Ex Parte Doan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 2, 2012

11032855 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/032,855 01/11/2005 Trung Tri Doan SEMI/0105 8057 26290 7590 11/02/2012 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. 3040 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77056 EXAMINER BLUM, DAVID S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TRUNG TRI DOAN, CHUONG ANH TRAN ____________ Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before, KEVIN F. TURNER, THOMAS L.GIANNETTI, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 18-26, 28-31, and 33-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention concerns systems and methods for fabricating a light emitting diode and includes forming a multilayer epitaxial structure above a carrier substrate, depositing at least one metal layer above the multilayer epitaxial structure and forming heat removal fins thereon, and removing the carrier substrate. (Abstract) Claim 1 is illustrative. A method for cooling a light-emitting diode, comprising: forming a multilayer epitaxial structure above a carrier substrate; depositing at least one metal layer of a metal substrate above the multilayer epitaxial structure; removing the carrier substrate; and forming one or more heat dissipating fins in an upper surface of the deposited metal substrate to dissipate heat. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 34, and 36-39 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0235210 (“Tamura”) in view Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 3 of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0164549 (“Nakayama”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0089791 (“Morley”).1 Claims 3 and 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura et al. in view of Nakayama and Morley, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0189215 (“ Lee”). Claims 1, 18-25, 28-30, and 33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0056254 (“Bader”) and Morley. Claim 26 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura et al. in view of Bader et al. and Morley as applied to claim 18, and further in view of the "Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication" (hereinafter, “Jaeger”). Claim 31 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura in view of Bader and Morley, as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Lee. THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-9, and 34, 36-39 We address claims 1, 2, 5-9, 34, and 36-39 together, since Appellants argue them as a group with claim 1 being illustrative. The Examiner finds that Tamura discloses forming a multilayer epitaxial structure above the sapphire carrier substrate, depositing at least one metal layer and one or more additional metal layers above the multilayer epitaxial structure and removing the carrier substrate. (Ans. 4). Noting the fan-out pattern of layers 6 and 7 in Fig. 2H of Tamura, the 1 The final rejection includes rejections of claim 40-43. However, these claims were cancelled and are not the subject of this appeal. (See, App. Br. 9, 29). Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 4 Examiner also finds that Tamura teaches forming heat removal structures in the metal to dissipate heat. (Id.). Appellants do not specifically dispute these findings. The Examiner acknowledges that Tamura does not disclose forming the heat removal structure in the upper surface of the deposited metal substrate or roughening the surface of the heat removal structure such that the surface area is at least 1.1 times the surface area before roughening. (Id.). The Examiner finds that Nakayama discloses it is advantageous to roughen the surface of a heat spreader in order to increase the surface area of the heat spreader and improve heat radiation. (Ans. 4). Acknowledging that Tamura does not teach heat dissipating fins, the Examiner finds that Morley discloses heat dissipating fins formed by partial etching and laser cutting to increase the exposed surface area of the heat spreader and more efficiently dissipate heat generated by an underlying chip. (Ans. 5-6). Appellants contend that Nakayama fails to overcome the deficiencies in Tamura concerning the formation of heat dissipating fins or any other heat removal structures in a deposited metal substrate. (App. Br. 12-13). However, the Examiner does not rely on Nakayama to teach forming fins. (Ans. 18). Instead, the Examiner uses Nakayama as a general teaching that roughing the surface creates more surface area and dissipates more heat, suggesting a motivation for combining Morley’s fins, which increase surface area, with Tamura to improve heat dissipation. (Id.). Appellants further argue that Morley teaches forming heat fins in a trace for a flexure or head suspension of a disk drive and that such formation would be done at the board level on a relatively macroscopic scale rather than at wafer level on a relatively microscopic scale during the formation of the semiconductor device chip. (Ans. 14-15). Appellants “submit that techniques that work at a board processing level may not always be easily transferred to the wafer processing level, Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 5 where tighter control and precision are typically required due to the smaller scale of the semiconductor die compared to a board-level trace.” (App. Br. 15, emphasis added). To the extent that Appellants’ remarks can be read as contending that one could not form the claimed fins in a device such as that disclosed by Tamura using techniques as disclosed in Morley, Appellants offer no evidence to support this contention. Appellants cite to other teachings in Morley concerning embossing and coining, arguing that such techniques would not work to form heat dissipating fins in a deposited metal substrate of a wafer assembly, and are evidence that Morley is intended only for board level formation of heat fins. (Id.). However Appellants provide no evidence that it is not possible to form such heat dissipating fins in an upper surface of a deposited metal substrate using partial etching or laser cutting, as the Examiner notes is disclosed by Morley. (Ans.5). The Examiner reasons that in view of Morley, forming fins to dissipate heat where heat dissipation is required is known. (Ans. 19). The Examiner further notes that in this case, in the metal layer of Tamura, where heat dissipation is already taught, such fins would increase the surface area and improve heat dissipation as taught by Nakayama. (Id.). In the absence of some evidence to support their very tentative contention that forming heat dissipating fins would not be an option, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s reasoning is in error. Appellants further contend that the Examiner's characterization of Morley’s heat dissipating fins as more efficiently dissipating heat generated by an underlying chip is incorrect because Morley teaches forming heat dissipation structures in the trace adjacent the integrated circuit but not in any structure overlying or underlying chip. (Ans. 15). Morley does not define “adjacent,” but discloses that wherever the chip is mounted on the head suspension, the traces may be configured to include expanded heat dissipation areas that are formed with heat fins. (¶[0029]). Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 6 Morley also illustrates such fins in a conductive metal underlying a chip. (Figs. 7, 8, ¶[0033, 0034]). Turning to independent claim 36, Appellants argue that Morley does not teach “applying a laser to an upper surface of the deposited metal substrate to form one or more heat removal structures for dissipating heat” because Morley only discloses using laser ablation to form heat fins in a trace, rather than a deposited metal substrate of a semiconductor die. (App. Br. 16). However, as discussed above, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in applying the teachings of Nakayama, Morley and Tamura in combination to reject claims drawn to forming heat dissipating fins in an upper surface of the deposited metal substrate to dissipate heat. In the absence of further evidence that the laser ablation Appellants admit is disclosed in Morley cannot be used to form heat dissipating fins in a deposited metal substrate, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting clam 36. In view of the above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 34, and 36- 39. THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3 AND 4 In responding to the rejection of claims 3 and 4 in further view of Lee, Appellants argue that because Lee is silent with respect to heat dissipating fins, Lee fails to overcome the deficiencies in Tamura in view of Nakayama and Morley. (App. Br. 18). Since Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the combination of Tamura, Nakayama and Morley and have offered no further arguments distinguishing claims 3 and 4 over the further combination with Lee, we affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 4. Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 7 THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 18-25, 28-30, and 33 For the reasons discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1. Since Appellants have argued these claims as a group, we address them together, treating claim 18 as illustrative. Appellants argue that Bader is silent with respect to heat dissipating fins and fails to overcome the deficiencies in Tamura in view of Morley. In response to the rejection of these claims, Appellants also repeat many of their arguments made in response to the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not cite Bader to teach heat dissipating fins, since that is found in Morley. (Ans. 21). The Examiner cites Bader for disclosing a structure of metal, a passivation layer and a second metal layer as a common structure to protect the mesa and p-electrode for light emitting devices, such as those in Tamura. (Id.). The Examiner reasons that the heat dissipating structure of Tamura would be in the upper (2nd) metal layer and thus the fins, as taught by Morley, would be in that second layer. (Id.). Because Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the combination of Tamura and Morley and have offered no further arguments distinguishing claim 18 over the combination with Bader, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 18-25, 28-30 and 33. THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 26 Appellants advance no argument other than that Jaeger is silent with respect to heat dissipating fins and does not overcome deficiencies in Tamura in view of Bader and Morley. In the absence of further arguments distinguishing claim 26, we affirm the rejection of claim 26. Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 8 THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 31 Appellants advance no argument other than that Lee is silent with respect to heat dissipating fins and does not overcome deficiencies in Tamura in view of Bader and Morley. In the absence of further arguments distinguishing claim 31, we affirm the rejection of claim 31. ORDER The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 34, 36-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Tamura in view Nakayama and Morley is affirmed. The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura et al. in view of Nakayama and Morley, as applied to claim 1, and further in view Lee is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 18-25, 28-30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura in view of Bader and Morley is affirmed. The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura et al. in view of Bader et al. and Morley as applied to claim 18, and further in view Jaeger is affirmed. The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamura in view of Bader and Morley, as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Lee 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-008011 Application 11/032,855 9 cu