SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

15230179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
15/230,179 08/05/2016 Soon Wei WANG ONS02044US 5044
132194 7590 04/30/2020
SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (AS)
5005 E. McDowell Road
Maildrop A700
Phoenix, AZ 85008
EXAMINER
KIM, SU C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
ipdocket@iptech.law
patents@onsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOON WEI WANG, HOW KIAT LIEW, and
JOSE FELIXMINIA PALAGUD, JR.
Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lin (US 2013/0256733 A1, pub. Oct. 03,
2013), and claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Semiconductor
Components Industries, LLC. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November
13, 2018, at 3.
Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to semiconductor packages, such as quad flat no
leads and dual flat no leads packages. Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant discloses that
such packages conventionally have bottom leads that are flush with the
edges of the package and are designed to be directly solderable to a
motherboard or other circuit board. Id. ¶ 2. In addition, these packages are
singulated, for example, by sawing, which serves to separate the package
leads from the remainder of the lead frame. Id. According to Appellant,
smaller conventional package designs may be constrained because space
must be made available in the package corners and edges to provide space to
keep the leads from dropping off during singulation. Id. ¶ 36.
The claims are directed to semiconductor packages comprising a lead
frame having a lead on a package corner (claim 1) or on a package edge
(claim 5), wherein these leads are not offset from the corner or edge through
mold compound. Spec. ¶ 40. Each of these leads has a half etch on a first
portion which extends internally into the package to create a mechanical
mold compound lock between the lead and the mold compound and a half
etch on a second portion which is positioned on two package edges (corner
lead) or on one package edge. Id. In addition, the first portion does not
contact, and the second portion contacts, a mounting surface of the package.
Id.; claims 1 and 5. Appellant discloses that, unlike conventional designs, the
inventive leads do not drop off upon singulation. Spec. ¶ 43.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179

3
1. A semiconductor package comprising:
a lead frame comprising at least one corner lead, the at
least one corner lead positioned where two outer edges of the
package meet, and the at least one corner lead having a half
etch on a first portion of the lead and a half etch on a second
portion of the lead;
wherein the first portion extends internally into the
package to create a mechanical mold compound lock between a
mold compound of the package and the lead;
wherein the second portion is located on at least one of
the two outer edges of the package;
wherein the second portion is a portion of the at least one
corner lead that contacts a mounting surface of the
semiconductor package; and
wherein the mounting surface extends to at least one of
the two outer edges of the package.
Independent claim 5 recites a similar semiconductor package
comprising a lead frame, but differs from claim 1 in that the lead
frame comprises at least one lead located on an outer edge of the
package.
OPINION
Anticipation Rejection
A reference anticipates a claim if it “disclose[s] each and every
element of the claimed invention, whether it does so explicitly or
inherently.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). The elements “must be arranged or combined in the same way as
in the claim.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179

4
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Lin anticipates claim 1, and in particular that
Lin’s lead frames 11, 12 define a corner lead that is positioned where two
outer edges of the package meet. Ans. 4, 7–8. The Examiner finds that lead
frames 11, 12 comprise at least one corner lead having at least some portion
covering two corners where two outer edges of the package meet. Id. In this
regard, the Examiner finds that Lin’s lead frames each have corners where
five outer edges meet. Id. at 8 (referring to an annotated reproduction of
Lin’s Fig. 2).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Lin fails to teach a semiconductor
package whose lead frame includes a corner lead positioned where two outer
edges of the package meet. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant contends that
although Lin’s lead frames have corners, these corners do not define at least
one corner positioned where two outer edges of the package meet. Reply Br.
2–3.
We find Appellant’s interpretation of Lin’s structure persuasive. A
careful review of Lin reveals that Lin’s lead frames 11, 12 are spaced from
the package corners by mold compound. See Lin Figs. 2–4. Lin does define
leads 119, 129 which extend to the side surfaces of the package, but these
leads are not positioned where two outer edges of the package meet as
required by claim 1. Lin’s five outer edges identified by the Examiner are
package edges, but no part of the lead frames are positioned on any of these
edges. Instead, each of the edges of Lin’s package corners are defined by
mold compound, rather than by any portion of the lead frames. As such, the
Examiner erred in interpreting Lin’s lead frames 11, 12 as comprising at
least one corner lead as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179

5
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, or dependent claims 2 and
3, by Lin.
Claim 5
Similarly to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lin’s lead frames 11, 12
define a corner lead that is positioned where two outer edges of the package
meet. Ans. 4–5, 11–12. The Examiner finds that lead frames 11, 12 comprise
at least one lead located on an outer edge of the package. Id. In this regard,
the Examiner finds that Lin’s lead frames each have corners where five outer
edges meet. Id. at 12 (referring to an annotated reproduction of Lin’s Fig. 2).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Lin fails to teach a semiconductor
package whose lead frame includes a lead located on an outer edge of the
package. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant contends that although Lin’s lead
frames have tie bars (i.e., leads 119, 129) extending to an outer surface of
the package and a bottom portion extending to a bottom surface of the
package, neither these tie bars nor bottom portion define a lead located on an
outer edge of the package. Id. In this regard, Appellant urges that Lin’s lead
frames are encased in the mold compound of the package thereby preventing
them from being located at an outer edge of the package. Reply Br. 8.
Again, we find Appellant’s interpretation of Lin’s structure
persuasive. A careful review of Lin reveals that Lin’s lead frames 11, 12 are
spaced from the package edges by mold compound. See Lin Figs. 2–4A. Lin
does define leads 119, 129 which extend to the side surfaces of the package,
but these leads are not located at an outer edge of the package as required by
claim 5. Lin’s five outer edges identified by the Examiner are package
edges, but no part of the lead frames are positioned on any of these edges.
Instead, each of the edges of Lin’s package are defined by mold compound,
Appeal 2019-003752
Application 15/230,179

6
rather than by any portion of the lead frames. As such, the Examiner erred in
interpreting Lin’s lead frames 11, 12 as comprising at least one lead located
at an outer edge of the package as required by claim 5. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 5, or dependent
claims 6 and 7, by Lin.
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lin. Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on the same erroneous
interpretations of Lin as in the anticipation rejection. See id. Accordingly,
for the same reasons given above, we likewise cannot sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 8 over Lin.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, and claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over, Lin is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7 102(a)(1) Lin 1–3, 5–7
4, 8 103 Lin 4, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–8

REVERSED