Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

14090036 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/090,036 11/26/2013
112165 7590 06/22/2018
STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YaojianLin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2515.0291 DIV 8512
EXAMINER
BOOKER, VICKI B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AOJIAN LIN, XIA FENG, KANG CHEN,
and JIANMIN FANG
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, and 24--31.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, STATS ChipPAC Pte. Ltd., which according to
the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 1)
filed December 21, 2016.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed November 26, 2013,
the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated July 21, 2016, Appellant's Appeal
Brief (Appeal Br.) filed December 21, 2016, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.)
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor devices
including, among other things, a protective pattern (see, e.g., claims 1, 8, 14,
and 21 ). The Inventors disclose that erosion of a passivation layer can occur
when a portion of the passivation layer is removed from a semiconductor die
to expose contact pads. Spec. ,r 9. According to the Inventors, this can
make the passivation layer undesirably thin, especially at edges and comers
of the semiconductor die. Id. In view of this, the Inventors disclose a
semiconductor device that includes a protective pattern that maintains an
insulating layer between a conductive layer and the protective pattern. Id. ,r
10.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 3 Limitations at issue are italicized
and some indentations have been added.
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor die;
a conductive layer formed in contact with a swface of the
semiconductor die in a perimeter region of the semiconductor
die·
' a protective pattern formed in contact with the swface of
the semiconductor die and separated from the conductive layer,
wherein the protective pattern extends along a first edge of the
semiconductor die to a comer of the semiconductor die and
further continues with an angle around the comer and along a
second edge of the semiconductor die adjacent to the first edge
of the semiconductor die; and
a first insulating layer formed over the surface of the
semiconductor die and between the conductive layer and
dated May 9, 2017, and Appellant's Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 10,
2017.
3 Appeal Br. 16.
2
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
protective pattern at the comer of the semiconductor die.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 4---6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by
Akram· 4
'
II. Claims 3, 10, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Akram in view of Augur; 5 and
III. Claims 7, 13, 20, 27-29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Akram in view of Lee. 6
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 4---6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Akram. Appellant
argues claims 1 and 4---6 as a first group; claims 8, 11, and 12 as a second
group; claims 14, 15, 17-19, and 30 as a third group; and claims 21, 22, 24,
and 26 as a fourth group. Appeal Br. 6-14. We address these groups below.
Claims 1 and 4---6
The Examiner finds Akram discloses a semiconductor die 30, a
conductive layer 14 formed in contact with a surface of the semiconductor
die 30, a protective pattern 58 and 64, and a first insulating layer I32A-
132C. Final Act. 3--4.
4 Akram, US 2004/0256740 Al, published December 23, 2004 ("Akram").
5 Augur et al., US 7,235,867 Bl, issued June 26, 2007 ("Augur").
6 Lee, US 5,811,874 A, issued September 22, 1998 ("Lee").
3
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
Appellant contends Akram's protective structures 58, 64 are not
formed in contact with the same surface of Akram's semiconductor die 30 as
the conductive structure 14. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner responds by
stating:
The Examiner concurs with Appellant that 'Protective structures
5 8, 64 in Akram are not formed on the same surface of
semiconductor die 30 as conductive structure 14. '. However,
Examiner finds no such feature recited by Appellants Claims 1
and 4---6.
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further explains that Akram's
conductive structure 14 is in electrical contact with the active surface 50 of
the semiconductor die 30 via Akram's bond wire 44 and bond pad 40 and
protective structures 58, 64 are in direct physical contact with surfaces 52,
54 of the die 30. Id. at 2--4.
Appellant argues there is only one surface recited in claim 1, which
recites "a conductive layer formed in contact with a surface of the
semiconductor die" and "a protective pattern formed in contact with the
surface of the semiconductor die" and thus requires the protective pattern to
be formed in contact with the same die surface as the conductive layer.
Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. The recitation in claim 1, "a
protective pattern formed in contact with the surface of the semiconductor
die," does not merely rely upon the language "a conductive layer formed in
contact with a surface of the semiconductor die" for antecedent basis of "the
surface," but refers to the same surface (as also depicted in Fig. 5c and
described at Spec. ,r,r 34--36). Therefore, the language of claim 1 requires
the protective pattern to be formed in contact with the same semiconductor
4
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
die surface as the conductive layer. The Examiner's
interpretation/determination to the contrary is unreasonable. "[D]uring
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
We now tum to Akram's disclosure to determine if claim 1
encompasses Akram' s embodiments. Figure 27 of Akram is reproduced
below.
56
l
J
l
14 16
56
38 42
l
f )
/ (
......,.--,-1---;.- - - - ·- +--,--..+----..--...-,1-............ v ..... -~,...-,....-........
r· 27 rig~ . ·
///"
Figure 27 is a cross-sectional view of a semiconductor package
As depicted in Figure 27, the conductive structure 14 is connected to
the active surface 50 of the semiconductor die 30 via a lead 38, a bond wire
44, and a bond pad 40. Akram ,r,r 62, 66. Akram discloses protective
structure 58 is formed on a back side 52 of the die 30 and protective
5
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
structures 64 may be formed on the lateral, peripheral edges 54 of the die.
Id. ,r 86. Thus, protective structures 58, 64 are not formed in contact with
the same surface of the semiconductor die 30 as the conductive structure 14,
as recited in claim 1. Claims 4---6 depend from claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of
claims 1 and 4---6 over Akram.
Claims 8, 11, and 12
Independent claim 8 recites a semiconductor die comprising, among
other things, a conductive layer formed on a surface of a semiconductor die
and a protective pattern formed on the surface of the semiconductor die.
Similarly to claim 1, the Examiner determines claim 8 also does not require
that the protective pattern be formed on the same surface as the conductive
layer. Ans. 9-10.
