Ex Parte Goel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

14673928 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/673,928 03/31/2015
101662 7590 11/21/2018
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Saurabh Goel
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.
1077-0059 I P2828US1 6326
EXAMINER
ARROYO, TERESA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAURABH GOEL, ALEXANDER KOMPOSCH,
CYNTHIA BLAIR, and CRISTIAN GOZZI
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of March 31, 2015
(Spec.), Final Office Action of September 19, 2016 (Final), Appeal Brief of
April 21, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of September 11, 2017
(Ans.), and Reply Brief of October 27, 2017 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a multi-cavity package (see, e.g., claim 1)
and a method of manufacturing a multi-cavity package (see, e.g., claim 16).
An embodiment of the multi-cavity package is depicted in Figure 1, which
we reproduce below:
112
1!l0
150 110 116
Figure 1 is a top side perspective view of multi-cavity package 100
2 Appellant is the applicant, Infineon Technologies AG, which, according to
the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
The multi-cavity package 100 includes a circuit board 108 overlying,
and attached to, a single metal flange 102. Spec. ,r 15. The circuit board
108 has openings 112 that expose regions 114, 116, 118 of the first main
surface 104 of the single metal flange 102. Spec. ,r 16. Within the openings
112, semiconductor dies 120-142 are attached to the single metal flange
102. Spec.i-f 17.
Claim 1, with reference numerals from Figure 1, further illustrates the
multi-cavity package:
1. A multi-cavity package [100], comprising:
a single metal flange [ 102] having first and second
opposing main surfaces [104, 106];
a circuit board [108] attached to the first main surface
[104] of the single metal flange [102], the circuit board [108]
having a first surface facing the single metal flange [102], a
second surface facing away from the first surface, and a
plurality of openings [112] which expose different regions [114,
116, 118] of the first main surface [104] of the single metal
flange [102]; and
a plurality of semiconductor dies [120-142] each of
which is disposed in one of the openings [112] in the circuit
board [108] and attached to the first main surface [104] of the
single metal flange [102],
wherein the circuit board [ 108] comprises a plurality of
metal traces [ 144, 146, 148] for electrically interconnecting the
semiconductor dies [120-142] to form a circuit, wherein the
metal traces [ 144, 146, 148] form a single layer disposed on the
second surface of the circuit board, and wherein at least one of
the semiconductor dies [120-142] is an amplifier die.
Appeal Br. 16 ( claims appendix).
3
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki3 in view ofMasuda; 4
B. The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view
ofMoline; 5
C. The rejection of claims 4--7, 6 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in
view ofBlednov7 and/or Maslennikov; 8
D. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Blednov and/or Maslennikov
and further in view of Khanifar; 9
E. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, and further in view of Atsumi; 10
3 Matsuzaki et al., US 5,754,402, issued May 19, 1998.
4 Masuda, US 2013/0081867 Al, published April 4, 2013.
5 Moline, US 2009/0051018 Al, published February 26, 2009.
6 Although the Examiner does not list claim 5 in the statement of rejection,
the Examiner analyzes the patentability of claim 5 in the body of the
rejection. Final 10-12. As evinced from Appellant's arguments against the
rejection of claim 5, Appellant understood claim 5 to be included in the
rejection. Appeal Br. 12-13. Thus, the error was not harmful.
7 Blednov et al., US 2015/0303881 Al, published October 22, 2015.
8 Maslennikov et al., US 2012/0231753 Al, published September 13, 2012.
9 Khanifar et al., US 2012/0286866 Al, published November 15, 2012.
10 Atsumi, US 5,736,781, issued April 7, 1998.
4
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
F. The rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view
of Stout" 11
'
G. The rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and Stout
and further in view of Hoyer; 12
H. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Stout, and Hoyer
and further in view of Ogawa. 13
11 Stout et al., US 5,414,592, issued May 9, 1995.
12 Hoyer et al., US 2008/0019108 Al, published January 24, 2008.
13 Ogawa, JP 2003179181 A, issued June 27, 2003.
5
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
OPINION
A. The rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 US. C. § 103 as obvious
over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda
In arguing against the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 16 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Appellant does not argue claim
16 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 5-11. We select claim 1 as
representative for resolving the issue on appeal.
The Examiner finds Matsuzaki teaches a multi-cavity package
including single metal flange 30/31/32, circuit board 50/51, and
semiconductor dies 70a, 70b disposed in openings 52a, 52b in circuit board
50/51 and attached to the first main surface of single metal flange 30/31/32.
Final 3--4. Matsuzaki does not attach semiconductor dies 70a, 70b directly
to metal flange 30/31/32, i.e. stem 30. Instead, Matsuzaki attaches the
semiconductor dies 70a, 70b to heat spreaders 60a, 60b placed on stem 30 as
shown in Figure 3. Matsuzaki col. 4, 11. 51-56. As pointed out by the
Examiner, heat spreaders 60a, 60b may be made of the same material, such
as copper, as stem 30. Ans. 23-24; Matsuzaki col. 5, 11. 12-15.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding the
teachings of Matsuzaki. Id. Instead, Appellant's arguments focus on the
teachings of Masuda. Appeal Br. 5-11. The Examiner relies on Masuda
along with the basic legal premise that making a two-piece structure of the
same materials into a one-piece structure supports a conclusion of
obviousness. Final 4---6, citing In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1965) and noting Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
as supporting a contrary proposition.
6
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
The issue arising is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the
Examiner's finding of a suggestion within the prior art to use a single flange
in Matsuzaki's package instead of a two-piece heat spreader and stem
arrangement?
Appellant has not identified such an error.
As pointed out by Appellant (Reply Br. 2-3), Matsuzaki seeks to
overcome a heat dissipation problem in an amplifying module that includes a
power amplifier chip mounted on an insulating wiring substrate. Matsuzaki
col. 2, 11. 40-54. Matsuzaki shows a conventional example of a module with
electronic elements 1, 2 affixed to an insulating wiring substrate 80 in
Figures lOA and lOB. Matsuzaki col. 1, 11. 11-28. The wiring substrate 80
is in tum affixed to a platelike package substrate 3. Matsuzaki col. 1, 11. 48-
51.
Matsuzaki desires to more efficiently radiate the heat generated by the
power amplifier to the outside. Matsuzaki accomplishes this goal by
creating a through-hole in the wiring substrate (shown at 50 in Fig. 1) and
mounting semiconductor chips, in bare chip form, on a surface of a heat
spreader ( 60a, 60b in Figs 1 and 3) that resides on a supporting portion (31
in Fig. 3) of a package substrate (stem 30 in Fig. 1 ). Matsuzaki col. 2, 11.
57---61; col. 2, 1. 62 to col. 3, 1. 17; col. 4, 11. 45-56. Both heat spreaders 60a,
60b and stem 30 are made of metal, such as copper, which has a higher heat
conductivity than substrate body 51 of the wiring substrate. Matsuzaki col.
5, 11. 12-16; col. 6, 11. 17-29.
Matsuzaki's heat spreader is affixed to the stem 30 with an adhesive
having a relatively high heat resistance. Matsuzaki col. 6, 11. 24--25. As
pointed out by Appellant, this is to prevent heat degradation, i.e., to prevent
7
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
the adhesive from degrading when exposed to the heat being transferred
from the semiconductor through the heat spreader to the underlying stem 30.
Reply Br. 2-3.
The difference between Matsuzaki' s structure and the structure
required by the claim lies in the two-piece design of Matsuzaki's heat
spreader and stem: Matsuzaki does not teach a single flange as required by
claim 1. Instead, Matsuzaki teaches a two-piece arrangement of a heat
spreader ( 60a, 60b) on stem 3 0, for dissipating heat. Hence, the Examiner
relies on a finding that "a single flange is widely used in the package art."
Final 4.
Masuda teaches a similar heat dissipating structure, but of somewhat
different design than Matsuzaki. Masuda, like Matsuzaki, is concerned with
dissipating heat radiated from an amplifier and, like Matsuzaki, places
electronic elements (37a, 37b in Fig. 8A) on a heat sink (member 36) in a
through-hole (opening 22) in a multilayer wiring board (substrate 2).
Masuda ,r,r 13-16, 31; Fig. 8A, 8B. Unlike Matsuzaki's heat sinks 60a, 60b,
Masuda's heat sink (member 36) extends past the insulating layers 12, 14,
16 of the wiring board and through the base 10. Compare Matsuzaki Fig. 3,
with Masuda Fig. 8A; compare Matsuzaki col. 5, 11. 12-17, with Masuda ,r
13.
Of particular importance, is the Examiner's finding that both
Matsuzaki's stem 30 and heat spreaders 60a, 60b, which move heat away
from semiconductor dies 71 a, 71 b towards stem 3 0, may be made of copper.
Final 4; Ans. 23-24. The Examiner finds that the use of a single metal
flange instead of a stem and a heat spreader would be merely a matter of
8
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
obvious engineering choice since they both can be made of the same
material ( copper). Ans. 23-24.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's finding regarding the use of
a one-piece construction instead of a two-piece construction. Reply Br. 2-5.
However, the portions of Matsuzaki discussed by Appellant support rather
than detract from the Examiner's finding. Matsuzaki desires to dissipate
heat through heat spreaders 60a, 60b and stem 30 and both heat spreaders
60a, 60b and stem 30 may be made of copper. Using a one-piece structure
in place of the two-piece heat spreader and stem arrangement would have
been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan as it would accomplish the heat
dissipation in the same manner and overcome the need for a heat resistant
adhesive between the two parts. A modification is obvious if "it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR
Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007); see also In re Larson, 340
F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (holding that the use of a one-piece
construction instead of the two-piece structure disclosed in a prior art
reference to Tuttle et al. would have been merely a matter of obvious
engineering choice).
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding of a suggestion based on ordinary skill within the prior art to use a
single flange in Matsuzaki's package in place of a two-piece arrangement of
a heat sink and stem. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
16 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda.
9
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
B. The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 US.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Moline
Turning to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Moline,
Appellant's arguments focus on the rejection of claim 2. Thus, we select
claim 2 as representative for deciding the issue on appeal.
Claim 2 requires, among other things, that at least one of the
semiconductor dies be a vertical transistor die.
Appellant contends Moline teaches away from using vertical
transistors in power applications citing to paragraph 84 of Moline. Appeal
Br. 11. Paragraph 84 of Moline does not support Appellant's contention.
Paragraph 84 states that "[ a ]lthough semiconductor die 90 is described as
including vertical transistors in some embodiments, this is not a limitation of
the present invention." Moline ,r 84. Paragraph 84 merely conveys that
other types of transistors may be used. Paragraph 78 specifically discloses
that, in some embodiments, semiconductor die 90 is a vertical transistor die.
Moline ,r 78. Thus, Moline discloses using vertical transistors. Appellant
has not persuaded us that Moline teaches away from using vertical
transistors in power applications.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 3 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Moline.
10
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
C. The rejection of claims 4-7, 17, and 18 under 35 USC§ 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Blednov
and/or Maslennikov
Turning to the rejection of claims 4--7, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of
Blednov and/or Maslennikov, Appellant presents sufficiently specific
arguments against the rejection of claims 5 and 6 to give rise to separate
issues for those two claims. Appeal Br. 12-13. Thus, we select claims 5
and 6 as representative for deciding the issues for this rejection.
Claim 5
Claim 5 reads:
5. The multi-cavity package of claim 1, wherein:
a first one of the semiconductor dies is a driver stage die
of a Doherty amplifier circuit;
a second one of the semiconductor dies is a main
amplifier die of the Doherty amplifier circuit;
a third one of the semiconductor dies is a peaking
amplifier die of the Doherty amplifier circuit;
a first one of the metal traces forms an inter-stage match
between an output of the driver stage die and an input of the
main amplifier die and an input of the peaking amplifier die;
and
a second one of the metal traces forms a Doherty
combiner electrically connected to an output of the main
amplifier die and an output of the peaking amplifier die.
Appeal Br. 17 ( claims appendix)( emphasis added).
11
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
Appellant contends the Examiner failed to equate any particular
element of Maslennikov as teaching the claimed metal traces. Appeal Br.
12-13.
This argument overlooks the Examiner's basis for rejection, which
relies on the dies and traces disclosed in Matsuzaki as well as Maslennikov's
teaching of "a plurality of semiconductor dies that form a driver stage, a
main amplifier and the peaking amplifier of a Doherty amplifier circuit
(paras. [0028]-[0031 ], [0035]-[0037]), inter-stage matching (paras. [0033],
[0035], [0037]) and a Doherty combiner (paras. [0030], [0036])." Final 11-
12. The Examiner is relying on what Matsuzaki in combination with
Maslennikov would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion based on the combination of teachings.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further requires a third one of the
metal traces form a phase shifter or an attenuator at the input of the driver
stage die. Again, Appellant contends that Maslennikov fails to disclose such
a metal trace feature, but overlooks the Examiner's reliance on the
combination of Matsuzaki with Maslennikov to support the rejection.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion based on the combination of teachings.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--7, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in
view ofBlednov and/or Maslennikov.
12
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
D. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 US.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Blednov and/or Maslennikov and further in
view of Khanifar
Claim 8 requires that the power amplifier circuit of claim 7 is an RF
power amplifier circuit and "the second metal trace forms an antenna of the
RF power amplifier circuit." Appeal Br. 18 (claims appendix) (emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds that Matsuzaki discloses the metal traces of
independent claims 1 and 16 and Khanifar teaches the features of dependent
claim 8. Final 4, 15; Ans. 28. Appellant argues that Khanifar fails to teach
that the second metal trace forms an antenna. 14 Appeal Br. 13-14.
Appellant does not address the combination made by the Examiner, which
relies on Matsuzaki' s teaching of metal traces in combination with
Khanifar's teaching of an antenna. Thus, Appellant has not identified a
reversible error in the rejection.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Blednov and/or Maslennikov
and further in view of Khanifar.
E. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 US.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Atsumi
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 9. Thus, for
the reasons we provided when discussing the rejection of claim 1, we
14 Although Appellant refers to claim 9, the argued limitation is found in
claim 8 and it is clear from the context of the argument that Appellant is
arguing against the rejection of claim 8.
13
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
determine that Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the rejection
of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of
Masuda and further in view of Atsumi.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Atsumi.
F. The rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 US.C. § 103 as obvious
over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Stout
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 10 and 19.
Thus, for the reasons we provided when discussing the rejection of claim 1,
we determine that Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the
rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in view of Stout.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and further in
view of Stout.
G. The rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 under 35 US.C. § 103 as
obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and Stout and further in view of
Hoyer.
Turning to the rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and Stout and further in
view of Hoyer, we note that claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 require the circuit
board have a lateral extension that "overhangs the single metal flange."
Appellant depicts such a lateral extension in circuit board 108 at 156
and another at 160. Fig. 1; Spec. ,r 27.
14
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Matsuzaki,
Masuda, and Stout does not teach or suggest a circuit board with a lateral
extension. Final 17-18. The Examiner, however, finds Hoyer teaches a
circuit board 450 that has a lateral extension 450a/450b and reproduces
Hoyer's Figure 4 to support the rejection. Final 17-19.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding is in error.
Appeal Br. 14--15. As pointed out by Appellant, Figure 4 is an exploded
view, not a view showing the assembled structure. Appeal Br. 15. It is
Figure 7 that shows the final assembly. Figure 7 shows printed circuit
boards 450a and 450b mounted to heat sink 410 with no portions of the
circuit boards 450a, 450b laterally extending and overhanging the heat sink
410. Hoyer ,r 20, Fig. 7.
Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection
of claims 11, 12, 15, and 20.
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda and
Stout and further in view of Hoyer.
H The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 US.C. § 103 as obvious
over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Stout, and Hoyer and further in view of
Ogawa
Claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 11 and the Examiner's reliance
on Ogawa does not cure the defect we discussed above with regard to the
rejection of claim 11.
15
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki in view of Masuda, Stout, and
Hoyer and further in view of Ogawa.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
1, 16 § 103 Matsuzaki, 1, 16
Masuda
2,3 § 103 Matsuzaki, 2,3
Masuda, Moline
4--7, 17, 18 § 103 Matsuzaki, 4--7, 17, 18
Masuda,
Blednov,
Maslennikov
8 § 103 Matsuzaki, 8
Masuda,
Blednov,
Maslennikov,
Khanifar
9 § 103 Matsuzaki, 9
Masuda, Atsumi
10, 19 § 103 Matsuzaki, 10, 19
Masuda, Stout
11, 12, 15, § 103 Matsuzaki, 11, 12, 15,
20 Masuda, Stout, 20
Hoyer
13, 14 § 103 Matsuzaki, 13, 14
Masuda, Stout,
Ho er, 0 awa
Summar 1-10, 16-19 11-15, 20
16
Appeal2018-000701
Application 14/673,928
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17