INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

15057622 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
15/057,622 03/01/2016 Gerald K. Bartley AUS920130356US2 1089
64002 7590 09/16/2020
J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY
710 COLORADO
# 5-C
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
ZARNEKE, DAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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 GERALD K. BARTLEY, WIREN DALE BECKER, ANDREAS
HUBER, and TINGDONG ZHOU
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for making an integrated circuit
package for optimizing power distribution. Spec. 1:1–2:2, Claim 12.
“Microelectronic components are continually being miniaturized” and,
presently, the “technology has advanced to the point that three dimensional
chip stacks” incorporate “conventional C4 solder ball arrays, then Through
Silicon Vias (TSVs) in an intermediate integrated chip from which the
power is transmitted through smaller, i.e., micro uC4 solder ball arrays,”
which “power up integrated circuit memory and logic areas or cells.”
Spec. 1:11–17. The Specification explains, “Because the uC4 interface uses
smaller C4 balls and has a high percentage of tin material to improve the
reliability of the interface, that interface is subject to high electro-migration
(EM) concerns.” Id. at 4:12–14. According to the Specification, “if the
coincidence of the micro C4 solder ball and the vias in the TSVs are [offset]
so as to eliminate or at least minimize the coincidence of micro solder balls
and vias, the electro migration problem . . . is minimized.” Id. at 4:27–29.
Claim 12 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and states:
12. A method for making an integrated circuit package
comprising:
forming a first grid array of C4 solder balls on a substrate
having conductive interconnectors, said solder balls being
respectively connected to the substrate interconnectors;
mounting a first integrated circuit chip including TSVs
(Through Silicon Vias) on said grid array of C4 solder balls, said
chip having a conductive connector grid pattern coincident with
said grid array of C4 solder balls wherein said integrated circuit
is connected to said conductive interconnectors in said substrate;
forming a second grid array of C4 solder balls on the upper
surface of said integrated circuit chip connected to conductive
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
3
interconnectors on said upper surface of said first integrated
circuit chip; and
mounting a second integrated circuit chip mounted on said
second grid array of C4 solder balls wherein said second grid
array of C4 solder balls connects conductive connectors in said
second chip to said conductive interconnectors on said upper
surface, wherein
said C4 solder balls in said second grid array are offset so
as not to horizontally coincide with TSVs in said first integrated
circuit chip.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claim 12 as anticipated by Lin2 and claims 13–
22 as obvious over Lin. Final Act. 2–8.
Rejection of claim 12 over Lin
The Examiner finds that Figure 11A of Lin teaches “C4 solder balls”
that are “offset so as not to horizontally coincide with TSVs.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner explains that “the phrase ‘not to horizontally coincide’ means
not perfectly lined up,” and that “[a]ny structure not perfectly lined up would
meet this limitation.” Id. The Examiner concludes that “Lin’s teaching of
off-center meets this interpretation.” Id.
Appellant disagrees, asserting that “Lin fails to recognize the problem
addressed by this invention or the claimed novel solution.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant acknowledges that, “[w]hile balls 38 do not exactly coincide with
vias 24, all of the balls 38 do respectively coincide with a via 24.” Id. at 7.
Appellant further argues that, “[i]f one applies a straight edge vertically to
Fig .1, they will find that a portion of each ball 38 horizontally overlaps a

2 Lin et al., US 2013/0134559 A1, published May 30, 2013.
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
4
via 24,” and that “[t]he minimal offset from an exact alignment is only a
result of [Lin’s] metallization pattern.” Id. at 7–8.
During patent prosecution, the Office assigns claim terms their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. MPEP
§ 2111. “The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest
possible interpretation.” Id. “Rather, the meaning given to a claim term
must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term
(unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and
must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and
drawings.” Id. Consistent with that guidance, the Examiner reasons that
“the phrase ‘offset so as not to horizontally coincide’ does not necessarily
mean there is a complete offset of the C4 balls without any overlap
whatsoever.” Ans. 3. In other words, the phrase at hand reasonably “can be
interpreted as meaning they do not exactly horizontally match up and do not
occupy the exact same horizontal space.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant identifies no persuasive
reasons for narrowing the disputed claim term to exclude all horizontal
overlap. Further, the Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the
Specification, which indicates that “the coincidence of the micro C4 solder
ball and the vias in the TSVs are [offset] so as to eliminate or at least
minimize the coincidence of micro solder balls and vias.” Spec. 4:26–29.
This guidance in the Specification – that the offset contemplated by claim 1
will “at least minimize the coincidence” – supports the Examiner’s view that
the term “offset so as not to horizontally coincide” embraces a configuration
in which partial horizontal overlap is present.
We find Appellant’s assertion that “Lin fails to recognize the problem
addressed by [the instant] invention or the claimed novel solution”
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
5
inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. Appeal Br. 6. “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is
contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226,
1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Anticipation does not depend upon, or even take into
account, whether or not the prior art reference recognizes the same problem
set forth in Appellants’ Specification.
For the above reasons, we maintain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12.
Rejection of claims 13–22 over Lin
Regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13–22 over
Lin, Appellant relies on the same arguments set forth as to independent
claim 12. Appeal Br. 8.3 We affirm the rejection for the reasons stated
above regarding claim 12.

3 Appellant misidentifies the rejected claims as claims 1–11 in the final
paragraph of the Argument section of its brief, but correctly identifies the
claims at issue as claims 12–22 in the Conclusion section. Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-005219
Application 15/057,622
6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12–22.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12 102 Lin 12
13–22 103 Lin 13–22
Overall
Outcome
12–22

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).
AFFIRMED