses a passage in substrate 40 that creates two
distinct areas, which result in separate sections containing conductive
contacts or leads. (See Ans. 3, Appendix; FF 3.) These two separate
sections of leads formed on the substrate would reasonably be understood to
be first and second lead finger systems that facilitate the incorporation of
Akram’s package into a higher-level assembly since they are separate areas
and functionally serve as electrical interconnections as defined in the
Specification. (FF 2.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Akram
discloses a first and second lead finger system as recited in Appellants’
claim 1.
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

10

Issue Two
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Akram does
not disclose a stacking support system. Appellants’ Specification does not
define any particular structure corresponding to a “stacking support system”
as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, we interpret a stacking support system to
be any structure that is capable of providing support to the package system
when two or more packages are stacked on one another.
As depicted in Figures 1 and 4, Akram discloses additional
topographical contacts between stacked packages. (FF 5.) Figure 4 shows
that the larger topographic contacts 12 disclosed in Akram located between
packages, act as a stacking support system for multiple semiconductor dies.
(FF 5.) As further depicted in Figure 1, the large topographic contacts 12
are attached to both lead finger systems as defined above, as required in
claim 2. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Akram discloses a “stacking
support system,” as recited in claim 2.

Issue Three
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that, while Nagao
discloses a lead, Nagao fails to disclose a lead finger system. As discussed
above, Appellants’ Specification broadly discloses an electrical interconnect
system, which includes a first and second lead finger system, where the lead
finger systems may be any lead that facilitates the incorporation of the
integrated circuit package system into a higher-level assembly. (FF 1-2.)
As the Examiner found, Nagao discloses a lead comprising a first and
second surface separately connected to semiconductor chips. (Ans. 5, 14;
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

11
FF 6.) Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence to support
their argument. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a
prima facie case). Thus, the lead finger systems recited in the claims read on
the leads disclosed in Nagao.

Issue Four
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that it would not have
been obvious to combine Tsai’s bump bond with Nagao’s structure to arrive
at the integrated circuit package system recited in the claims. Appellants
have not provided any evidentiary support for their argument that the arc
height of a bond wire within Nagao’s configuration would not be a concern
for one of ordinary skill in the art. In contrast, the Examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to combine Tsai’s bump bond with the
teachings of Nagao to reduce the stacking height of the package is supported
by the evidence of record. As the Examiner found, Tsai discloses that due to
the arc height of a wire bond, a bump bond can help to reduce stacking
height in a stacking semiconductor packaging device. (FF 8.) We have not
been directed to persuasive evidence of record that the arc height of a wire
bond would not also have been a concern in Nagao. Further, Nagao also
suggests the use of both bump and wire bonds in packaging devices. (FF 7.)
Thus, we find the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2010-001841
Application 11/536,502

12

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Akram discloses “providing
an electrical interconnect system including a first lead-finger system and a
second lead-finger system,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the bottom row of
topographic contacts depicted in Figure 1 of Akram discloses a “stacking
support system,” as recited in claim 2.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the lead disclosed in Nagao is
a “second lead finger system,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to employ a bump bond to connect Nagao’s second device to the
second lead finger system in Nagao in view of Tsai.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Akram.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nagao in view of Tsai.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED