Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2014

11521087 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2014)

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.
11/521,087 09/14/2006 Hubert Maier 1890-0407 8838
7590 03/20/2014
Maginot, Moore & Beck
Chase Tower
111 Monument Circle, Suite 3250
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
JUNG, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2895
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte HUBERT MAIER
and THOMAS DETZEL
__________

Appeal 2011-009189
Application 11/521,087
Technology Center 2800
___________

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

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

of cl
claim
that
1, ll.
devi
uppe
semi
surfa

1 Cla
Sept
eal 2011-0
lication 11
A. ST
The App
aims 1, 3-6
s.1 We h
We REV
The subj
is intended
6-8. App
ce accordin
The sem
rmost met
conductor
ce portion

im 2 was
ember 11,
09189
/521,087
ATEMEN
ellants app
, 8, 17, 19
ave jurisdi
ERSE.
ect matter
to be elec
ellants’ FI
g to one e
A
iconducto
allization
body, and
of the sem

also finally
2009.
T OF TH
eal under
-21, and 2
ction unde
on appeal
trically co
G 2, repro
mbodimen
ppellants
semicon
r device co
layer (10)
an alignm
iconducto

rejected b
2
E CASE
35 U.S.C
4-28, whi
r 35 U.S.C
is directed
ntacted vi
duced belo
t of the in
’ FIG. 2 de
ductor dev
mprises a
arranged o
ent pattern
r body an
ut was ca
. § 134 fro
ch are all o
. § 6(b).
to a semi
a a bondin
w, illustra
vention.
picts a
ice.
semicond
n a surfac
(4) arran
d the first
ncelled in
m the fina
f the pend

conductor
g connecti
tes a semi
Spec. 9, ll.
uctor body
e portion o
ged betwe
metallizati
an amendm
l rejection
ing
device
on. Spec.
conductor
16-18.

(1), an
f the
en the
on layer.
ent dated

Appeal 2011-009189
Application 11/521,087

3

The Appellants disclose that the alignment pattern (4) improves the
precision with which a bonding partner, such as a bonding wire (50), may be
positioned on the semiconductor device. Spec. 2, ll. 17-29. More
specifically, the alignment pattern (4) forms a local elevation (11) on the
upper side of the first metallization layer (10). The local elevation can be
optically determined with respect to the semiconductor body enabling the
bonding partner to be placed at the intended bonding position on the first
metallization layer with improved precision. Spec. 6, l. 32-7, l. 9.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief dated September 20, 2010. The limitation at issue has been italicized.
1. An arrangement for use in a semiconductor device
having a semiconductor body, the semiconductor body having a
surface, the arrangement comprising
a surface portion of the semiconductor body;
a first metallization layer arranged on the surface portion
such that a section of the first metallization layer forms a
surface of the semiconductor device, and
an alignment pattern arranged between the surface
portion and the first metallization layer, the alignment pattern
causing local elevations in the first metallization layer above
the surface portion.
Claim 26, the other independent claim on appeal, recites a method for
producing a bonding connection of a semiconductor device comprising, inter
alia, the step of providing a semiconductor body comprising the structure
recited in claim 1.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
App
App

antic
Miya
Miya
Miya
finds
semi
patte

2 US
3 US
4 US
eal 2011-0
lication 11
(1) cl
ipated by
(2) cl
moto;
(3) cl
moto in v
(4) cl
moto in v
B. D
Referrin
Miyamot
conductor
rn (3a) as

5,407,862
2006/004
2004/013
09189
/521,087
aims 1, 3,
Miyamoto
aims 4 and
aim 6 unde
iew of Lin
aims 24-28
iew of Nak
ISCUSSIO
g to Miyam
o describe
body (1),
recited in

, issued A
9525 A1, p
6123 A1, p
8, 17, and
2;
5 under 3
r 35 U.S.C
3; and
under 35
amura.4
N
oto Fig. 2
s an arrang
a first met
claim 1. A

pril 18, 19
ublished M
ublished J
4
19-21 und
5 U.S.C. §
. § 103(a
U.S.C. §
H, reprod
ement com
allization
ns. 12.
95.
arch 9, 2
uly 15, 20
er 35 U.S
103(a) as
) as unpate
103(a) as u
uced below
prising a
layer (5a)
006.
04.
.C. § 102(b
unpatenta
ntable ove
npatentab
, the Exa
surface po
and an alig

) as
ble over
r
le over
miner
rtion of a
nment

Appeal 2011-009189
Application 11/521,087

5

Miyamoto Fig. 2H is a cross-sectional view
of a semiconductor device.
The Examiner finds the alignment pattern (3a) causes local elevations
in the first metallization layer (5a) above the surface portion of the
semiconductor body (1). Ans. 12; see also Miyamoto Fig. 2C.
The Appellants argue, inter alia, that claim 1 requires the first
metallization layer to have a section that forms a surface of the
semiconductor device. The Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to
show that the first metallization layer (5a) of Miyamoto forms a surface of
the semiconductor device as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner finds “Figure 2H of Miyamoto shows a
section of the first metallization layer 5a that physically contacts a
semiconductor body 1” and “the physically-contacted section of the first
metallization layer 5a forms a surface of the semiconductor device.” Ans.
13.
The Appellants argue the ordinary meaning of the term “surface” is
“the outside part or uppermost layer of something.” Reply Br. 3.5 Thus, the
Appellants argue “the portion of the metallization layer 5a that physically
contacts the body 1 is not a surface of the semiconductor device based on
ordinary and plain meaning of the term ‘surface.’” Reply Br. 3.
The Appellants’ definition of “surface” is consistent with the
Appellants’ Specification. See Appellants’ FIG 2 (showing metallization
layer (10) as the uppermost layer of the semiconductor device). According
to Miyamoto Fig. 2H, the portion of the first metallization layer (5a) that

5 Reply Brief dated March 7, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009189
Application 11/521,087

6

physically contacts the semiconductor body (1) is covered by layer 6a.
Thus, this portion of the first metallization layer (5a) does not form a surface
of the semiconductor device as recited in claim 1. For this reason, the
§ 102(b) rejection is not sustained.
The Examiner does not rely on Nakamura or Lin to cure the
deficiencies in Miyamoto. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections are not
sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc