Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

13565785 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/565,785 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.
ILIP0040USA1 9100
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
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAP A3 and Lin. 4 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).5
1 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed August 2,
2012, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed June 14, 2013, Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Br.) filed October 24, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) mailed December 10, 2013.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ILI Technology
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
3 Appellants' Admitted Prior Art, Spec. i-fi-1 5-8 and Figs. 1-3 ("AAP A").
4 Lin et al., US 6,181,016 Bl, issued Jan. 30, 2001 ("Lin").
5 Although Appellants did not identify the appeals in Application No.
12/983,895 (Appeal No. 2014-004331) and Application No. 13/565,759
(Appeal No. 2014-003814) as related, we determine they are related. This
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to bonding pad structures and
integrated circuits including bonding pad structures (see, e.g., claims 1 and
6). Appellants disclose a prior art chip on glass structure 100, depicted in
Figure 1 of Appellants' disclosure, reproduced below. Spec. i-f 3.
I~
Figure 1 illustrates a prior art chip on glass structure.
application and Application No. 13/565,759 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
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
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 the chip on glass structure
100 is formed by disposing the anisotropic conductive film 120 on the glass
substrate 130 and pressing the driver integrated circuit 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 integrated
circuit 110 via the conductive particles 124. Spec. i-f 4.
Figure 3 of Appellants' Specification is reproduced below.
):
(
F ~ ~ ~ ~ ·~ ~ ~ ~\~ ~ ~ ·~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""'C
304 304
~ ~----------------~ \
/ \ / ,..::,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,., .. , .... :t ... , .. ,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,., .. , ........
{:
Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of the prior art
bonding pad structure of Figure 1.
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
3
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
connecting pad 302 and insulation layer 304. Spec. if 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. Appellants
disclose that if the size of the conductive particles 124 is too small, such as
to achieve a smaller pitch of bonding structures, conductivity between the
bonding pad structures 112 and the electrodes 132 will be decreased. Spec.
if 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. if 7.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The
limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A bonding pad structure, positioned on an integrated
circuit in a chip on glass or chip on film package, comprising:
a connecting pad, formed on a surface of the integrated
circuit;
an insulation layer, formed on the connecting pad, wherein
the insulation layer has only one opening and a shape of the
opening includes at least a bend; and
a gold bump, formed on the insulation layer by
electroplating, wherein the gold bump is electrically connected
to the connecting pad through the opening of the insulation layer
and has a decreased drop height caused by the bend relative to
a drop height when a shape of the opening does not include the
bend.
Br. 11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites Figures 1-3 and paragraphs 5-8 of Appellants'
disclosure as Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"), finding the AAP A
4
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
discloses a plurality of bonding pad structures comprising a connecting pad,
an insulation layer, and a gold bump. Final Act. 2. In particular, the
Examiner cites the connecting pad 302 depicted in Figure 3 of Appellants'
disclosure as a connecting pad, the insulation layer 304 shown in Figure 3 as
an insulation layer, and the gold bump 306 shown in Figure 3 as a gold
bump. Id. The Examiner finds the insulation layer 304 has only one
opening and the shape of the opening includes at least a bend. Id.
The Examiner finds the AAP A does not explicitly disclose the
opening in the insulation layer has a "fish-bone" shape, the gold bump is
formed by electroplating, or the gold bump has a decreased drop height, as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner finds Lin discloses an insulation layer having one
opening with a "fish-bone" shape and at least one bend. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to have formed a "fish-
bone" shaped opening in the insulation layer of the AAP A for the
recognized suitability of the "fish-bone" shaped opening as an insulation
layer pattern. Id. Further, the Examiner concludes the language, "a gold
bump, formed on the insulation layer by electroplating" includes a product-
by-process limitation, which only requires a gold bump. Final Act. 4-5.
With regard to the decreased drop height, the Examiner finds a gold bump
formed in the opening of an insulation layer having a bend would exhibit a
decreased drop height because paragraph 23 of Appellants' Specification
states the bend is responsible for causing the decreased drop height. Final
Act. 3. In addition, the Examiner finds the drop height of a gold bump is an
art recognized result effective variable that can be optimized. Final Act. 4.
5
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that the AAPA
identified by the Examiner discloses a bonding pad structure comprising a
connecting pad, an insulation layer having only one opening including at
least a bend, and a gold bump. Nor do Appellants contest the Examiner's
conclusion that the language "a gold bump, formed on the insulation layer
by electroplating" is a product-by-process limitation that only requires a
gold bump.
Instead, Appellants assert the Examiner erred by citing paragraph 23
of Appellants' Specification to show that a gold bump formed on an
insulation layer having an opening with a bend would necessarily exhibit a
decreased drop height, as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. However, this argument
does not demonstrate a reversible error because the Examiner merely relies
on paragraph 23 to show that an insulation layer having a bend would
inherently have a decreased drop height. The claiming of a newly
discovered function or property which is inherently present in the prior art
does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d
210, 212-213 (CCPA 1971). In view of the above, Appellants have not
shown the Examiner reversibly erred in finding the AAP A discloses, either
explicitly or inherently, the limitations of claim 1, including a decreased
drop height.
Appellants contend Lin addresses the problem of pad lift-off and
cracking that occurs during wire bonding by providing anchor material for a
bond pad. Br. 5. Appellants assert this problem does not occur in chip on
glass or chip on film structures and there would be no reason to implement
Lin's solution in a chip on glass structure, such as the chip on glass structure
6
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
of the AAP A. Br. 5---6. These arguments are unpersuasive of reversible
error.
The Examiner has provided a rationale for modifying the AAP A in
view of Lin. In particular, the Examiner determines Lin demonstrates
various configurations suitable for an opening in an insulation layer, such as
the insulation layer of the AAPA. Ans. 3. Moreover, a rationale for
combining references need not be the same as Appellants'. In re Kemps, 97
F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("the motivation in the prior art to combine
the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to
establish obviousness."); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
("As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is
provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.").
Appellants argue the insulation layer openings of Lin are filled with
metal anchor material that is separate and distinct from the bond pad of Lin.
Br. 6. Appellants assert there would be no drop height in the bond pad of
Lin and the insulation layer opening would not hold the bond pad of Lin and,
as a result, the shape of the opening of Lin would have no effect upon the
shape or formation of a bond pad, such as the gold bump of the AAP A. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner
finds Figure 3 of Lin depicts the anchor structure 201 and bond pad 103 as a
single, continuous element. Ans. 4--5. In view of this, the Examiner finds
the anchor structure 201 and bond pad 103 depicted in Figure 3 of Lin are
not separate and distinct, as argued by Appellants, but function in the same
manner as the gold bump 306 depicted in Figure 3 of the AAP A, which is
connected to a connecting pad 302 via an opening in an insulation layer 304.
7
Appeal2014-003815
Application 13/565,785
Ans. 4. Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's findings in this
regard.
Moreover, Appellants argue the claimed structure provides
unexpected results but do not provide any evidence to support this argument.
Br. 7-8. "It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by
factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the
specification does not suffice." In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (citing In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)).
Similarly, Appellants' assertion that the claimed structure satisfies a long-
felt need is unsupported by evidence. Br. 9. Based on the foregoing, the
Appellants' assertions of unexpected results and long felt need are entitled to
little weight and a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiners
obviousness determination.
For the reasons discussed above and for the reasons expressed in the
Answer, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Appellants have not advanced separate arguments for
any of claims 3-9. Therefore, the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 is
sustained.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons in the Examiner's Answer
and above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections.
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