Ex Parte Ochs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13316119 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/316,119 12/09/2011
34044 7590 09/02/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Ochs
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.
081276-9524-00 1812
EXAMINER
GORDON,MATTHEWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC OCHS, JAY S. SALMON, and
RICARDO EHRENPFORDST
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1, and 3---6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to micro electrical mechanical
systems (MEMS) devices where the MEMS die 110 is attached to the
substrate 115 via flip chip bonding such that no raised structures (i.e., bumps
for bonding) are formed on the MEMS die (Spec. i-fi-f l, 4, 35; Fig. l(e)).
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added on argued limitations):
1. A MEMS device, the device comprising:
a substrate having
a plurality of raised structures,
armg;
a plurality of connection points configured to electrically
connect the MEMS device to another device, and
a plurality of vias electrically connecting some of the raised
structures to the connection points; and
a MEMS die having no raised structures; the MEMS die attached to
the substrate usingflip-chip manufacturing techniques;
wherein the ring forms an acoustic seal between the MEMS die and
the substrate.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 3---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to point out particularly and claim distinctly the
subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
2. Claims 1, and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Yen et al. (US 2009/0101998 Al, Apr. 23, 2009)
("Yen").
2
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yen
in view of Feiertag et al. (US 2004/0058473 Al, published Mar. 25,
2004) ("Feiertag").
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (1 ): Indefiniteness
Appellants argue separately claims 1 and 4 (App. Br. 6).
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that the claim limitation "a
MEMS die having no raised structures" is not indefinite because a simple
physical inspection using magnification of a MEMS device would reveal
whether the raised structures were part of the substrate of the MEMS die and
which element was bonded to the raised structures (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3).
Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 i-f 2 requires a
determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the Specification. Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the present case, the Specification describes that the MEMS die
may not have bumps and the MEMS die 110 or 110' is attached to the
silicon cap 115 or 115' using flip-chip methods (Spec. i-fi-1 4, 35). The
Specification discloses using the flip chip techniques so that the pillars or
bumps are attached to the silicon cap 115 (i.e., substrate) and not the MEMS
die, which protects the moveable mechanical structures of the MEMS die
from being damaged by the manufacturing process (Spec. i-f 37). The
Specification describes that flip chip microelectronic assembly is the direct
electrical connection of face-down electronic components onto substrates,
3
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
circuit boards, or carriers by means of conductive interconnects between the
chip bond pads and the substrates, circuit board or carrier (Spec. i-f 2).
Accordingly, the claim is clear that the limitation that the "MEMS die
having no raised structures, the MEMS die attached to the substrate using
flip-chip manufacturing techniques" means that the MEMS die prior to
bonding to the substrate has no raised structures (i.e., pillars or bumps). The
Examiner has not provided sufficient fact finding to support the legal
conclusion that the claim as read in light of the Specification is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, the Examiner
concludes that the limitation that "the plurality of raised structures have a
higher density of electrical connections than can be achieve with wire
bonding" is indefinite because the Specification never establishes that
highest density of electrical connections that can be achieved by wire
bonding (Final Act. 3).
The Specification, however, describes that package size of current
MEMS devices is limited by space requirements for wire bonding between
die and substrate (Spec. i-f 3). Flip chip assembly is disclosed as allowing for
package size reduction, batch processing of die to substrate interconnects,
and enhanced form factor of the MEMS to substrate seal. Id. The
Specification describes that flip chip manufacturing techniques allow higher
density electrical connections than can be achieved with wire bonding
techniques generally used in MEMS device manufacturing (Spec. i-f 33).
Appellants argue that though the degree of density is not recited in
claim 4, it is inherent that higher electrical connection densities can be
achieved with raised structures compared to wire bonding (App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 4).
4
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
wnen claim 4 is read in light of the Specification, we agree with
Appellants that one of ordinary skill would have understood that relative to a
wire bonded MEMS device, the density of electrical connections on a flip
chip formed device will be higher. The claim may be broad, but breadth is
not indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441F.2d689, 693 (CCPA 1971).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's § 112 i-f 2 rejection.
REJECTIONS (2) AND (3)
Appellants' arguments focus on claim 1 only (App. Br. 6-8).
Appellants' argument regarding the§ 103 rejection merely allege that
Feiertag does not cure the deficiencies of Yen (App. Br. 7). Accordingly,
claim 6 under § 103 will stand or fall with our analysis of the Examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue that Yen does not disclose a MEMS die without
raised structures (App Br. 7). Appellants contend that Yen's chip 210 (i.e.,
MEMS die) and carrier chip 230 (i.e., substrate) have contact points (i.e.,
211(1), 211(2), 231(1) and 231(2)) that bond to each other (Reply Br. 5).
Claim 1 is directed to a "MEMS device" (i.e., a product) that is
comprised of, inter alia, a substrate having a plurality of raised structures
attached to "a MEMS die having no raised structures, the MEMS die
attached to the substrate using flip-chip manufacturing techniques." The
MEMS die limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation. As a
product-by-process limitation, patentability of the product does not depend
upon the method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir.
1985). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious
from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the
5
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
prior was made by a different process. Id. The final product structure
required by claim 1 comprises, in relevant part, a MEMS die attached to
substrate via raised structures.
Based upon this claim construction, we find that Yen discloses the
structure required by claim 1. Appellants only argue that Yen fails to teach a
MEMS die having no raised structures. The MEMS die having no raised
structure is merely an intermediate part that is used to form the final MEMS
device. In the final product the MEMS die and substrate are attached to one
another via the raised structures. See Spec. i-fi-1 4, 35, 38. The structure
taught in Yen is identical to that required by claim 1 in that Yen's chip 210
is attached to the carrier chip 230 via raised contacts 211 and 231. It is
immaterial that Yen uses raised contact points 211 on the chip 210 in
addition to raised contact points 231 on carrier chip 230. The final product
appears to be identical to that required by claim 1. Appellants have not
directed us to any structural distinction between the claimed MEMS device
and the MEMS device disclosed by Yen. We note that Appellants' disclosed
invention includes placing the bumps on the MEMS die as well as the
substrate, which seems to indicate that the desired structure can be achieved
using either way of attaching the substrate and the MEMS die via raised
structures.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 102 and§ 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-009971
Application 13/316, 119
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
7