Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021002945 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2022)

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. 16/393,898 04/24/2019 Nurfarena Othman 1012-2373 / 2019P50091 US 9464 57579 7590 03/07/2022 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES PO BOX 1959 CARY, NC 27572-1959 EXAMINER SEVEN, EVREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NURFARENA OTHMAN, DO HYUNG KIM, SWEE KAH LEE, MOHD RASYDAN HAKAM MOHAMAD TAHIR, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAT SANUSI, and CIPRIAN MIRCEA PAVALUTA1 ____________ Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 4, 5, 12, 16, and 17 are said to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 8. Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 2 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor packages. E.g., Spec. ¶ 3; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 15 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1. A semiconductor package, comprising: a mold compound; a plurality of electrically conductive leads at least some of which transition from a first level within the mold compound to a second level outside the mold compound, the second level being different than the first level; and a semiconductor die embedded in the mold compound and attached to the plurality of electrically conductive leads in a flip- chip configuration, wherein one or more leads of the plurality of electrically conductive leads comprises: a first section terminating at a side face of the mold compound, or protruding from the side face with a first end positioned outside a footprint of the mold compound and which terminates at the second level; and a second section embedded in the mold compound and having a second end which is positioned under the semiconductor die and exposed at a bottom side of the semiconductor package. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL3 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. Claims 1, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cha (US 5,861,668, issued Jan. 19, 1999). 3 In the Final Action, the Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Final Act. 2; Ans. 4 n.3. Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 3 2. Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McShane (US 5,157,480, issued Oct. 20, 1992), Cha, and Pendse (US 2002/0031902 A1, published Mar. 14, 2002). 3. Claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McShane, Cha, Pendse, and Texas Instruments LM380 2.5W Audio Power Amplifier data sheet (dated Apr. 2013). 4. Claims 6, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McShane, Cha, Pendse, and Kim (US 8,089,145 B1, issued Jan. 3, 2012). 5. Claims 8-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McShane, Cha, Pendse, and Seo (US 2002/0020907 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002). ANALYSIS Rejections 1 and 2 The Appellant presents arguments only for claim 1. The remaining claims subject to Rejections 1 and 2 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Of particular relevance to the issue raised by the Appellant, the Examiner finds that semiconductor die 40a of Cha (see Cha Fig. 5) and semiconductor die 32 of McShane (see McShane Fig. 2) are “attached to” leads (see Cha Fig. 5 element 42; McShane Fig. 2 element 42) notwithstanding the fact that the dies are not directly attached to the leads. As the Appellant explains, see Appeal Br. 6-10, in Cha, paddle layer 30 is an intervening element between die 40a and lead 42, see Cha Fig. 5, and in McShane, wire 38 is an intervening element between die 32 and lead 42, see McShane Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that, in Cha, die 40a is “attached to” Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 4 lead 42 by way of paddle layer 30, and in McShane, die 32 is “attached to” lead 42 by way of wire 38. See Ans. 7. The sole issue with respect to Rejections 1 and 2 is whether the term “attached to” encompasses embodiments such as those of Cha’s Figure 5 and McShane’s Figure 2 in which intervening elements exist between the die and the lead, i.e., the die is indirectly attached to the lead. See Appeal Br. 6-10. For reasons that follow, we agree with the Examiner that it does. It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id. “[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this case, the Appellant has not identified any portion of the Specification that might exclude the indirect attachment of Cha and McShane relied on by the Examiner. On the contrary, the Appellant itself acknowledges that direct attachment of a die to a lead is possible, see Appeal Br. 8 (referring to “a welded joint”), but that the Specification expressly describes dies “attached . . . to” leads by way of intervening features such as “solder bumps, Cu pillars, Cu-wire stud bumps, etc.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Spec. ¶ 29); see also, e.g., Fig. 6E (depicting “connections 114” intervening between die 106 and leads 104). Thus, the Specification is consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “attached to” as encompassing embodiments with leads indirectly attached to dies by way of intervening Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 5 features, such as the embodiments of Cha and McShane discussed above. See Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech. Inc., 611 F. App’x 681, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he ordinary meaning of ‘attached’ includes both direct and indirect attachment.”); cf. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The ordinary meaning of ‘connected to’ encompasses indirect linkages.”); Bradford Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (interpreting “coupled to” as “allow[ing] an indirect attachment.”). Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 1 and 2. Rejection 3 Rejection 3 encompasses claims 3 and 15, which depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively. The Appellant presents no separate arguments as to claims 3 and 15. Because we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 14 above, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 15. Rejection 4 The Final Action indicates that Rejection 4 encompasses claims 6, 13, and 18. Final Act. 6. The Appellant raises no arguments as to claims 6 or 18, which depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18. As to claim 13, in the Final Action, the Examiner states that “claim[] 13 . . . would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.” Id. at 8. The Final Action, however, does not include a § 112 rejection of claim 13; nor does it include a substantive discussion of any basis upon Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 6 which claim 13 might be rejected under § 103. See generally Final Act. Thus, it appears that the Examiner’s inclusion of claim 13 in the header of Rejection 4, see id. at 6, was an error. In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledges in a footnote that “claim[] 13 . . . is not subject to a 112(b)” rejection. See Ans. 4 n.3. In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over the prior art. Appeal Br. 11-12. As noted above, it appears that the Examiner’s inclusion of claim 13 in the header of Rejection 4, see Final Act. 6, was an error, because neither the Final Action nor the Answer includes any meaningful discussion of the basis for a § 103 rejection of claim 13, and the Examiner subsequently indicated allowability of the claim over the prior art, Final Act. 8. To the extent that claim 13 is subject to Rejection 4, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Rejection 5 Rejection 5 encompasses claims 8-10, 19, and 20. The Appellant presents no arguments as to claims 8, 9, 19, and 20. Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 14. Because we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above, and the Appellant presents no separate arguments as to claims 8, 9, 19, or 20, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 19, and 20. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further requires “a metal block contacting the side of the semiconductor die to which the plurality of electrically conductive leads is attached, wherein the metal block is exposed at the bottom side of the semiconductor package.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 7 Appendix). The Examiner finds that Figure 2B of Seo depicts such an arrangement, and the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate Seo’s metal block into McShane’s structure to provide a heat sink for the semiconductor die. Final Act. 8 (citing Seo Fig. 2b and ¶ 29). Figure 2b of Seo is reproduced below. Seo’s Figure 2b, above, depicts chip mounting substrate 4 contacting semiconductor chip 2 by way of intervening adhesive 14. See Seo ¶ 29. Seo states that “[t]he adhesive 14 is thermally conductive and electrically non- conductive, and transfers the heat of the semiconductor chip 2 to chip mounting substrate 4.” Id. The Appellant argues that Seo’s element 4 does not “contact[]” the semiconductor die because adhesive 14 is interposed between element 4 and chip 2. See Appeal Br. 12. That argument is not persuasive for reasons stated by the Examiner. See Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 8. Figure 6E of the Appellant’s Specification is reproduced below. Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 8 The Appellant’s Figure 6E, above, depicts die 106 and metal block 602. Two intervening unlabeled rectangles separate metal block 602 from die 106. See Spec. Fig. 6E. Notwithstanding the presence of the unlabeled rectangles, the Specification states, with reference to Figure 6E, that “metal block 602 contact[s] the side 106” of the semiconductor die. Spec. ¶ 42. Like Seo, the Specification describes the purpose of block 602 as being heat dissipation. See id. Although the rectangles separating block 602 from die 106 are unlabeled, the unlabeled rectangles are consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 10. In particular, the unlabeled rectangles and associated description of Figure 6E (Spec. ¶ 42) indicate that an embodiment may fall within the scope of claim 10 even if some intervening element or layer separates the die from the metal block. That is consistent with the fact that heat sinks (e.g., metal block 602 of the Appellant’s Figure 6E and element 4 of Seo’s Figure 2b) are typically in contact with chips by way of an intervening layer such as a thermal adhesive or paste. See, e.g., Seo ¶ 29. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues for the first time that the unlabeled rectangles of Figure 6E merely indicate “a change of shape / Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 9 profile of metal block 602.” Reply Br. 7. Given the Examiner’s express reliance in the Final Action on Seo’s Figure 2b, which clearly depicts intervening layer 14 between elements 2 and 4, the Appellant should have addressed its own Figure 6E (showing a similar arrangement with intervening layers) in the Appeal Brief. But even were we to accept the argument in the Reply as timely, it is not persuasive because it is not consistent with Figure 6E; the unlabeled rectangle immediately atop block 602 does not appear to have any change of shape or profile relative to block 602. See Figure 6E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood Figure 6E and its associated textual description (Spec. ¶ 42) to indicate that a die may be considered to “contact” the metal block even if separated by an intervening layer, such as a typical thermal adhesive as described by Seo ¶ 29. Cf. ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1379 (broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification applies during prosecution); Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321 (prosecution is the time to impose clarification). On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Appeal 2021-002945 Application 16/393,898 10 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 14 102(a)(1) Cha 1, 11, 14 1, 2, 7, 11, 14 103 McShane, Cha, Pendse 1, 2, 7, 11, 14 3, 15 103 McShane, Cha, Pendse, Texas Instruments LM380 3, 15 6, 13, 18 103 McShane, Cha, Pendse, Kim 6, 18 13 8-10, 19, 20 103 McShane, Cha, Pendse, Seo 8-10, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1-3, 6-11, 14, 15, 18-20 13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED IN PART