Ex Parte Mak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14176528 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/176,528 02/10/2014
123187 7590
Williams Morgan, P.C.
710 N. Post Oak Road
Suite 350
Houston, TX 77024
03/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
TakM.Mak
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.
EU749/4014.251700 5337
EXAMINER
PURVIS, SUE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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 TAK M. MAK
Appeal2017-004920 1
Application 14/176,528
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL. G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (Br. 2).
Appeal2017-004920
Application 14/176,528
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to integrated circuits (IC) formed by
stacking multiple chips in a multi-dimensional IC structure (Spec. i-f 1;
claims 1, 8, and 15).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a set of support structures between at least a first and
second chips of the IC device, the first chip comprising a
memory die, and the set of support structures radiating
uniformly from a center of the memory die, and
a power grid formed on and extending over a substantial
portion of the memory die, a first portion of the power grid
being adapted for being coupled to a first voltage source, and a
first plurality of the support structures are coupled to the first
portion of the power grid at spaced apart locations to receive
the first voltage source.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jeong (US 2012/0112359 Al, published May 10, 2012) in view of Mak (US
6,222,246 B 1, issued Apr. 24 2001 ).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellant argues a limitation common to independent claims 1, 8, and
15 only (App. Br. 6-13). Appellant's arguments regarding claim 15 mirror
those with respect to claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 12-13). Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative on which to render our decision with claims
2 to 19 standing or falling with our analysis of claim 1.
2
Appeal2017-004920
Application 14/176,528
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Jeong and Mak
are located on pages 3 to 12 of the Final Action.
Appellant argues that since Jeong fails to teach a "set of support
structures radiating uniformly from a center of the memory die 61 Oa," then
claims 1, 8, and all claims dependent thereon are patentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Jeong and Mak (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that the terms
"radiate" and "uniformly" are not given any special definition in the
Specification and should be given their plain meaning (App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 7, 9). Appellant argues that radiate is defined by Merriam-Websters'
Dictionary2 as "'to extend, spread, or move like rays or radii from f! center"'
(App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that "uniformly" is defined by Merriam-
Webster 's Dictionary3 as "[i]n a uniform manner, consistently" (App. Br. 8).
Appellant contends that "center" means in the context of the Specification a
point from which rays radiate (Reply Br. 6). Appellant contends that the
claimed "support structures radiating uniformly from a center of the memory
die" are therefore, structures that extend like rays or radii with consistently
the same spacing between structures from a center point (App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 9). Appellant contends that Jeong shows a rectilinear array of support
elements which one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider to be
radiating uniformly from a center of the die (App. Br. 8). Appellant
contends that the Examiner's annotated Figure 10 cannot show support
structures radiating uniformly from a center of the memory die, because the
2 http://dictionaryreference.com/brows/radite?=t, (accessed on Nov. 9,
2015).
3 http://en.viktionary.org/wiki/uniformly, (accessed on Nov. 9, 2015).
3
Appeal2017-004920
Application 14/176,528
center is actually the shaded circle on page 9 of the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
9).
The Examiner finds that Appellant's arguments directed to "radiating
uniformly from a center of the memory die" as limited to spaced support
structures having the same, uniform spacing between supports is based upon
limitations not in the claims (Ans. 4). The Examiner correctly finds that the
claims do not recite that the spacing between supports must be the same.
Although the Specification may provide an embodiment where the spacing
between supports is the same, the same disputed limitation "radiating
uniformly" appearing in claims 1 and 8, must not be limited solely to that
embodiment, because claim 12 that recites that the support structures are
uniformly spaced would not be further limiting (Spec. i-f 24). Therefore,
radiating uniformly from a center must have a broader meaning than simply
meaning that the spaced supports extend as radii from a center so that the
supports are equally spaced from one another. Indeed, the embodiment
depicted in Appellant's Figure 3A does not show that the supports 1 lOA to
11 ON radiating uniformly so that the supports are equally spaced apart from
one another. The embodiment shown in Figure 3D and 3E do not appear to
show the supports are equally spaced apart from each other (uniformly) in a
radiating direction. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument
that the term "center" is limited to only a center point instead of an area in
the middle of the die. Appellant does not direct us to any portion of their
Specification that defines center as limited to a single point. The Examiner
reasonably finds that Jeong teaches that support structures may be construed
as radiating uniformly (i.e., in a straight-line) manner from a center of the
die (Final Act. 3). Appellant's arguments and evidence as to the plain
4
Appeal2017-004920
Application 14/176,528
meaning of radiating, uniformly and center do not demonstrate that the
Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation is unreasonable in light of the
Specification.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection over
Jeong in view of Mak.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5