Ex Parte Romig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

13488054 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/488,054 06/04/2012 23494 7590 04/29/2016 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthew D. Romig 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-71058 5127 EXAMINER TRAN, TONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2894 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2016 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW D. ROMIG and MARIE-SOLANGE MILLERON Appeal2014-008932 Application 13/488,054 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a semiconductor system. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A semiconductor system comprising: a first component including a first semiconductor chip attached to a pad of a first metal leadframe made of a first metal sheet of high thermal conductivity, the first semiconductor chip wire-bonded to a plurality of leads of the first metal leadframe; a packaged second component including a second semiconductor chip attached to a pad of a leadframe made of a Appeal2014-008932 Application 13/488,054 second metal sheet wire-bondable on both surfaces; further including bonding wires connecting the second semiconductor chip to a plurality of leads at the surface facing the chip; and further including a polymeric housing encapsulating the second chip and the bonding wires, leaving un-encapsulated the lead surface facing away from the second semiconductor chip; and the packaged second component integrated with the first component, wherein a housing of the packaged second component is attached to the first semiconductor chip using a layer of low thermal conductivity, and the un-encapsulated lead surface of the packaged second component, facing away from the first semiconductor chip, is wire-connected to leads of the first metal leadframe. Honda Peterson Kim The References us 5,579,208 US 6,809,413 Bl US 2006/0189033 Al The Rejections Nov. 26, 1996 Oct. 26, 2004 Aug. 24, 2006 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as follows: claims 1- 6 over Honda in view of Kim, and claims 7 and 8 over Honda in view of Kim and Peterson. 1 OPINION We affirm the rejections. The Appellants argue claims 1-6 as a group and address Peterson which is applied to claims 7 and 8 (App. Br. 12-14). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim among claims 1---6, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole 1 The Examiner erroneously omits Kim from the rejection of claims 7 and 8 which depend from claim 1 with respect to which the Examiner relies upon Kim (Final Act. 4). 2 Appeal2014-008932 Application 13/488,054 independent claim, and we address the Appellants' argument regarding Peterson. Claims 2---6 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Honda discloses a semiconductor device comprising two semiconductor chips ( 43a, 43b ), attached to opposite sides of a die stage ( 44) and connected to lead frames ( 48a, 48b) by bonding wires ( 49a, 49b for chip 43a; 46a, 46b for chip 43b) (col. 7, 11. 25--42; Fig. 9). In another embodiment, two semiconductor chips (143a, 143b) are attached to opposite sides of a lead frame (112) which runs between those semiconductor chips (col. 13, 11. 4--33; Fig. 23). Kim discloses a semiconductor package comprising a set of integrated circuits (124) having thereon a top substrate (118) including a top layer (306) with a plurality of metallic regions (310) which provide signal conduction paths, voltage supply, ground and other electrical functions and are insulated by a plurality of nonmetallic regions (312) (i-f 32; Fig. 1 ). Peterson discloses a conventional plastic-encapsulated semiconductor chip which can be a microelectromechanical system (col. 2, 11. 33---65; Fig. 2). The Appellants assert that"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Honda to combine a packaged component with [a] leadframe mounted component" (App. Br. 13) and "[t]he process described in Kim is complex and done on unsingulated wafer" (id.). Those assertions are not well taken due to lacking supporting substantive argument. 3 Appeal2014-008932 Application 13/488,054 The Appellants argue that "Peterson et al. works with ceramic package[ s] which are not subject to melting as is the problem which Appellants' embodiments are addressing" (App. Br. 13-14) and that, "[t]herefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Peterson as offering a solution of packaging a packaged component without damaging the package" (App. Br. 14). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness does not require that references solve the same problem solved by the Appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en bane); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). The Examiner relies upon Peterson for a suggestion to use a microelectromechanical system as one of Honda's semiconductor chips and to use a single polymeric compound to encapsulate both semiconductor chips (Final Act. 5). The Appellants do not provide a substantive argument which addresses the Examiner's rationale in combining Honda and Peterson and indicates reversible error therein. The Appellants argue for the first time in their Reply Brief that Kim's top substrate (118) is not a leadframe (Reply Br. 2-3). "Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012). In the Final Rejection the Examiner finds that Kim's top substrate (118) is a leadframe (Final Act. 3). 4 Appeal2014-008932 Application 13/488,054 The Appellants have not shown good cause for waiting until the Reply Brief to challenge that finding. Hence, we do not consider the Appellants' argument that Kim's top substrate (118) is not a leadframe. For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 103 of claims 1---6 over Honda in view of Kim, and claims 7 and 8 over Honda in view of Kim and Peterson are affirmed. It is ordered that 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. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5