Ex Parte Mosley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2012

11475528 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/475,528 06/27/2006 Larry E. Mosley ITL.1387US (P23592) 1102
21906 7590 03/30/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
LAM, CATHY FONG FONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2012 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 LARRY E. MOSLEY,
JAMES G. MAVEETY, and FAY HUA
____________

Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11-30. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

2
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an interconnect
comprising a substrate including a conductive polymer, a metal layer and a
resist layer with the conductive polymer and metal layer formed within
(surrounded by) the resist1, and having a die surface mounted on the
substrate via a solder ball. According to Appellants, “[t]he conductive
polymer may be sufficiently flexible to reduce stress in interlayer dielectric
layers within the die” (Spec. 2: 16-18). It is reported that this stress can be
the result of coefficient of thermal expansion mismatches, which can occur
during a chip attach process (id. at 1:12-16).
Claims 11 and 20 are illustrative and reproduced below:
11. An interconnect comprising:
a substrate;
a die surface mounted on said substrate by a solder ball;
and
said substrate including a conductive polymer over which
said solder ball is secured, including a metal layer between said
solder ball and said polymer, said substrate being covered by a
solder resist, said metal layer and said conductive polymer
being formed within said solder resist and over said substrate.
20. The interconnect of claim 11 wherein said
conductive polymer has a deflection greater than 7mm. per
Newton normal to its surface.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Sher et al. US 3,031,344 Apr. 24, 1962
Shimoto et al. US 6,156,414 Dec. 5, 2000
Darveaux et al. US 6,201,305 B1 Mar. 13, 2001

1 “A solder resist 20 may surround the contact area” (Spec. 3: 23-24).
Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

3
Tang et al. US 6,396,156 B1 May 28, 2002
Akram et al. US 6,876,089 B2 Apr. 5, 2005
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection2:
Claims 11-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tang or Akram, each in view of Shimoto, Darveaux, or
Sher. The aforementioned claims also stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 18 and 19
of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/169, 520 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,886,813,
issued February 15, 2011).
We affirm both rejections.
We summarily affirm the non-contested obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
We affirm the stated § 103(a) rejection based on the factual findings
of and for substantially the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis respecting the latter affirmed rejection.
Appellants present substantially the same arguments in opposition to
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection with respect to independent claims 11
and 21 and Appellants separately present substantially the same additional
arguments with respect to dependent claims 20 and 27 (App. Br. 11-15).
The other dependent claims are not separately argued. Accordingly, we
select claim 11 as the representative claim on which we shall focus in
deciding this appeal with respect to claims 11-19, 21-26, and 28-30.
Furthermore, we select claim 20 as the representative claim on which we

2 A previously maintained rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 and a provisional rejection under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over certain claims of U.S. Patent
Application No. 11/080,028 are withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2 and 3).
Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

4
focus for consideration of the additional arguments made with respect to
dependent claims 20 and 27.
Claim 11
Appellants do not specifically challenge the Examiner’s factual
findings set forth at pages four through six of the Answer, including the
Examiner’s findings with respect to each of Tang and Akram disclosing or
suggesting the use of a conductive polymer together with a metal layer and a
solder ball or bump for an interconnect structure (see generally App. Br.).3
For example and like Appellants, Tang teaches that the electrically
conductive polymer acts as a stress buffering or reducing layer (col. 3, ll. 53-
62 and col. 4, ll. 29-36). Consistent with Appellants’ observation
concerning the Examiner’s position in the Final Office action (App. Br. 11),
the Examiner reiterates that “[n]either Tang nor Akram discloses a solder
resist layer in which the conductive polymer and metal layer were formed
within” (Ans. 5).
With respect to this acknowledged difference over Tang or Akram,
the Examiner turns to Shimoto, Darveaux, or Sher for establishing that the
use of a solder resist layer or mask formed over the conductive layer in a
manner that exposes part of the conductive layer for electrical attachment,
such as via a solder ball as taught by Shimoto or Darveaux would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (id. at 5 and 6).

3 Likewise, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s rebuttal to Appellants’
assertion that layer 160 of Akram completely covers substrate 102 by noting
that argument is premised on only one option for layer 160 that is disclosed
by Akram, whereas layer 160 of Akram is also disclosed as being formed
only over the contact pads as another option (Ans. 8, item ii) (see Reply Br.).
Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

5
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings of the secondary references (App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 1-4). Nor
do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s specific rationale for combining the
teachings of Tang and Akram with Shimoto, Darveaux, or Sher (see
generally App. Br. and Reply Br.). In this regard, the Examiner determined
that in light of the applied prior art teachings, “it would have been obvious to
include a solder resist layer over the conductive pad because it prevents
connections from short circuiting and protects the conductive pads from
eroding” (Ans. 6). Appellants do not articulate why this rationale is
implausible.
However, Appellants do contend that the Examiner “fails to show
where the hypothetical combination of references discloses or renders
obvious a conductive polymer layer that is formed within a solder resist
(emphasis added)” (App. Br. 12). Appellants appear to be asserting that the
Examiner’s proposed combination of references may suggest using a solder
mask in Tang or Abram in a manner as taught by Shimoto, Darveaux, or
Sher such that the conductive material including the conductive polymer is
exposed through a solder mask; however, the Examiner has not addressed
what is claimed; that is, how the references suggest that a conductive
polymer is formed within the solder mask (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2).
We disagree. Shimoto, for example, clearly discloses a solder resist
layer 9 having openings 8, within which resist layer openings 8 a solder ball
may contact an exposed conductive layer (wiring pattern), as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 5; Shimoto, Fig. 2E). Appellants have not disputed the
Examiner’s factual findings with respect to Shimoto, as indicated above.
Consequently, the Examiner’s proposed combination of Tang or Abram with
Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

6
Shimoto is premised on the use of a resist layer over a conductive layer pad
including a polymer layer and a metal layer of Tang or Abram in a manner
wherein an opening in the resist layer exposes the conductive material and
such that the metal and polymer layers (conductive layers) are formed within
the resist layer, such as shown in Fig. 2E of Shimoto.
In further regard to this argued distinction, it is worth noting that
Appellants describe their solder resist as including “[a]n opening through the
solder resist [that] provides room for an electrical connection . . . .”
(Spec 4:3-5).
As a final point, we note that no evidence establishing unexpected
results for the claimed subject matter has been presented by Appellants.
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 11, and claims 12-19, 21-26, and 28-30 which stand or
fall together therewith, over the applied prior art.

Claim 20
Concerning representative dependent claim 20, Appellants
additionally argue that the Examiner’s obviousness position with respect to
the deflection value specified for the conductive polymer is premised on an
impermissible per se rule of obviousness as none of the cited references
teach a reason to make the polymer deflection (energy absorption) property
sufficiently large (greater than 7mm per Newton normal to its surface) to
enable the conductive polymer to act as a stress absorbing member for the
entire structure (App. Br. 13-14).
However, as we noted above, Tang teaches that the electrically
conductive polymer acts as a stress buffering or reducing layer (col. 3, ll. 53-
Appeal 2010-005482
Application 11/475,528

7
62 and col. 4, ll. 29-36). Similarly, Akram discloses that the electrically
conductive polymer is flexible (col. 3, ll. 39-53 and col. 10, ll. 36-41).
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the applied prior art provides
sufficient guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate
conductive polymer having a workable deflection value, including a
deflection value corresponding to that required by representative claim 20.
It follows that we shall likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection as it pertains to separately argued claims 20 and 27.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

bar