Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2020

2019005476 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
15/010,022 01/29/2016 Brian Zinn TI-73552A 6386
23494 7590 12/09/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
CRITE, ANTONIO B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN ZINN1
____________

Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, 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 and 21–36. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor devices and,
more specifically, to “bond pads for integrated circuits.” E.g., Spec. ¶ 2;
Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 43 (Claims Appendix) of
the Appeal Brief:

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 Texas
Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

2
1. A device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate;
a metal layer above the semiconductor substrate;
a bond pad metal area above the metal layer and coupled to the
metal layer using a via plug;
a passivation layer patterned with an opening completely
exposing all of a top surface of the bond pad metal area, the
passivation layer forming a trench with the bond pad metal area,
the trench having passivation sidewalls; and
a ruthenium (Ru) layer covering the passivation sidewalls and the
bond pad metal area,
wherein the bond pad metal area and the Ru layer form a bond
pad having a bond pad surface for bonding directly to a bond
wire.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1, 21, 25–29, 32, and 33 over Choi (US 2013/0313707 A1,
published Nov. 28, 2013), Chou (US 2007/0205520 A1, published Sept. 6,
2007), and Jiang (US 2001/0020745 A1, published Sept. 13, 2001).
2. Claims 22, 24, and 30 over Choi, Chou, Jiang, and Hamaya (US
2011/0127158 A1, published June 2, 2011).
3. Claims 23 and 31 over Choi, Chou, Jiang, and Lin (US 8,148,822
B2, issued Apr. 3, 2012).
4. Claims 34 and 35 over Choi and Jiang.
5. Claim 36 over Choi, Jiang, and Hamaya.
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

3
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Non-Final Action dated July 30, 2018 (“Office Act.”), and in the Examiner’s
Answer.
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s statement of the rejection of claim 1 appears at pages
3–4 of the Office Action. Of particular relevance to the issues raised by the
Appellant in this appeal, the Examiner finds that Choi teaches a bond pad
metal area that falls within the scope of claim 1. See Office Act. 3
(identifying element 103 of Figure 8A as corresponding to the claimed bond
pad metal area). The Examiner finds that Choi teaches a passivation layer
that includes “an opening completely exposing all of a top surface of the
bond pad metal area.” Id. (relying on element 105 of Figure 8A). Relevant
to that finding, the Examiner interprets “bond pad metal area” as “the
bonding area exposed by the passivation layer.” Id. at 15. In the Answer,
the Examiner further explains that “the metal bond pad ‘area’ [of Choi] is
completely exposed because the entire exposed area of the metal bond pad
103 by passivation layer 105 is completely covered by ruthenium layer 109.”
Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner acknowledges that Choi “fails to expressly teach . . . a
bond pad surface for bonding directly to a bond wire.” Office Act. 3–4. The
Examiner finds, however, that “Jiang discloses wherein the bond pad metal
area and the Ru layer form a bond pad having a bond pad surface for
bonding directly to a bond wire.” Id. at 4 (parenthetical citations omitted).
The Examiner determines that “[t]he motivation to combine would have
been for the purpose of utilizing common methods of connecting a device to
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

4
a lead frame or other support device to permit utilization of the integrated
circuit (IC).” Id.
In view of those and other findings less relevant to the arguments
raised by the Appellant, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter of
claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The Appellant first argues that Choi does not teach a passivation layer
with an opening that “completely expos[es] all of a top surface of the bond
pad metal area.” Br. 11.
That argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s claim interpretation. As explained above, the Examiner
interprets the recited “bond pad metal area” as “the bonding area exposed by
the passivation layer.” Office Act. 15. In the Answer, the Examiner finds
that the term “area” recited by claim 1 need not be the entire top surface of
the bond pad, and the Examiner makes clear that the Examiner finds that
only the portion of Choi’s layer 103 exposed by the opening in passivation
layer 105 corresponds to the claimed “bond pad metal area.” Ans. 4–5
(referencing Choi Fig. 8A).
Although we recognize that the entire top surface of Choi’s layer 103
is not exposed by the opening in Choi’s passivation layer 105, under the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “bond pad metal area,” it is not
necessary for the entire top surface of layer 103 to be exposed in order for
the structure to fall within the scope of the claim as interpreted by the
Examiner. See Ans. 4–5. Under the Examiner’s interpretation, the entire
“bond pad metal area” of Choi’s layer 103 is “completely expos[ed]” as
required by claim 1. Id.
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

5
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant does not argue that the term “bond
pad metal area” should be limited to the entire top surface of the bond pad,
and the Appellant has not identified any basis in the record to interpret it in
that way. See generally Appeal Br. The claim itself refers to a bond pad
metal “area,” and does not require the “area” to be the entire bond pad
surface. And, although the Examiner further clarifies the basis for the
rejection in the Answer, the Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to contest
the Examiner’s claim interpretation as further clarified and maintained in the
Answer. On this record, and particularly under the claim construction
standard applicable to this proceeding (broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification, see In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)), the Appellant provides no persuasive
reason that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “bond pad metal area”
is incorrect. 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 . . . .”); cf. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.”).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Choi’s passivation layer has an opening that “completely
expos[es] all of a top surface of the bond pad metal area.”
The Appellant also argues that Chou does not teach a bond pad metal
area that is completely exposed by an opening in a passivation layer.
Br. 12–13. That argument is not persuasive because it attacks Chou
individually and, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Choi—not
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

6
Chou—as teaching the disputed limitation. 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.”).
The Appellant also argues that neither Choi nor Chou teaches that its
bond pad surface is “for bonding directly to a bond wire,” as recited by
claim 1. Br. 12, 13.
The Examiner does not directly rely on Choi or Chou for teaching or
suggesting that limitation. Office Act. 3–4. Instead, as noted above, the
Examiner finds that Jiang teaches a bond pad surface for bonding directly to
a bond wire, and that Jiang shows that such is a “common method[] of
connecting a device to a lead frame or other support device to permit
utilization of the integrated circuit.” Id. We understand the Examiner’s
rationale to be that it was known in the art that structures such as that of
Choi and Chou are capable of being bonded directly to a bond wire, as
taught by Jiang, and that, because the structure of the combined prior art is
capable of performing the recited function (i.e., bonding directly to a bond
wire), it falls within the scope of the claim. See id. The Appellant’s
argument that neither Choi nor Chou individually teaches directly bonding
to a bond wire does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s combination
rationale or otherwise show reversible error in it. See Keller, 642 F.2d at
426; Jung, 637 at 1365; see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb
Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what
a device is, not what a device does.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

7
The Appellant includes separate sections of its Appeal Brief for
claims 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33. See Br. 14–25. The Appellant’s
arguments in those sections hinge on the argument discussed and rejected
above concerning whether the opening in Choi’s passivation layer
completely exposes all of a top surface of Choi’s bond pad metal area.
Those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Additionally, although the Appellant makes conclusory assertions that
each of the separately listed dependent claims is “allowable on its own
merits,” the Appellant’s discussion consists of naked assertions that the prior
art does not teach the additional limitations of the dependent claims, and it
fails to address the Examiner’s specific findings concerning those claims.
See Br. 14–25. Naked assertions that the prior art does not teach the subject
matter of the claims are not adequate to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365; In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33.
Rejection 2
Although the Appellant includes a separate section in the Appeal Brief
directed to Rejection 2, with the exception of the arguments directed to
claim 22 and addressed below, the discussion again appears to hinge on the
argument discussed and rejected above concerning whether the opening in
Choi’s passivation layer completely exposes all of a top surface of Choi’s
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

8
bond pad metal area. That argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated
above. Additionally, as above, the Appellant’s discussion attacks the
references individually and does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s
combination rationale. Moreover, the discussion again consists essentially
of naked assertions that the prior art does not teach the additional limitations
of the claims subject to Rejection 2, and it fails to address the Examiner’s
specific findings concerning those claims.
As to claim 22, the Examiner finds that layer 23c of Figure 3 of
Hamaya, which Hamaya describes as a “Cu film,” Hamaya ¶ 96, constitutes
a bond pad metal area, and that that Hamaya’s barrier layer 33a “directly
interfac[es] the bond pad metal area (23c) with the Ru layer (33b).” Office
Act. 9. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to add a barrier layer to the structure of Choi and Chou
to provide “a film that has a barrier property against the diffusion of
copper.” Id.
The Appellant argues that Hamaya “teaches that element 23a is a
wiring layer,”2 and that element 33a is “part of a wiring layer.” Br. 27.
Those arguments are not persuasive because they do not meaningfully
address the Examiner’s findings. The arguments appear to be based on the
fact that Hamaya does not use precisely the same words (i.e., “bond pad
metal area” and “barrier layer”) used by claim 22. However, whether a
reference discloses a claim element “is not an ipsissimis verbis test,” In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks
omitted), and the Appellant has provided no reason to reject the Examiner’s

2 It appears that the Appellant mistakenly referred to element 23a rather than
element 23c, relied on by the Examiner.
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

9
findings that the relied-upon layers of Hamaya correspond to the recited
layers of claim 22. See, e.g., Ans. 6–7. The Appellant’s argument amounts
to little more than mere disagreement with the Examiner’s findings. See
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual
disputes do not amount to a developed argument.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 or any of the other claims subject to
Rejection 2. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Rejections 3–5
Although the Appellant includes separate sections in the Appeal Brief
directed to Rejections 3–5, the discussions again hinges on the argument
discussed and rejected above concerning whether the opening in Choi’s
passivation layer completely exposes all of a top surface of Choi’s bond pad
metal area. That argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Additionally, as above, the discussions attack the references individually and
do not meaningfully address the Examiner’s combination rationale.
Moreover, the discussions again consist essentially of naked assertions that
the prior art does not teach the additional limitations of the claims subject to
those rejections, and it fails to address the Examiner’s specific findings
concerning those claims.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Rejections 3–5.
Appeal 2019-005476
Application 15/010,022

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 21, 25–
29, 32, 33 103 Choi, Chou, Jiang
1, 21, 25–29,
32, 33
22, 24, 30 103 Choi, Chou, Jiang, Hamaya 22, 24, 30
23, 31 103 Choi, Chou, Jiang, Lin 23, 31
34, 35 103 Choi, Jiang 34, 35
36 103 Choi, Jiang, Hamaya 36
Overall
Outcome 1, 21–36
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