Ex Parte Takekoshi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2012

11769432 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KIYOSHI TAKEKOSHI, HISATOMI HOSAKA,
JUNICHI HAGIHARA, KUNIHIKO HATSUSHIKA, TAKAMASA USUI,
HISASHI KANEKO, NOBUO HAYASAKA, and YOSHIYUKI IDO
____________

Appeal 2010-003985
Application 11/769,432
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIRVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-003985
Application 11/769,432

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a reliability evaluation test apparatus,
system, and method for determining reliability of interconnections and
insulating films that form multilayered interconnections for semiconductor
devices on a semiconductor wafer (Spec. 1:17-24).
Independent claim 2 is reproduced below.
2. A shell for transferring a semiconductor wafer comprising:

a contactor configured to execute a reliability evaluation test at a
temperature of not less than 160ºC, the contactor including:

a heat-resistant substrate which has a thermal expansion coefficient of
1 to 50 pmm/ºC; and

a conductor circuit which is formed on the heat-resistant substrate and
includes contact pad portions,

a wafer holder; and

an outer connection terminal,

whereby when performing a reliability evaluation test using a shell, a
semiconductor wafer is mounted on the wafer holder, wherein the wafer
holder, the semiconductor wafer, and the contactor are integrated in a state
in which contact pad portions of the contactor and electrode pads of the
semiconductor wafer are all brought into contact, an integrated shell is
transferred to a reliability test apparatus, and the outer connection terminal is
connected to a measurement section.

REFERENCE and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 2-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
Appeal 2010-003985
Application 11/769,432

3
The Examiner rejected claims 2-7, 10-13, 15-17, and 20-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of DeHaven (U.S. Patent Number
5,701,666 (filed April 16, 1997) (issued December 30, 1997)).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner rejected claims 2-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter for which Appellants regard as the
invention. We do not agree.
We find all the elements of Appellants’ claimed invention distinctly
disclosed in Appellants’ Specification and Drawings. For example, Figure
3A shows the contactor and its elements, Figure 5A shows the “shell” 71,
and Figures 7A and 7B show the shell and its parts, with corresponding
support in the Specification for these elements. Thus, for these reasons and
those Appellants assert in their Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-7) and Reply Brief
(Reply Br. 1-3), we find claims 2-14 meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103
The Examiner finds DeHaven discloses the elements of Appellants’
claimed invention. That is, the top half of DeHaven’s element 12 is a wafer
holder holding wafer 14, element 16 is a contactor (a heat resistant substrate
with conductor pads thereon), and element 18 is an anisotropic pad that is
also considered a contactor (Ans. 9, 5).
Appellants contend DeHaven’s product device wafer 14 is above the
circuit distribution wafer 16 with interconnect media layer 18 therebetween,
Appeal 2010-003985
Application 11/769,432

4
coupling the two wafers together. Further, the wafer 14 is not mounted on
any portion of the chamber 12 (alleged by the Examiner as being a wafer
holder), as is claimed (Reply Br. 4). We agree. We also do not agree with
the Examiner’s finding that the interconnect media layer 18, which is an
anisotropic pad, is a contactor as recited in the claims (Ans. 5). That is, as
shown in Figure 7A of Appellants’ drawings and recited in the claims, the
shell includes a wafer holder 32, a wafer W mounted on the wafer holder,
and a contactor 11 such that the “contact pad portions of the contactor and
electrode pads of the semiconductor wafer are all brought into contact.”
DeHaven does not disclose these limitations.
Thus, we find the limitations of claims 2-24 are not taught or
suggested by DeHaven.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw