Ex Parte Hauser et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10685308 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 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.
10/685,308 10/14/2003 Wolfgang Hauser 1001/0144PUS1 9841
60601 7590 03/28/2012
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2012 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 WOLFGANG HAUSER, VIKTOR HEITZLER,
and CHRISTIAN JOOS
____________________

Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THU A. DANG,
and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 5, 7-11, 13, 17, and 19-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electronic component including
a leadframe, composed of a platform, at least one electronic member is
located on the platform, and a housing that encloses the electronic member
and the platform; wherein, at least one support region is provided to support
the platform during the fabrication process for the housing and at least one
section of the at least one support region projects from the housing
(Abstract).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An electronic component, comprising:

a leadframe;

a platform;

an electronic member located on the platform and
connected to the leadframe by electrical conductors; and

a housing which encloses the electronic member and the
platform, where first and second support regions each
comprising a lobe are provided on the platform on
corresponding peripheral portions to support the platform
during fabrication of the housing, where the housing has upper
Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

3
and lower support indentations formed therein that expose an
upper surface and a lower surface, respectively, of an outer
peripheral portion of each lobe whereby each lobe supported
the platform during fabrication of the housing, and at least a
portion of the first and second support regions project beyond
the housing subsequent to the fabrication of the housing.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Popovic US 5,247,202 Sep. 21, 1993
Kawanabe US 5,458,158 Oct. 17, 1995
Song US 6,197,615 B1 Mar. 06, 2001
Miyaki US 2001/0010949 A1 Aug. 02, 2001
Totokawa JP 361095536 A May 14, 1986

Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries 294 (Ottenheimer
Publishers 1981)

Claims 1, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Totokawa.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Song.
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Miyaki.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Kawanabe.
Claims 13, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Popovic.
Claims 17, 20, 22-25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Popovic and Song.
Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

4
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Totokawa in view of Popovic, Song, and Kawanabe.1

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that:
1. Totokawa teaches or would have suggested “a housing which
encloses the electronic member and the platform, [having] … at least a
portion of the first and second support regions project beyond the housing
subsequent to the fabrication of the housing” (claim 1, emphasis added); and
2. the combination of Totokawa and Song teaches or would have
suggested “a transition zone located between the lobe and a remaining
portion of the platform, where at least one notch-shaped depression is
provided within the transition zone” (claim 5, emphasis added).

1 We note that a proposed amendment to claim 19 has been submitted by
Appellant in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5); however, the Examiner refuses to
enter such proposed amendment and finds the Brief to be noncompliant
because it was accompanied with an amendment that was not limited to
canceling claims (Advisory Action 2). Accordingly, on this appeal, we will
only consider claim 19 without the amendment proposed in the Reply Brief.
Further, we note that claim 19 depends from claim 18, which has been
canceled. We consider this to be an oversight by Appellant, wherein claim
19 is intended to be dependent on non-canceled independent claim 17 from
which canceled claim 18 depends.
Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Totokawa
1. Totokawa discloses a method of resin-sealed type
semiconductor device having a support plate 2 having U-shaped notches 9;
wherein, a thin part 2b of the support plate 2 extends parallel to the thick
part 2a of support plate 2 (Figs. 3, 5, and 7; p. 4, ll. 12-15).
2. The support plate 2 is exposed on the outside in the recessed
parts 21, 22, 23, and 24 (Fig. 8; p. 5, ll. 7-10); wherein, the thin part of the
2b of the support plate is exposed on the top inner wall of the recessed parts
23 and 24 (Figs. 8 and 9; p. 5, ll. 21-24).
Song
3. Song discloses a semiconductor device package having a die
pad 10 including dimples 30 formed along its upper 10a and lower 10b
surfaces to enhance the bonding strength between the die pad 10 and the
semiconductor device 14 and dimples formed along its leadframe 40 along
its upper 40a and 40b and lower 40c surfaces (Fig. 3; col.3, ll. 50-65).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7, and 8
Appellants provide arguments with respect to independent claim 1
(App. Br. 9-11). Appellants do not provide arguments with respect to
dependent claims 7 and 8 (App. Br. 11). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
being representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

6
Appellants contend that “Totokawa fail[s] to reveal any structure that
extends beyond the housing” (App. Br. 9) because “the ends 2b of the
support plate 2 are incapable of projecting beyond the resin body 20 [since]
the resin-filled portion A caps the ends 2b” (App. Br. 11).
However, the Examiner finds that “the supports/tabs/lobes (2b) stretch
out/ protrude and are exposed past the housing sidewall portions (e.g. holes)
as shown in Figure 9, the tabs extend beyond a portion of its
housing/package” (Ans. 18). The Examiner notes that “nothing in the claim
language precludes the supports from still extending/protruding past the
housing while also having sections still covered with encapsulating material”
(id. ).
Although Appellants filed a Reply Brief, we will not consider it for
review since the Examiner found the Brief to be noncompliant because it
was accompanied with an amendment that was not limited to canceling
claims (Advisory Act. 2).
Totokawa discloses a method of fabricating a resin-sealed type
semiconductor device having a support plate including a thin part that
extends parallel to a thick part of the support plate (FF 1). After fabrication
of the resin molding, a portion of the support plate (the thin part) is exposed
to the exterior of the semiconductor device (FF 2).
App
App

fram
2 inc
resin
supp
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Totoka
Figure 3
e prior to t
ludes a th

Figure 8
housing 2
ort plate 2

01987
/685,308
wa’s Figur
depicts a
he moldin
in part 2b
depicts a
0 with rec
(p. 5, ll. 7
es 3, 8, an
perspectiv
g of a resi
(p. 4, ll. 12
perspectiv
essed part
-10).
7
d 9 (annot
e view of t
n housing
-15).
e view of t
s 21-24 th
ated) are r
he suppor
20; where
he power
at expose t
eproduced

t plate 2 an
in, the sup

transistor
he thin pa
below:
d lead
port plate
having
rt 2b of the
App
App

trans
wher
20 in
seco
are t
part
anno
that
the h
Exam
still
cove
supp
the h
Thus
rejec
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Figure 9
istor show
ein, the th
notches 2

We find
nd support
hus expose
2b extends
tated in Fi
“the suppo
ousing sid
iner that
extending/
red with e
Accordin
ort region
ousing” (c
, we find t
ting claim
01987
/685,308
(annotate
n in Figur
in part 2b
1 and 22 (
that the th
regions lo
d outside
beyond th
gure 9. Th
rts/tabs/lo
ewall port
“nothing i
protruding
ncapsulati
gly, we fi
s project b
laim 1) re
hat Appel
1 and clai
d) depicts
e 8 that di
of the supp
p. 5, ll. 21
in parts 2b
cated in n
of resin ho
e resin ho
at is, we f
bes (2b) st
ions (e.g.
n the claim
past the h
ng materia
nd that “at
eyond the
ads on Tot
lants have
ms 7 and
8
a top view
scloses a p
ort plate 2
-24).
of platfor
otches 21
using 20.
using 20 b
ind no err
retch out/
holes)” (A
language
ousing wh
l” (id.).
least a po
housing su
okawa’s th
not shown
8 dependin
of a porti
ortion of t
extends b
m 2 comp
and 22 and
We find f
y a distan
or in the E
protrude a
ns. 18). W
precludes
ile also ha
rtion of th
bsequent
in part 2b
that the E
g therefro

on of the p
he resin ho
eyond the
rise the fir
that thin
urther that
ce of “x” a
xaminer’s
nd are exp
e agree w
the suppo
ving secti
e first and
to the fabr
of the pla
xaminer e
m over To
ower
using 20;
housing
st and
parts 2b
the thin
s we have
finding
osed past
ith the
rts from
ons still
second
ication of
tform 2.
rred in
tokawa.

Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

9
Claim 5
Appellants contend that Song discloses “the dimples 30 are formed
over the majority of the surfaces l0a and l0b of the die pad 10, except for the
ends of the of the die pad;” therefore, “according to a fair and proper
reading, Song does not disclose or suggest ‘a transition zone located
between the lobe and a remaining portion of the platform’” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants assert that if “Song did disclose such a transition zone, it would
be located between the surface covered with dimples 30 and the ends of the
die pad, which would … be devoid of dimples 30” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “Song was a secondary reference
and not relied on for the teaching of a transition zone;” “[r]ather, Song was
relied for the limited teaching of forming notches along lead frame
elements” (Ans. 20). The Examiner notes that “[Appellants] fail[] to
recognize that 40C still includes notches in the same areas that [Appellants]
considered a transition zone” (id.).
As noted supra, Totokawa discloses that the thin parts 2b of platform
2 comprise the first and second support regions of the lobes located in
notches 21 and 22 wherein thin parts 2b are thus exposed outside of resin
housing 20 (FF 1 and 2). We find that the thin parts comprise a transition
zone located between the lobe and the remaining portion of the platform.
That is we find that “a transition zone located between the lobe and a
remaining portion of the platform” (claim 5) reads on Totokawa’s thin parts
2b.
In addition, Song discloses a semiconductor device package having a
die pad and leadframe including dimples formed along their upper and lower
surfaces (FF 3). We find that the dimples are notch-shaped depressions.
Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

10
That is we find that “where at least one notch-shaped depression is
provided” (claim 5) reads on Song’s dimples.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Totokawa and Song at
least suggests providing “a transition zone located between the lobe and a
remaining portion of the platform, where at least one notch-shaped
depression is provided within the transition zone,” as specifically required
by claim 5.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Totokawa
in view of Song.
Claims 9-11, 13, 17, and 19-28
Appellants argue that claims 9-11, 13, 17, and 19-28 are patentable
over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 13-16).
As noted supra, however, we see no deficiencies in Totokawa. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11 over Totokawa
in further view of Miyaki; of claim 10 over Totokawa in further view of
Kawanabe; of claims 13, 21, and 26 over Totokawa in further view of
Popovic; of claims 17, 20, 22-25, 27, and 28 over Totokawa in further view
of Popovic and Song; and of claims 19 over Totokawa in further view of
Popovic, Song, and Kawanabe.

Appeal 2010-001987
Application 10/685,308

11
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11, 13, 17, and 19-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb