Ex Parte CASTRO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

14818969 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/818,969 08/05/2015
23494 7590 01/31/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ABRAM CASTRO
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.
TI-75396 2566
EXAMINER
HARRISTON, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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 ABRAM CASTRO
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-9 and 19-29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Brief dated July 21, 2017 ("Br."), at 3.
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
1. A flip chip light emitting diode (LED) package, comprising:
an LED die comprising a first substrate, a p-type region and an
n-type region having an active layer in between, a metal contact on
said p-type region (anode contact) and a metal contact on said n-type
region (cathode contact);
a package substrate or lead frame package including a dielectric
material having a first metal through via (first metal post) and second
metal through via ( second metal post) spaced apart from one another
and embedded in said dielectric material;
a first metal pad on a bottom side of said first metal post and a
second metal pad on a bottom side of said second metal post;
an interconnect metal residual between said anode contact and
said first metal post and between said cathode contact and said
second metal post, said interconnect metal residual formed from a
paste comprising metal particles; and
a dielectric region adjacent the sides of the interconnect metal
residual on upper surfaces of the first and second metal posts.
Br. 59.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: 2
2 The Appellant traverses "the rejection of the amended Title." Br. 12. The
Examiner did not reject the title of the Application but rather required a new title.
Final Office Action dated April 28, 2017 ("Final Act."), at 2. Requirements made
by an Examiner are petitionable matters. MPEP § 1002.02(c)(4) (8th ed., Rev. 9,
Aug. 2012). Petitionable matters are not ordinarily appealable to the Board.
MPEP § 1201. Therefore, we will not consider the Examiner's requirement for a
new title.
2
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
(1) claims 1-3, 5-9, 19-23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ludo wise et al. 3 in view of Lu et al. 4 and/ or Applicant's
admitted prior art, 5 and further in view of Collins, III et al.; 6, 7
(2) claims 4 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combination of Ludowise, Lu, Applicant's admitted prior art, and Collins, and
further in view of Shimizu et al. 8 and/or Stockman;9 and
(3) claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Ludowise, Lu, Applicant's admitted prior art, and Collins, and
further in view of Ludwig et al. 10
The obviousness rejections on appeal are sustained for the reasons provided
in the Final Office Action dated April 28, 2017 and the Examiner's Answer dated
September 11, 2017 ("Ans."). We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
Claim 1 recites a flip chip LED package comprising, inter alia, "an
interconnect metal residual between said anode contact and said first metal post
and between said cathode contact and said second metal post, said interconnect
3 US 2005/0072980 Al, published April 7, 2005 ("Ludowise").
4 US 2009/0162557 Al, published June 25, 2009 ("Lu").
5 Paragraph 8 of the Applicant's Specification.
6 US 2002/0185965 Al, published December 12, 2002 ("Collins").
7 The Examiner includes claim 24 in the statement of the rejection. Final Act. 2.
Claim 24, however, is not addressed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 3-
6. Therefore, the statement of the rejection has been corrected to omit claim 24.
8 US 5,998,925, issued December 7, 1999 ("Shimizu").
9 US 2004/0021143 Al, published February 5, 2004 ("Stockman").
10 US 2013/0217598 Al, published August 22, 2013 ("Ludwig").
3
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
metal residual formed from a paste comprising metal particles." Br. 59 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds that Ludowise discloses a flip chip LED package
comprising, inter alia, interconnect 7 between anode contact 5 and first metal post
(left 17) and between cathode contact 6 and second metal post (right 17). Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds Ludowise discloses that interconnect 7 may be solder
or gold but does not disclose that the interconnect is "metal residual formed from a
paste comprising metal particles" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 ( emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner finds that Lu discloses an interconnect metal residual as
claimed. 11 Final Act. 3--4. The interconnect materials disclosed in Lu are said to
improve the thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties of the joint compared to
traditional lead or lead free solders. Lu ,r 8. Based on that teaching in Lu, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Ludowise' s interconnect with the interconnect materials disclosed in
Lu. Final Act. 4.
11 The Examiner also finds that paragraph 8 of the Appellant's Specification (i.e.,
admitted prior art) discloses an interconnect metal residual as claimed. Final Act.
4. The Appellant "respectfully traverses the assertion in the Office Action (page 4)
that paragraph 0008 of the Appellant's Specification is admitted prior art" because
"paragraph 0008 ... is in the Summary section or [ sic, of] the patent application
(not the Background section)." Br. 15. Regardless of whether paragraph 8 is in
the Summary section of the Specification, paragraph 8 includes the statement that
"both [are] well known in the industry." Spec. ,r 8. Nonetheless, the Examiner's
reliance on paragraph 8 of the Appellant's Specification is cumulative of the
teachings in Lu. Thus, it is not necessary to decide whether the disclosure in
paragraph 8 is admitted prior art.
4
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
The Appellant argues that Ludowise "teaches away from the claimed
invention by teaching the use of 'solder' interconnects." 12 Br. 13 (citing Ludowise
,r 12).
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Ludowise
discloses, "Submount interconnects 7 which may be,for example, solder or gold,
connect light emitting device 12 to contact pads 10 on submount 11." Ludowise
,r 12 (emphasis added). The mere fact that Ludowise exemplifies solder and gold
interconnects does not constitute a teaching away from the claimed invention
because "such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" the
claimed interconnect material. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Appellant also argues:
Lu [] teaches away from the claimed invention by teaching the use of
nanoscale metal paste whose "sintering temperature is typically
250° C or higher/greater" (stated twice in paragraph 0040; see also
paragraphs 0011 and 0050 where the silver paste is "sintered at
300° C"). Note that the Appellant teaches that the claimed
interconnect metal residual is reflowed or cured at a temperature
"such as 210° C to 220° C or less to as to not damage the phosphor
coating that may be on the LED die" (paragraph 0023).
Br. 14.
None of the claims on appeal recites the reflow or cure temperature.
Moreover, independent claims 1 and 21 do not recite a phosphor layer. Br. 59, 62.
Independent claim 19 and dependent claims 3 and 23 recite "a phosphor layer over
said LED die." 13 Br. 60-62. However, the Examiner finds, and the Appellant does
12 The Appellant also argues that Collins teaches away from the claimed invention
by teaching the use of "solder bumps." Br. 13. Collins is relied on to teach the
claimed phosphor layer, not the claimed interconnect material. See Final Act. 4.
13 Dependent claim 3 depends from claim 1, and dependent claim 23 depends from
claim 21. Br. 60, 62.
5
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
not dispute, that Collins discloses a phosphor layer as claimed. Final Act. 5. The
Appellant does not direct us to any disclosure in Collins that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art away from using Lu's interconnect material in combination
with Collins' phosphor layer. Instead, the Appellant relies on paragraph 23 of the
Specification to support the argument that Lu teaches away from the claimed
invention. Br. 14.
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Appellant discloses that "[t]he reflowing or curing can be performed at a low
temperature, (such as 210 °C to 220 °C or less so as to not damage the phosphor
coating that may be on the LED die." Spec. ,r 23 (emphasis added). Significantly,
the Appellant neither expressly limits the reflow or cure temperature to less than
220°C nor identifies the specific phosphor material used in the coating.
Moreover, Lu discloses that "[d]epending on the thickness of the film, the
size of the particles, and the material of the particles (e.g., silver or silver alloy) the
sintering time and temperature will vary." Lu ,r 37 ( emphasis added). Thus,
contrary to the Appellant's argument, the teachings of Lu are not limited to a
sintering temperature of 250° C or higher. In that regard, the Appellant does not
direct us to any evidence establishing that it would have been outside the level of
ordinary skill in the art to discover a workable sintering temperature that, based on
the teachings of Lu, does not damage Collins' phosphor layer.
In sum, the Appellant does not identify any reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Likewise, the Appellant does not identify any
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 19-23, and 25-28.
The Appellant merely relies on the same arguments presented against the rejection
of claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, those arguments are not persuasive of
6
Appeal2018-001535
Application 14/818,969
reversible error. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 19-23,
and 25-28 is sustained.
2. Rejection (2)
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner's findings that
Shimizu and Stockman both disclose a multi-quantum well as recited in claims 4
and 24. See Final Act. 6-7. Rather, the Appellant argues that Shimizu and
Stockman do not disclose an interconnect metal residual formed from an ink
comprising metal particles. Br. 49. The Examiner relies on Lu, not Shimizu or
Stockman, to teach the claimed interconnect metal residual. Therefore, the
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 24 is sustained.
3. Rejection (3)
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual
findings or legal conclusions as to Ludwig. See Final Act. 7 (finding that Ludwig
discloses an ink comprising an acid); Br. 55 (arguing that Ludwig "teaches away
from the claimed invention by teaching that the LED is 'rendered by functional
printing' (paragraph 0591 )"). Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 29 is
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
7