Ex Parte Bachman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12198946 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/198,946 08/27/2008
24319 7590
LSI CORPORATION
1110 American Parkway NE
Allentown, PA 18109
04/20/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Bachman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BACHMAN 11-73 5027
EXAMINER
JIANG, FANG-XING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
kee.rivers@broadcom.com
patent.lsi@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK BACHMAN and
JOHN OSENBACH
Appeal2014-005634
Application 12/198,946
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over at least the basic combination of
Koduri (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0028524 Al, published Mar. 7, 2002;
hereinafter "Koduri") in view of Izumitani et al. (US. Pub. No.
2003/0080428 Al, published May 1, 2003; hereinafter "lzumitani").2 We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Agere Systems, Inc. (Br. 3).
2 The Examiner additionally applied Spielberger et al. (U.S. Pub. No.
2003/0102156 Al, published June 5, 2003; hereinafter "Spielberger")
against claim 15; and Mui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0127825 Al, published
Appeal2014-005634
Application 12/198,946
We AFFIRivI.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added):
1. An integrated circuit package, comprising:
an integrated circuit including transistors coupled to copper
interconnect structures;
copper pads located over said integrated circuit and directly
contacting uppermost ones of said copper interconnect structures, wherein
each of said copper pads has a thickness that ranges from about 2 microns
to about 5 microns; and
copper wires bonded to ones of said copper pads by a copper-to-
copper metallurgical bond.
Independent claim 12 is directed to a corresponding method of
manufacturing an integrated circuit, and independent claim 21 is directed to
an integrated circuit package similar to claim 1 but recites "wherein each of
said copper pads has a thickness that is about 2 microns" (Claims App.).
Appellants do not separately argue any of the dependent claims, even
those rejected separately, except for claim 16 (Br. 9). Accordingly, all of the
claims stand or fall together, except for claim 16.
Sept. 12, 2002; hereinafter "Mui") with Lemelson (U.S. Pat. No. 3,779,446,
issued Dec. 18, 1973) against claim 16. Further, it is noted that the
Examiner's omission of claim 5 from the statement of the rejection (Final
Rej. 2) is harmless error, as he refers to claim 5 in the body of the rejection
(Final Rej. 11).
2
Appeal2014-005634
Application 12/198,946
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the appeal record including the Appellants'
position in this appeal as set forth on pages 3-10 of the Appeal Brief, we
affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons stated by the Examiner
(Final Office Action mailed June 05, 2013, at 14-15; Examiner's Answer
mailed February 03, 2014 at 2-13).
There is no meaningful dispute that the combined teachings of Koduri
and Izumitani suggest a semiconductor device and method of making the
device, wherein the device comprises transistors coupled to copper
interconnect structures with copper pads located over integrated circuit and
directly contacting copper interconnect structures and further comprising
copper wires bonded to copper pads by a copper-to-copper metallurgical
bond that is encompassed by claims 1, 12, and 21. Appellants' main
argument is that the applied prior art fails to teach the claimed range of
thickness values for copper pads; wherein the claimed thickness of each of
said copper pads ranges from about 2 microns to about 5 microns (Br. 6).
It is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Furthermore, under the flexible
inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the
"inferences and creative steps," or even routine steps, that an ordinary
artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited
Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
3
Appeal2014-005634
Application 12/198,946
As aptly pointed out by the Examiner, Izumitani teaches that when a
bonding pad thickness is less than 600 nm, this may lead to undesirable
cracking of underlying layers of the semiconductor device. Subsequent
embodiments of Izumitani exemplify increasing thicknesses of bonding pads
without a specified maximum limit (Ans. 3-5).
Appellants have not shown any reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than
ordinary creativity, would have found workable ranges for the thickness of
the bond pads and likewise established an upper limit to the thickness range
based upon cost conserving measures and optimal device performance
regarding amount of pad product used in thickening the pads. It is well
settled that obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success;
all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. In re Kubin, 561
F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04
(Fed. Cir. 1988). The range taught in Izumitani de facto overlaps the
claimed range since there is no explicit upper limit to the bond pad
thickness. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In
cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have
consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie
case of obviousness.").
Furthermore, a "recognition in the prior art that a property is affected
by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As indicated
above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the
thickness of the pad is a result-effective variable in a semiconductor layer
composition comprising bonding pads as explicitly recognized by Izumitani.
4
Appeal2014-005634
Application 12/198,946
ivforeover, it is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan
with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-
effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, the applicant
must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
On this record, Appellants do not rely upon any evidence of
unexpected results.
Appellants' argument that Izumitani teaches away from Koduri
because Izumitani's bond pads are at a lower level within the device (Br. 7,
8) are not persuasive for the reasons aptly detailed by the Examiner (Ans. 10
(explaining that Izumitani also exemplifies bond pads may be located in the
uppermost level)).
Contrary to Appellants' contention (Br. 9, 10), a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's position that Lemelson, as applied to
dependent claim 16, is analogous art (Ans. 13).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejections of all the claims
on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5