Ex Parte Ahmad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13245181 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
13/245,181 09/26/2011 Nazir Ahmad 2515.0038 DIV 7555
112165 7590 02/01/2018
STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP:
Atkins and Associates, P.C.
55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 104
Chandler, AZ 85225
EXAMINER
PARENDO, KEVIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2819
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
main@plgaz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAZIR AHMAD, YOUNG-DO KWON, SAMUEL
TAM, KYUNG-MOON KIM, and RAJENDRA D. PENDSE
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—10, 12, 13, and 15—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed September 26, 2011
(“Spec.”); the Final Action mailed April 28, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed September 21, 2015 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
January 21, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellants do not file a Reply Brief.
2 Appellants identify STATS ChipPAC, Ltd. as the real party in interest. Br.
1.
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
The invention relates to flip chip packing, in particular to providing an
Au/Sn alloy interconnection between a chip and a substrate. Spec. 12. The
invention provides for metallurgical interconnection between the flip chip
and the substrate that further provides for improved bonding between the
chip and the substrate. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of making a semiconductor device,
comprising:
providing a substrate panel including a substrate, the
substrate comprising a non-metal surface;
forming a conductive layer including a first metal, the
first metal directly contacting the non-metal surface of the
substrate;
providing a plurality of semiconductor die;
forming a bump including gold on the semiconductor die;
disposing the semiconductor die over the substrate panel
to contact the bump to the first metal of the conductive layer
and to form a bonding interface;
heating the bump and the bonding interface to a melting
point of the first metal for a time sufficient to melt a portion of
the first metal from the conductive layer;
dissolving a portion of the gold from an end of the bump
by metallurgically reacting the bump and the conductive layer
at the melting point of the first metal;
forming a bonding phase at the bonding interface by
mixing a dissolved portion of the gold from the end of the
bump with a molten portion of the first metal;
depositing an encapsulant between the semiconductor die
and substrate panel; and
2
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
singulating the substrate panel to separate the substrate
after forming the bonding phase.
Br. 36—37 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Scharr et al. US 5,346,857 Sept 13., 1994
(“Scharr”)
Davis et al. US 5,421,507 June 6, 1995
(“Davis”)
Abbink et al. US 5,428,996 July 4, 1995
(“Abbink”)
Boyko et al. US 6,121,069 Sept. 19, 2000
(“Boyko”)
LaFontaine, Jr. et al. US 6,162,660 Dec. 19, 2000
(“LaFontaine”)
WantWang et al. US 6,166,556 Dec. 26, 2000
(“Wang”)
Ahmad et al. US 2012/0013005 Jan. 19,2012
(“Ahmad ’005”)
Ahmad et al.
Al
US 2012/0217635 Aug. 30, 2012
(“Ahmad ’635”)
Ishida et al.
A9
WO 98/52220 Nov. 19, 1998
(“Ishida”)3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellants seek review of the following
rejections:
(1) Claims 1—6 and 21—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph;
3 Ishida et al., US 6,365,438 Bl, issued Apr. 2, 2002 (“Ishida ’438”)
is used as an English translation of Ishida.
3
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
(2) Claims 13 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Scharr as
further evidenced by Davis;
(3) Claims 1—4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr in view of
Ishida ’220 and Wang;
(4) Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr, Ishida, Wang (as
evidenced by Davis), and further in view of Boyko;
(5) Claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr as evidenced
by Davis;
(6) Claims 21—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr in view of
Wang;
(7) Claims 26—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr as evidenced
by Davis and further in view of Ishida;
(8) Claims 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr as
evidenced by Davis and further in view of Abbink and LaFontaine; and
(9) Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scharr as evidenced by
Davis and further in view of Boyko. Final Act. 2—21; Br. 8—34.
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1—6 and 21—25 as lacking written description
The Examiner finds claims 1—6 and 21—25 lack written description of
“a conductive layer including a first metal, the first metal [formed] directly
contacting the non-metal surface of the substrate.” Final Act. 2—3. The
Examiner notes that claims 1 and 21 have been amended to include the
alleged new matter. Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that the application describes the substrate as
having “a set of interconnect points on a metallization thereon.” Id. (citing
4
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Spec. 110). According to the Examiner, it “is well known in the art to bond
a chip that has a set of bumps to interconnect points that connect internally
in the substrate to other electrical features through metallization or
‘interconnects.’” Id. The Examiner finds that the claim language describes
connecting a chip to a featureless wafer, which would have little use. Id.
The Examiner states that it is well known that chips have internal structure
such as transistors and interconnects connecting transistors to external
electronics. Id. The Examiner finds that the electrical contact described in
the Specification between bumps and pads would have been understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to be electrical
contact with metallizations in the substrate, and not to a substrate surface.
Id.
Appellants argue that the disputed limitation is supported by the
Specification. Br. 9-10. Appellants direct us to paragraph 21, which states
in part: “[a]n alternative embodiment provides for direct contact between the
gold stud bumps and a standard metallization on the substrate,” and argue
that the embodiment there described does not require interconnection points
or tin spots on the standard metallization on a substrate. Id. at 10.
Appellants contend that “standard metallization” in paragraph 21 supports “a
conductive layer including a first metal,” and includes standard metallization
formed on a non-metal surface of a substrate. Id. Appellants dispute the
Examiner’s characterization of the limitation as requiring a “featureless
wafer,” arguing that the limitation does not preclude the substrate from
having additional features or the standard metallization from electrically
contacting additional features. Id.
5
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
The Examiner apparently interprets the claims as requiring the first
metal to contact only the non-metal surface, and not contact any metal
features in the substrate. See, e.g., Ans. 3. Nothing in the claims so limits
the contact of the first metal.
The sufficiency of an application’s written description is a question of
fact. AriadPharms., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en banc). Appearance of a claim in the specification in ipsis verbis
does not guarantee that the written description requirement is satisfied. See,
e.g., Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir.
2002). At the same time, a failure to meet that standard does not require a
finding that a claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 1978). All that is
required is that the specification demonstrate, with reasonable clarity, to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the
invention. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d
1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Appellants’ original disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in
the art that, as of the application filing date, Appellants had possession of the
subject matter “a conductive layer including a first metal, the first metal
[formed] directly contacting the non-metal surface of the substrate.” For this
reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 112, first paragraph/written
description rejection of claims 1—6 and 21—25.
Rejection of claims 13 and 15—17 as anticipated
The Examiner finds claim 13 is anticipated by Scharr. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds claims 15—17, which require an alloy, are anticipated by
Scharr as evidenced by Davis. Id.
6
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Appellants argue that claim 13 is patentable over Scharr. Br. 32—35.
Appellants argue that claims 15—17, which depend directly or indirectly
from claim 13, are patentable as depending from an allowable claim. Id. at
35, 39-40 (Claims App’x). Claims 15—17 will stand or fall with claim 13.
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 13 requires, inter alia, “forming a conductive layer including a
first metal, the first metal formed directly on the substrate” and “disposing
the semiconductor die over the substrate to contact the bump to the first
metal and to form a bonding interface including the first and second metals.”
Br. 39 (Claims App’x). Appellants argue that Scharr does not teach these
limitations. Id. at 33.
Figure 2 of Scharr is reproduced below:
Scharr’s Figure 2 illustrates a highly enlarged side view of a flip chip
bond in accordance with Scharr’s invention. Scharr col. 2,11. 6—7. The flip
chip bonded structure shown includes a substrate (21) having a plurality of
bonding areas on a major surface. Id. col. 3,11. 56—58. The bonding areas
may be copper (22) coated with tin (23). Id. col. 3,11. 58—59. The structure
includes a semiconductor integrated circuit (26) having gold bumps (28) on
bond pads (27). Id. col. 3,11. 59-62. Gold bumps (28) are brought into
contact with tin (23). Id. col. 3,1. 62.
7
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
The Examiner finds that the substrate in claim 13 comprises Scharr’s
substrate (21) in addition to copper (22) (which the Examiner refers to as
“bonding areas”). Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Scharr’s bonding
areas correspond to “interconnection [sic] points on a metallization” in the
Specification. Id. (citing Spec. 110). Thus, the Examiner finds that Scharr
teaches disposing the semiconductor die (26) over the substrate (substrate
(21) combined with copper (22)) to contact the bump (28) to the first metal
(tin (23)) and to form a bonding interface including the first (tin (23)) and
second (gold (28)) metals, as required by claim 13. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Scharr’s substrate (21) is equivalent to the
claimed substrate, which does not include the copper bonding traces/areas
(22) . Br. 33. Appellants contend that, as copper (22) is formed directly on
substrate (21), and tin is coated on copper (22), tin (23) is not “formed
directly on the substrate.”
