Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11420853 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte HUN TEAK LEE, JONG KOOK KIM,
CHUL SIK KIM, and KI YOUN JANG
____________

Appeal 2012-000621
Application 11/420,853
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 1-17 as being obvious over Lo2
in view of Wang.3
Appellants present a single argument directed to the language of
independent claims 1, 2, and 11 only (App. Br. 10-14). The dependent claim
features have not been separately argued (id.). The dispositive issue in this
case is whether the Examiner erred in concluding placement of polymer

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as STATS ChipPAC Ltd.
2 U.S. Patent No. 6,885,093 B2, issued April 26, 2005.
3 U.S. Patent No. 7,268,418 B2, issued September 11, 2007.
Appeal 2012-000621
Application 11/420,853

2

bumps directly under a portion of bond sites would have been obvious over
the combined teachings of Lo and Wang.
Based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttal
arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer, we answer this
question in the negative and sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal. We also note the following.
In the prior art, the Examiner finds “polymer bumps” positioned
inside bond sites on the overhanging parts (Lo, Fig. 3, polymer bead 124;
Wang, Figs. 5-6, epoxy beads 350) or outside bond sites on the overhanging
parts (Wang, Figs. 3-4, epoxy beads 250) so that the upper chip “can be
prevented from being tilted more” (id., 3:66-4:3; 4:59-63). Moreover, the
Examiner finds that “placement of the bumps is only a matter of
optimization” (Ans. 11). We note Appellants do not disclose that the
positions of the bond site and the polymer bumps are critical. On the
contrary, Appellants’ Specification teaches “[t]he choice of positions for the
wire bond pads and the polymer support bumps can be adjusted according to
particular design consideration for the particular die or package.” Spec.
[0039]. Further, Appellants admit as prior art that “electrically insulating
block- or bar-shaped spacers 25 are mounted . . . parallel to rows of bond
sites for electrical interconnection of the second (‘upper’) die 224” (Spec.,
[0035], Fig. 2). In other words, Appellants admit the placement of spacers
“directly under a portion of the bond sites on the overhanging parts” is
admitted prior art, albeit these spacers are not “polymer bumps”. As such,
the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness which
Appellants have not persuasively traversed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-000621
Application 11/420,853

3

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

lp