Seagate Technology LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020006134 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

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. 15/788,886 10/20/2017 Paul Davidson STL073158.00US(STL0104US) 7272 98704 7590 12/30/2021 Kagan Binder, PLLC - Seagate Technology LLC Maple Island Building 221 Main Street North Suite 200 Stillwater, MN 55082 EXAMINER EVANS, JEFFERSON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2021 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): docketing@kaganbinder.com seneca.kemp@seagate.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL DAVIDSON, SCOTT DAMON MATZKE, and AARON MICHAEL COLLINS Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seagate Technology LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is “directed to the placement of solder materials to provide for consistent connection of sliders to their associated head gimbal assemblies in hard disc drives.” Spec. ¶ 5. Claims 1-18 are pending; claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 13-17. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A magnetic recording head comprising: a body comprising a vertically-oriented trailing surface; a plurality of bond pads in a row, each of which is spaced by a gap from an adjacent bond pad along a width of the trailing surface, wherein each bond pad comprises: a planar top bond pad surface comprising a wettable material; two side edges spaced from each other across a width of the bond pad, wherein a width of the gap between adjacent bond pads is defined by one side edge of each of two adjacent bond pads; a bottom bond pad edge extending between the two side edges and spaced at a first vertical distance from a bottom trailing surface edge; and a top bond pad edge extending between the two side edges and spaced at a second vertical distance from the bottom trailing surface edge, wherein the second vertical distance is greater than the first vertical distance; and at least one solder dam comprising a nonwettable, electrically conductive material positioned adjacent to and vertically above the top bond pad edge of at least one of the bond pads. References and Rejection Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US 8,810,965 B2; Aug. 19, 2014) in view of Roskos (US 2010/0180430 A1; July 22, 2010), Yap (US 6,828,677 B2; Dec. Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 3 7, 2004), Chou (US 8,295,011 B2; Oct. 23, 2012), and Yamaguchi (US 2004/0228036 A1; Nov. 18, 2004). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error, because “the specific positioning of a solder dam of claim 1 in a magnetic recording head having a vertically-oriented trailing surface that keeps solder material from moving beyond the top edge of bond pads (i.e., vertically upward) is not contemplated by any of the cited art.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends “the only problem recognized by Peng is the prevention of the spreading of solder balls so that they do not ‘bridge’ to adjacent solder balls across a width of a magnetic recording head,” such that “Peng does not disclose or suggest any reason for vertically orienting a trailing edge with a non-wettable surface vertically above a bond pad, as Peng does not recognize a reason to limit solder movement in any direction other than ‘sideways’ or toward other solder balls.” Appeal Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends “Chou and Yamaguchi, along with Roskos and Yap discussed above, fail to disclose or teach bond pads that can be considered to have a ‘top edge’ with a solder dam positioned adjacent to Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 4 and vertically above it, as is recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner cites Peng for teaching the majority of claim limitations, but finds “Peng does not disclose the non-wettable layer as being along the top edge of one or more bond pads.” Final Act. 3; Peng Fig. 2a (depicting a single row of bond pads with solder dams between individual pads in the row horizontally). The Examiner explains “two separate and complimentary motivations have been set forth for modifying Peng to have a solder dam positioned adjacent to and vertically above the top bond pad edge of at least one of the bond pads.” Ans. 6. We are not persuaded of error under either combination rationale. Regarding the first rationale, the Examiner finds “Chou discloses that slider may include multiple rows of bond pads,” and “if Peng were to utilize plural rows of pads instead of a single row, as was known in the art as evidenced by Chou, the provision of top solder dams would serve to prevent solder from short-circuiting lower row pad with adjacent upper row pads and would be fully consistent with Peng’s purpose for provision of solder dam’s.” Final Act. 3-4; Peng 6:30-36 (“there are two solder nonwettable layers 3249 around the area of each bonding pad . . . [which] ensures a further protection for prevent[ing] adjacent bonding pads 324 from bridging and shorting-circuit”); Chou Figs. 7-9 (depicting plural rows of bond pads). We find the Examiner’s determination to be reasonable, as one of ordinary skill would place Peng’s non-wettable solder dams vertically above a lower row of two rows of bond pads as taught by Chou, in order to prevent short circuiting between pads on the bottom and upper rows. Such combination would yield predictable improvements as found by the Examiner. See KSR Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 5 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). We are similarly unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s second rationale. We note the claim only recites a single row of bond pads. See Appeal Br. 13. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Chou’s teachings of plural rows are not strictly necessary for obviating the claim limitations. See Ans. 7. Specifically, under this rationale, the Examiner relies on “Roskos and Yap . . . as evidence that when utilizing solder to establish electrical connections, it was well known in the solder electrical connection art to utilize solder dam material on multiple sides of a pad, including completely surrounding a pad.” Ans. 6; Final Act. 3; Roskos Fig. 4; Yap Fig. 2a. Under this second rationale, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would surround Peng’s solder contact point with non-wettable material, as taught by Roskos and Yap, to provide an “advantageous level of solder control.” Final Act. 3. In the combination, the solder dams of Roskos and Yap will surround Peng’s vertically-oriented bond pads, and thus the solder dams will be adjacent and above the bond pads. See id. at 4; Ans. 6, 7. We find the Examiner’s determination to be reasonable, as there are only a predictable number of locations for solder dams, and this combination has a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[T]he fact Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 6 that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”). In contrast with the Examiner’s reasonable findings and analyses, Appellant attacks each reference separately. See Appeal Br. 9-11. Such arguments are insufficient to persuade us of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is obvious in view of the cited references. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue the remaining claims with particularity. See Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18 103 Peng, Roskos, Yap, Chou, Yamaguchi 1-18 Appeal 2020-006134 Application 15/788,886 7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED