Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

11583718 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/583,718 10/20/2006 Sam Ziqun Zhao 1875.9430001 3727
26111 7590 07/26/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MONTALVO, EVA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAM ZIQUN ZHAO, EDWARD LAW, and
REZAUR RAHMAN KHAN
____________

Appeal 2012-004594
Application 11/583,718
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004594
Application 11/583,718
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
This invention relates to "[B]all [G]rid [A]rray (BGA) packages
having improved thermal and/or electrical characteristics." (Spec.
¶[0002]). Claim 38, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
38. An integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising:
[a] a substrate having opposing first and second
surfaces, wherein the substrate has an opening that extends
through the first and second surfaces;
[b] a thermally conducting body located in the
opening; and
[c] a mold compound coupled to the first and second
surfaces of the substrate, [d] wherein the mold compound holds
the thermally conducting body in the opening.
(Disputed limitation emphasis added).

REJECTIONS
R1. The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as
being anticipated by Hosoyamada (US Patent Application Publication
2003/0222344 A1).
R2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shin (US Patent 6,501,184 B1)
and Khan (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0065972 A1).
Appeal 2012-004594
Application 11/583,718
3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of the
obviousness rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
We address the anticipation rejection of claim 38 separately, infra.

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's
rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to
arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 7-9). We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below.

R1. CLAIM 38
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hosoyamada
discloses "[d] wherein the mold compound holds the thermally conducting
body in the opening," within the meaning of claim 1. (App. Br. 10-12).
Specifically, Appellants contend Hosoyamada's "heat spreader 16 . . . is held
in place through contact with printed circuit board 10[,] not by mold resin
6." (App. Br. 13).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner finds:
Hosoyamada clearly shows in Fig. 6, a mold compound 6 holds
a thermal conducting body 16 in the opening of the substrate
10. The molding compound 6 is adhered to multiple sides of
the thermal conducting body 16 in the opening of the substrate
10, thus the thermal conducting body is considered being held
by the molding compound. Although the thermal conducting
Appeal 2012-004594
Application 11/583,718
4
body is also in contact with the printed circuit board 10, the
claim language does not indicate that the thermal conducting
body is being held in place exclusively by the molding
compound.
(Ans. 7-8) (emphases added). We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to
Appellants' contention, claim 38 does not require that only "the mold
compound holds the thermally conducting body in the opening." (App.
Br. 13, Ans. 7-8). Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's findings by filing a
Reply Brief. For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the §102 rejection of claim 38.

R2. CLAIMS 1-6, 8, 10, 14, AND 15
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by improperly combining Shin
and Khan in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. (App. Br. 13-16).
Appellants specifically contend Shin's Figure 7 discloses a die-up device
while Khan's Figure 14 discloses a die-down device. (App. Br. 13-16).
Based on this, Appellants contend "the Examiner has failed to show that the
efficient power delivery advantage that metal interposer 1450 offers to ball
grid array package 1400 of Kahn is necessarily applicable Shin's
semiconductor device 107." (App. Br. 16).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because the Examiner
responds, and we agree, that Shin's Figure 5 discloses a die-down device
configuration similar to the die-down device configuration of Khan. (Ans.
9). The Examiner further finds:
A metal interposer can be attached to the either side of the IC-
die for the purpose of interconnecting more elements or
providing a thermal conducting path in the package. A person
skilled in the art at the time of invention would have
Appeal 2012-004594
Application 11/583,718
5
appreciated the use of metal interposer as thermal conducting
body to direct heat away from the IC die, as conventional
practice in the art.
(Ans. 9).
Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's findings by filing a Reply
Brief. For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we affirm the §103 rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-
6, 8, 10, 14, and 15, which fall therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection R1 of claim 38 under § 102.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, and 15
under § 103.
No time period for taking any action connected with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

llw