Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

2019005176 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

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.
15/089,509 04/02/2016 Srinivas V. Pietambaram P90500 111079-250795 2770
31817 7590 07/13/2020
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
CHEN, XIAOLIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SRINIVAS V. PIETAMBARAM and RAHUL N. MANEPALLI

Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Apr. 2, 2016 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated Aug. 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Mar. 20, 2019 as amended July 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 23, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
June 24, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Intel Corporation is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to electronic device packages generally, and
more particularly to interconnect bridges of package substrates. Spec. ¶ 1.
According to the Specification, the assignee pioneered an embedded multi-
die interconnect bridge (EMIB) to simplify and reduce the cost associated
with silicon interposers with “through silicon vias” (TSV) by providing a
small silicon bridge chip that is embedded in the package substrate. Id. ¶ 2.
The drawback of a typical EMIB constructed of silicon is said to be that the
silicon material has a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) compared
to the buildup dielectric material of the package substrate in which it is
embedded. Id. ¶ 39. Other drawbacks, according to the Specification,
include “thermomechanical issues such as stresses, warpage, etc. due to the
differential thermal expansion of the materials involved.” Id. The
Specification describes the invention as an improved “electrical interconnect
bridge . . . [that] can include a bridge substrate formed of a mold compound
material.” Id. ¶ 40. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added).
1. An electrical interconnect bridge to be embedded in a
package substrate, comprising:
a compression molded bridge substrate comprising a
compression mold compound material, wherein a
coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the
compression mold compound material is from about 7
ppm to about 50 ppm per degree Celsius;
a plurality of routing layers within the bridge substrate, each
routing layer having a plurality of fine line and spaced
(FLS) traces; and
a via extending through the bridge substrate and electrically
coupling at least one of the FLS traces in one of the
Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

3
routing layers to at least one of the FLS traces in another
of the routing layers to route electrical signals between a
first electronic component and a second electronic
component supported by the package substrate.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in 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.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
appealed rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 as follows for the reasons provided
in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 3–9.
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s)
1–4, 9, 10 103 Qian,3 Kobayashi4
5–7 103 Qian, Kobayashi, Lin5
8 103 Qian, Kobayashi, Blish6

Each of the rejections is based on the combination of Qian and
Kobayashi disclosing claim 1’s electrical interconnect bridge. Appellant

3 US 2016/0085899 A1, published Mar. 24, 2016.
4 US 2001/0023983 A1, published Sept. 27, 2001.
5 US 2006/0049483 A1, published Mar. 9, 2006.
6 US 6,037,547, issued Mar. 14, 2000.
Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

4
argues the prior art combination fails to teach claim 1’s compression molded
bridge substrate comprising a compression mold compound material because
Qian’s bridge substrate is not compression molded. Appeal Br. 15–19.
Appellant contends Kobayashi’s resin material is only disclosed for
encapsulating semiconductor components to protect them from air and
chemical dirtying, therefore, the Examiner’s prior art combination lacks a
suggestion or motivation to modify Qian with Kobayashi’s material. Id. at
20–21. In the absence of a “legitimate rationale” to modify Qian with
Kobayashi, Appellant argues the rejection is based on improper hindsight
and lacks guidance about how a skilled artisan would successfully employ
Kobayashi’s material in producing Qian’s bridge substrate. Id. at 24–26.
Appellant further argues the secondary references do not cure the
deficiencies of Qian and Kobayashi. Id. at 27.
Thus, the dispositive issues in this Appeal are:
1. Does the prior art combination encompass a compression
molded bridge substrate comprising a compression mold
compound material as required by claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner properly combine the teachings of Qian and
Kobayashi?
We answer each of these questions in the affirmative based on the
cited record in this Appeal.
Appellant argues Qian does not disclose a “compression molded
bridge substrate” (Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4), however, the Examiner relies
on Qian for teaching a “molded bridge substrate.” Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds any molding is compressed to some degree. Id. at 6. The Examiner also
finds Qian teaches its bridge substrate may be formed from “a variety of
Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

5
suitable materials.” Id. (citing Qian ¶ 22). Appellant does not dispute these
findings. Instead, Appellant asserts “‘compression molded’ implies a
specifically molded part including a material suitable for compression
molding and suitably shaped and designed for use as a bridge substrate.”
Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s distinctions over the cited prior art references are
based thus on the process by which the bridge substrate is formed and the
materials used.
Even if “compression molded” is capable of construction as a
structural limitation, we find that Appellant has not adequately explained
how that structural limitation distinguishes the molded bridge of the claim
from a molded bridge formed of resin capable of compression molding, i.e.
the bridge of the prior art rejection. See In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279
(CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the
claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded” are capable of
construction as structural limitations.). Based on this record, the Examiner’s
finding that Qian’s bridge comprises a molded bridge substrate is unrebutted
by Appellant. Appellant argues that Qian does not disclose a compression
molding process for the bridge substrate (Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 4)
rather than explaining why Qian’s bridge is not a molded bridge as the
Examiner finds (Ans. 5). Appellant also does not dispute the Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 6) that Qian discloses a variety of suitable materials that may
be used for the molded bridge and Kobayashi’s disclosed material is suitable
for compression molding.
Regarding the Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of
Qian and Kobayashi, we find the Examiner has met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

6
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As the Examiner finds and the record supports, Qian
teaches that the bridge substrate may be formed of any material suitable for a
bridge substrate. Ans. 6; Qian ¶ 22. The record also supports the Examiner’s
further finding that Kobayashi teaches epoxy resin is suitable for molding,
such as transfer molding. Ans. 6; Kobayashi ¶ 112. Therefore, since
Appellant does not dispute that Qian’s bridge substrate is molded, and in the
absence of any evidence cited in this Appeal record to support Appellant’s
argument that “compression molded” is distinguishable from either Qian’s
molded substrate or Kobayashi’s molding technique, we find the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning for the combination sufficient.
In sum, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Qian with
the molding material of Kobayashi. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Qian and Kobayashi.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art references.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).

Appeal 2019-005176
Application 15/089,509

7
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9, 10 103 Qian, Kobayashi 1–4, 9, 10
5–7 103 Qian, Kobayashi, Lin 5–7
8 103 Qian, Kobayashi, Blish 8
Overall
Outcome
1–10

AFFIRMED