Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

13565759 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/565,759 08/02/2012 Yu-Ju Yang
27765 7590 03/22/2016
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
P.O. BOX506
MERRIFIELD, VA 22116
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.
ILIP0039USA1 2263
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, TUCKERJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-m YANG and CHIH-HUNG LU
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee3 in view of Lin. 4
1 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 14, 2013 (Spec.), the
Final Office Action mailed July 23, 2013 (Final Act.), the Appellant's
Appeal Brief filed Oct. 22, 2013 (Br.), and the Examiner's Answer mailed
Dec. 10, 2013 (Ans.).
2 Appellants identify the real party of interest as the assignee, ILI
Technology Corporation. Br. 2.
3 Lee, US 2007/0045871 Al, published Mar. 1, 2007.
4 Lin et al., US 6,181,016 Bl, issued Jan. 30, 2001.
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).5
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to chip on glass structures and
chip on film structures (see, e.g., claims 3 and 5).
Appellants disclose a prior art chip on glass structure 100, which is
depicted in Figure 2 of Appellants' disclosure. Spec. i-f 2. Figure 2 of
Appellants' Specification is reproduced below.
5 Although Appellants did not identify the appeals in Application No.
12/983,895 (Appeal No. 2014-004331) and Application No. 13/565,785
(Appeal No. 2014-003815) as related, we determine they are related. This
application and Application No. 13/565,785 are divisional applications of
Application No. 12/983,895. Further, Lin is applied as a§ 103 reference in
the appealed rejection in each of the applications, and the appealed
rejections involve related issues.
2
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
110 ~.
180 ·--~
I
!
132
() ()
" ,_,
I ' I ' ·~) () < • I '
FIG. 2 PRIOR AR'T'
,--... ..--,
~~... "-··'
0
() ..-.. CJ . .-·"- 12(J
v
0 c
Figure 2 illustrates a prior art chip on glass structure.
The prior art chip on glass structure 100 includes a driver integrated
circuit 110, an anisotropic conductive film 120, and a glass substrate 130.
Spec. i-f 3. The anisotropic conductive film 120 includes adhesive 122 and
conductive particles 124. Id. Appellants disclose forming the chip on glass
structure 100 by disposing the anisotropic conductive film 120 on the glass
substrate 130 and pressing the driver IC 110 and glass substrate 130 together
so electrodes 132 of the glass substrate 130 are electrically connected to
bonding pad structures 112 of the driver IC 110 via the conductive particles
124. Spec. ,-r 4.
Figure 3 of Appellants' Specification is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
304
j l2
802
~----------------~
11 ()
FIG. 3 PRICJR. AR'f
Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of the bonding pad structure of Figure 2.
As depicted in Figure 3 of Appellants' disclosure, the bonding pad
structure 112 can include a connecting pad 302, an insulation layer 304
formed on the connecting pad 302, and a gold bump 306 formed on the
connecting pad 302 and insulation layer 304. Spec. i-f 6. As shown in Figure
3, formation of the gold bump 306 on the connecting pad 302 and insulation
layer 304 leads to a dent in a surface of the gold bump 306. Id. In liquid
crystal displays with high resolution, smaller conductive particles are used to
prevent shorting between bonding pad structures. Spec. i-f 5. But if the size
of the conductive particles 124 is too small, conductivity between the
bonding pad structures 112 and the electrodes 132 will be decreased. Spec.
i-f 6. In view of this, Appellants disclose a bonding pad structure having a
gold bump with a flat surface, which improves conductivity between the
bonding pad structures and electrodes. Spec. i-f 7.
4
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
Independent claim 3 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
Claim 3 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with
emphasis on the limitations at issue in the appeal:
3. A chip on glass (COG) structure, comprising:
an integrated circuit comprising a plurality of bonding pad
structures, wherein each of the bonding pad structures comprises:
a connecting pad, formed on a surface of the
integrated circuit;
an insulation layer, formed on the connecting pad
and the surface of the integrated circuit, wherein the
insulation layer on the connecting pad has only one
opening, a shape of the whole opening projected onto the
surface of the integrated circuit comprises a ring-shaped
opening area, and the ring-shaped opening area has an
enclosed inner wall and an enclosed outer wall; and
a metallic bump, formed on the insulation layer,
wherein the metallic bump is electrically connected to the
connecting pad through the whole opening of the
insulation layer;
a glass substrate comprising a plurality of electrodes; and
an anisotropic conductive film (ii .. CF);
wherein the bonding pad structures of the integrated
circuit are electrically connected to the electrodes of the glass
substrate via the ACF.
Br. 9 (emphasis added).
OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have
demonstrated a lack of reason to modify an opening in the insulation layer of
Lee's chip on glass structure in view of Lin's disclosure of insulation layer
configurations.
5
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
The Examiner finds Lee discloses an integrated circuit comprising a
plurality of bonding pad structures each having a connecting pad, an
insulation layer, a metallic bump, a glass substrate, and an anisotropic
conductive film. Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner cites structures
depicted in Figures 1-5 of Lee: a connecting pad 112, an insulation layer
113, a gold bump 111, a glass substrate 13, and the anisotropic conductive
film 12. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds the insulation layer 113 has only
one opening. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds Lee does not explicitly disclose that a shape of
the whole opening of the insulation layer projected onto a surface of an
integrated circuit includes a ring-shaped opening area having an enclosed
inner wall and an enclosed outer wall. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Lin
discloses an insulation layer having an opening that, when projected onto a
surface of an integrated circuit, has a ring shape having an enclosed inner
wall and an enclosed outer wall. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to modify the opening in the insulation layer of
Lee in view of Lin due to the recognized suitability of the insulation pattern
disclosed by Lin. Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend the integrated circuit and glass substrate of Lee
are adhered to one another via adhesive so one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have considered the disclosure of Lin. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellants assert one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered
the disclosure of Lin, which addresses the problem of pad lift-off by
providing anchor material for a bond pad, when modifying the chip on glass
structure of Lee because the chip on glass structure would not suffer from
the lift-off problem. Br. 6. In view of this, Appellants further argue one of
6
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify Lee in view
of Lin. Br. 6.
Appellants' arguments do not direct us to a reversible error. The
disclosures of Lee and Lin support the Examiner's rationale for modifying
Lee in view of Lin. We note that "any need or problem known in the field
of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide
a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
As determined by the Examiner, Lin demonstrates various
configurations suitable for an opening in an insulation layer, such as the
insulation layer of Lee. Final Act. 3 and Ans. 3--4. Figure 5 of Lee depicts
an insulation layer 113 for a chip on glass structure having an opening 114
for a pad. Lee i-f 9. Lin discloses a bond pad structure including a bond pad
103 connected to an underlying layer 101 via anchoring structures 104
buried in a dielectric layer 102, 6 with the dielectric layer and anchoring
structures 104/201 having various configurations, including the ring-shaped
structure depicted in Figure 14 of Lin. Lin col. 6, 1. 65 to col. 7, 1. 3 and col.
9, 11. 41--46.
Moreover, the Examiner finds the increased adhesion provided by the
disclosure of Lin would benefit the chip on glass structure of Lee by further
solidifying a connection between the gold bump and surrounding structures,
such as a connecting pad. Ans. 4. As pointed out by Appellants, Lee uses
an adhesive to adhere the driver IC to the glass substrate of the COG
structure. Br. 6. However, Lin teaches improving adhesion in another area
6 In the rejection on appeal, the bond pad 103 and the anchoring structures
104/201 correspond to the gold bump 111 depicted in Lee's Figure 4.
7
Appeal2014-003814
Application 13/565,759
of the structure. More specifically, Lin teaches that the anchoring structure
201 in combination with the patterned dielectric layer 102 provides
improved adhesion for a metal bond pad. Lin col. 4, 11. 19-32. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this arrangement would
similarly improve adhesion between the gold bump 111 and connecting pad
112 depicted in Figure 4 of Lee. Appellants have failed to establish
otherwise. Therefore, Appellants have not shown one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have looked to the disclosure of Lin or would have lacked a
reason to modify Lee in view of Lin.
Appellants' arguments for claim 5 correspond to the arguments
discussed above for claim 3. Br. 7. Appellants do not present any
arguments in support of the separate patentability of claim 4. Br. 6.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for those expressed in the Examiner's
Answer, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3-5 over Lee and Lin is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
8