Appellant asserts claim 8 requires the protective pattern is formed on
the same surface of the semiconductor die as the conductive layer. Appeal
Br. 10-11. We agree with Appellant. For the reasons discussed above with
regard to claim 1, Akram does not disclose a protective layer formed on the
same surface of the semiconductor die as a conductive layer, as recited in
claim 8. Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 8.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of
claims 8, 11, and 12 over Akram.
Claims 14, 15, 17-19, and 30
Independent claim 14 recites a semiconductor device comprising,
among other things, a semiconductor die, a first insulating layer, and a
protective pattern that "extends along first and second adjacent edges of the
semiconductor die to maintain the first insulating layer." Appeal Br. 18-19.
6
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
The Examiner finds Akram's protective structures 58, 64 extend along
the back side 52 and adjacent lateral edge 54 of Akram's semiconductor die
30 and would inherently function to maintain the insulating layer formed by
slices 132A-132C. Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends the protective structures 58, 64 do not extend
along first and second adjacent edges of Akram's semiconductor die 30 to
maintain an insulating layer because protective structure 58 is formed on the
back side 52 of the die 30 and thus would have no influence on an insulating
layer formed by slices 132A-132C. Appeal Br. 12-13.
The Examiner explains that Akram's protective structures 58, 64 are
in direct physical contact with sides 52, 54 of the semiconductor die 30 and
would function to maintain Akram's insulating layer because the structure
disclosed by Akram is substantially identical to that recited in claim 14.
Ans. 11-12. We agree. Akram discloses a structure substantially identical
to that claimed and Akram even describes layers 5 8, 64 as "protective
structures." Akram ,r 86. Moreover, protective structure 64 need not be
present on a single lateral edge 54 but may be present on multiple lateral
edges 54. Id. ,r 86. Such lateral edges 54 are adjacent to one another and
adjacent to the dielectric layer 56, as depicted in Figures 26 and 27 of
Akram. As a result, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error
in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and recites "wherein the protective
pattern is segmented." Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner finds protective
structures 58, 64 provide a protective pattern that is segmented. Final Act. 6.
Appellant asserts "[ c ]onductive structures 5 8, 64 in Akram are continuous
with no break in the structures and thus are not segmented." Appeal Br. 13.
7
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
Thus, Appellant appears to argue that a "segmented" protective pattern may
not be continuous, even though the ordinary meaning of "segmented" does
not necessarily exclude such a meaning. 7 An applicant "may demonstrate an
intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term
by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope." In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant's
disclosure does not demonstrate an intention to define "segmented" in a
manner that would exclude a continuous layer of segments, such as the
segments embodied by the protective structures 58, 64 of Akram. Therefore,
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that protective structures 58, 64 provide a segmented protective
pattern.
Claims 15, 17, 18, and 30 depend from claim 14 and are not
separately argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 13.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims 14, 15, 17-19, and 30 over
Akram.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 26
Appellant does not present arguments for claims 21, 22, or 24. Id.
We therefore summarily affirm the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 21,
22, and 24 over Akram.
7 The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "segmented" as "divided into or
composed of segments or sections" and cites segmented worms.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry for "segmented," http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/segmented (last visited June 15, 2018).
8
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
Claim 26 depends from independent claim 21 and recites "wherein the
protective pattern extends along first and second adjacent edges of the
semiconductor die and around a comer of the semiconductor die between the
first and second adjacent edges." Id. at 20. The Examiner finds Akram's
protective structures 58, 64 extend along adjacent edges 52, 54 and around a
comer of Akram's semiconductor die 30. Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends the protective structures 58, 64 do not extend
along first and second adjacent edges of a semiconductor die and around a
comer of the die between the adjacent edges "to maintain the first insulating
layer" because protective structure 58 are formed on the back side 52 of the
die 30 and would have no effect on the insulating layer formed by slices
132A-132C. Appeal Br. 13-14.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because claim 26 does not
recite that the protective pattern functions "to maintain the first insulating
layer," such as in claim 14. Nevertheless, the protective structures 58, 64
extend along first and second adjacent edges and around a comer of
Akram's semiconductor die, whether between protective structures 58 and
64 on edges 52 and 54 or between the protective structures 64 that would be
on adjacent lateral edges 64 in Figure 26 of Akram. As described above
with regard to claim 14, such protective structures are substantially similar
in structure to Appellant's and would therefore function to maintain
Akram's insulating layer 56.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, and 26 over
Akram.
9
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
Re} ections II and III
Claims 3, 10, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akram in view of Augur.
Claims 7, 13, 20, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Akram in view of Lee.
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejections of claims 3, 7,
10, 13, 20, 25, 27-29, and 31. Id. at 14.
Claims 3 and 7 depend from claim 1. Claims 10, 13, and 29 depend
from claim 8. Claims 20 and 31 depend from claim 14. Claims 25, 27, and
2 8 depend from claim 21. As discussed above, we do not sustain the § 102
rejections of claims 1 and 8 over Akram but sustain the § 102 rejection of
claims 14 and 21 over Akram.
As a result, we do not sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 3, 7, 10,
13, and 29 but sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 20, 25, 27, 28, and 31.
C. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we:
A. do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 8, 11, and 12 under
§ 102 over Akram;
B. sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and
3 0 under § 102 over Akram;
C. do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 10 under § 103 over
Akram in view of Augur;
D. sustain the rejection of claim 25 under§ 103 over Akram in
view of Augur;
10
Appeal2017-009795
Application 14/090,036
E. do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 13, and 29 under§ 103
over Akram in view of Lee; and
F. sustain the rejection of claims 20, 27, 28, and 31 under§ 103
over Akram in view of Lee.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22,
and 24--31 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART
11