The Examiner responds that Scharr’s decision to name element (21) as
“substrate” does not preclude other interpretations of “substrate.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that “a substrate may
have a complicated structure, having a wafer, transistors, insulating levels,
wires, pads, etc.” Id.
As the Examiner finds, it “is well known in the art to bond a chip that
has a set of bumps to interconnect points that connect internally in the
substrate to other electrical features through metallization or
‘interconnects.’” Final Act. 3. In disputing the written description rejection,
Appellants state that a “substrate including a non-metal surface is supported
[for the purposes of written description] by substrate 16.” Br. 10.
Appellants acknowledge that the substrate may have additional features and
8
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
the standard metallization may electrically contact additional features. Id.
The Specification identifies element 16 as “a standard substrate 16
metallization.” Spec. 117. Thus, Appellants acknowledge that the substrate
may comprise metallization. This is consistent with the Examiner’s finding
that Scharr discloses a substrate comprising elements 21 and 22. The
semiconductor die is disposed over the substrate to contact the bump to the
first metal. See Scharr Fig. 2. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are not
persuasive.
Appellants also argue that Scharr does not teach or suggest the
limitations “heating the semiconductor die to a melting point for a time
sufficient to melt a portion of the first metal from the conductive layer” or
“dissolving a portion of the second metal from an end of the bump by
metallurgically reacting the bump and the conductive layer at the melting
point of the first metal.” Br. 33. Appellants direct us to Scharr’s disclosure
of an infrared heater that heats a circuit board at a rate of 50-C per second up
to 280-350-C to form a gold-tin alloy. Id. at 34 (citing Scharr col. 3,11. 23—
24, 30-34). Appellants contend that the infrared heater of Scharr is at
232-C, which Appellants state is the melting point of tin, for only one fiftieth
of a second. According to Appellants, as a consequence of this brief time at
the melting point of tin, Scharr does not heat the structure to the melting
point for a time sufficient to melt a portion of the tin. Id. Appellants also
contend that Scharr fails to teach the claimed metallurgical reaction at the
melting point of tin because Scharr discloses that a gold-tin eutectic will not
be formed at temperatures below about 280-C. Id.
It would be improper for us to consider the teachings of the prior art
so narrowly. RandallMfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362—63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
9
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Claim 13 merely requires heating the semiconductor dies “to a
melting point of the first metal,” which Scharr clearly discloses, as it teaches
ramping the temperature to 280—315-C, beyond the asserted melting point of
tin. Scharr teaches forming a solder bond between a first and second metal
(see Scharr Abstract), therefore the temperature has been raised “for a time
sufficient to melt a portion of the first metal.” Appellants do not explain
why heating the semiconductor die past the melting point of a first metal
does not encompass heating to the melting point. “[I]n considering the
disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Scharr’s teaching that a gold-tin eutectic will not be formed below a
temperature of about 280-C does not nullity the Examiner’s finding that
Scharr metallurgically reacts gold and tin at the melting point of tin. A
eutectic is a specific proportion of constituents that melt at a temperature
lower than the melting point of any of the constituents. Appellants provide
no evidence that formation of a gold-tin eutectic is the same as the claimed
metallurgical reaction at the melting point of tin. Scharr teaches use of the
same materials used in the Specification, and the same metallurgic reaction
of gold and tin is reasonably expected to occur as claimed. “[W]hen the
prior art evidence reasonably allows the PTO to conclude that a claimed
feature is present in the prior art, the evidence ‘compels such a conclusion if
the applicant produces no evidence or argument to rebut it.’” In re Crish,
393 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
10
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Moreover, Appellants provide only attorney argument, but no
evidence, in support of their position. It is well settled that arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See,
e.g.,In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 as anticipated
by Scharr. We also sustain the rejections of claims 15—17 which depend
from claim 13.
Rejection of claims 1—6 as obvious
The Examiner finds claims 1—4 and 6 are obvious over Scharr in view
of Ishida and Wang. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds claim 5 is obvious
over Scharr, Ishida, and Wang as evidenced by Davis, and further in view of
Boyko. Id. at 10.
Appellants argue that claim 1 is patentable over Scharr in view of
Ishida and Wang. Br. 16—23. Appellants contend that claims 2—6, which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are patentable as depending from
an allowable base claim. Id. at 23, 36—38 (Claims App’x). Claims 2—6 will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that Scharr does not teach all limitations of claim 1.
Br. 16—19. However, the rejection is not based on Scharr alone. Attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references does not demonstrate non-obviousness. In re Merck, 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
11
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
Appellants’ arguments that Scharr does not teach the required
substrate, disposal, heating, or dissolving are unpersuasive for the reasons
given in the discussion on claim 13.
The Examiner finds that Scharr does not explicitly teach forming the
first metal directly contacting the non-metal surface of the substrate (21), but
that Wang teaches this limitation by teaching forming a first metal (solder
receiving stud 26)) directly contacting the non-metal surface (passivation
layer (24)) of a substrate. Id. at 9. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to add the invention of Wang to the invention of Scharr, motivated
because the combination produces the predictable results of allowing the
substrate and all of its internal and external layers to be protected by a non­
conducting part of the substrate to passivate the device (citing Wang col. 4,
11. 47—50), expose the underlying metallizations that connect to inner circuity
(citing Wang col. 3,11. 57—59), and allow the pad to which the other chip’s
solder ball will contact to be electrically isolated from the rest of the
substrate and metal layers (citing Wang Figs. 2 and 3). Id.
Appellants argue that Scharr’s circuit board does not have integrated
circuitry like Wang’s semiconductor die. Br. 22. Therefore, according to
Appellants, adding layers such as a passivation layer from the semiconductor
die in Wang to the circuit board in Scharr, which has no integrated circuitry,
would add manufacturing steps and costs without benefit from the
passivation layer. Id. Appellants also argue that adding a passivation layer
to Scharr would conflict with Scharr’s purpose to reduce cost in bonding
integrated circuit die directly to a circuit board while eliminating process
steps. Id. (citing Scharr col. 4,11. 11—16).
12
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citation omitted). In addition, one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to pursue the desirable properties taught by Wang, even if that
meant foregoing the benefit taught by Scharr. In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d
1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellants fail to persuade us that Scharr and
Wang are not properly combinable. The combined references teach the
limitation of the first metal directly contacting the non-metal surface of
Scharr’s substrate (21).
The Examiner finds that Ishida teaches the substrate panel and
encapsulant of claim 1. Final Act. 8. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to combine Ishida with Scharr to produce the predictable
results of performing a conventional process for manufacturing
semiconductor packages to allow for bonding of chips to a substrate which
has high productivity and low cost. Id. at 88—9.
Appellants do not dispute that Ishida teaches the substrate panel and
encapsulant of claim 1. See Br. 19. However, Appellants contend that
Ishida does not teach elements that the Examiner finds are taught by Scharr.
Br. 19-20. In this, Appellants argue the references individually. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appellants also argue that the proposed combination of Scharr and
Ishida would change the principle of operation of Scharr, which reduces cost
by eliminating the step of encapsulation, and therefore the combination of
references would not be obvious. Br. 20—21. However, as the Examiner
13
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
finds, Scharr discloses removing an encapsulation step that occurs before
flip-chip bonding, but does not suggest eliminating encapsulation after flip-
chip bonding, as required by claim 1. See Ans. 9; Scharr col. 2,11. 11—19.
Appellants fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness of claim 1 over Scharr in view of Ishida and Wang. We
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of its dependent claims, claims 2—6.
Rejection of claims 7—10, 12, and 26—31 as obvious
The Examiner finds claims 7—10 are obvious over Scharr as evidenced
by Davis. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds claim 12 is obvious over
Scharr as evidenced by Davis in view of Abbink and LaFontaine. Id. at 18.
The Examiner finds claims 26—31 are obvious over Scharr as evidenced by
Davis in view of Ishida. Id. at 16.
Appellants argue that claim 7 is patentable over Scharr. Br. 23—26.
Appellants argue that claims 8—10, 12, and 26—31, which depend directly or
indirectly from claim 7, are patentable as depending from an allowable base
claim. Br. 26, 38, 39, and 42^43 (Claims App’x). Claims 8—10, 12, and 26—
31 stand or fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that Scharr does not teach forming a conductive
layer including a first metal, the first metal formed directly on the substrate,
and disposing the semiconductor dies over the substrate to contact the bump
to the first metal of the conductive layer and to form a bonding interface.
Br. 25. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in
relation to claims 1 and 13.
Appellants also contend that Scharr does not teach metallurgically
reacting the bump and the conductive layer at a melting point of the first
metal by heating the bonding interface to the melting point of the first metal
14
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
for a duration of 1 to 2 seconds to dissolve a portion of the second metal
from an end of the bump. Br. 24. In relation to this limitation, Appellants
make essentially the same argument as made against the anticipation
rejection of claim 13, i.e., that heating at 232-C for only one-fiftieth of a
second does not amount to heating to 232-C for 1 to 2 seconds. Compare id.
at 33—35 with and 24.
As the Examiner emphasizes, heating to the melting point for 1 to 2
seconds, required by claim 7, is not the same as heating at the melting point
for the stated time. See Ans. 11. Nothing in claim 7 limits heating to no
higher than the melting point.
The Examiner acknowledges that Scharr discloses heating while
compression loading the bump to the die for “between approximately 3 to 10
seconds,” which is not exactly the claimed 1 to 2 seconds. Id. (citing Scharr
col. 3,11. 27—48). The Examiner notes:
the Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed value is for a
particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or
is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be
necessary for mere dimensional limitations to be prima facie
unobvious. Thus, since 3 seconds is so close to the claimed
range (i.e.[,] it differs merely by one second rather than the
myriad other times that could also accomplish a metallurgical
reaction such as 10, 30, 60, 300, 600 seconds, etc.) it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to add the claimed value to the
invention, since such a value would have been discovered
during routine experimentation and optimization.
Final Act. 12.
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding the
closeness of the disclosed timing to that claimed, and the lack of any alleged
15
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
criticality of the 1 to 2 seconds. Appellants therefore do not rebut the
Examiner’s findings.
In sum, Appellants do not show reversible error in the rejection of
claim 7. We sustain the rejection of claim 7 and its depending claims,
claims 8—10, 12, and 26—31.
Rejection of claims 21—25 as obvious
The Examiner finds claims 21—25 are obvious over Scharr in view of
Wang. Final Act. 13.
Appellants argue that claim 21 is patentable over Scharr in view of
Wang. Br. 26—31. Appellants argue that claims 22—25, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 21, are patentable as depending from an
allowable base claim. Br. 31, 42 (Claims App’x). Claims 22—25 stand or
fall with claim 21.
Appellants argue that Scharr does not teach (1) a substrate including a
non-metal surface; (2) a conductive layer including a first metal, the first
metal formed directly on the non-metal surface of the substrate; (3) a bump
including a second metal connected to the conductive layer by a bonding
phase disposed between the bump and the conductive layer; (4)
metallurgical reaction occurring between the bump and the conductive layer
at a melting point of the first metal; or (5) dissolving a portion of the second
metal from a first end of the bump. Br. 26—29. Appellants also argue that
there is no reasonable rationale to modify Scharr with the passivation layer
of Wang.
Appellants’ arguments on each of the above points is substantially the
same as the arguments to similar limitations made with respect to the
rejections of claim 13 as anticipated and claim 1 as obvious. Compare Br.
16
Appeal 2016-004887
Application 13/245,181
16—19 and 21—23 with 26—31. For the reasoning elaborated in the discussion
of the rejections of claims 1 and 13, Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error.
Rejection of claims 18—20 as obvious
Appellants do not address the patentability of claims 18—20, which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. See Br. generally. Claims 18
and 19 are rejected as obvious over Scharr as evidenced by Davis in view of
Abbink and LaFontaine, while claim 20 is rejected as obvious over Scharr as
evidenced by Davis in view of Boyko. Final Act. 18—21.
We sustain the rejection of claims 18—20.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—6 and 21—25 as lacking written description
is reversed. The rejection of claims 1—10, 12, 13, and 15—31 as
anticipated/obvious is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
17