TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

15973782 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/973,782 05/08/2018 Ruby Ann Maya Merto TI-75308.1 4386
23494 7590 06/01/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
SAAD, ERIN BARRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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 RUBY ANN MAYA MERTO, JERRY GOMEZ CAYABYAB,
and EDSEL GOMEZ BALAGTAS
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed May 8, 2018 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Sept. 27, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 12, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s
Answer dated Nov. 19, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas
Instruments, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

2
unpatentable over Fogal (US 5,954,842, issued Sept. 21, 1999) in view of
Kampschreur (US 2006/0016860 A1, published Jan. 26, 2006).3, 4
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a wire bonding machine window clamp
assembly for engaging a leadframe during wire bonding of semiconductor
devices. See Spec. ¶ 12. Figure 1, below, illustrates a prior art wire bonding
machine window clamp assembly. Id. ¶ 13.

3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
4 The present appeal is related to the appeal in SN 15/978,043 (Appeal No.
2019-004394), which we decide concurrently with the present appeal. The
present application is a division of SN 14/663,978, now US 9,997,490. See
Spec. ¶ 1. Related application SN 15/978,043 is a continuation of SN
14/663,978.
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

3
Figure 1 is an isometric view of prior art wire bonding machine 10
supporting leadframe strip 18. Spec. ¶ 13. Bonding machine arms 12, 14
engage window clamp 16. Id. Window clamp 16’s frame structure 26
defines central opening 28 to expose a portion of leadframe strip 18. Id.
¶ 15. Frame structure 26’s bottom surface 27 (shown in Figure 2) engages
underlying leadframe strip 18. Id. Leadframe strip 18 includes integrally-
connected leadframe portions 18A, 18B, 18C, etc. Id. ¶ 13. Leadframe strip
18 is supported on leadframe support plate 19, which is in turn mounted on
heater block 20. Id. ¶ 14. Support plate 19 has tiny vacuum holes 32
extending through its upper surface that are registered with portions of
leadframe strip 18. Id. ¶ 16. Vacuum holes 32 are in fluid communication
with a vacuum manifold and apply a suction force to the bottom surface of
leadframe strip 18 to prevent it from vibrating during wire bonding
operations. Id. When heat from heater block 20 causes leadframe strip 18 to
expand, portions of leadframe strip 18 that are not engaged by window
frame 26 may buckle upwardly, reducing vacuum force on the entire system.
Id. Other portions of leadframe strip 18 become disengaged from plate 19.
Id. The buckled and disengaged leadframe portions vibrate during wire
bonding, resulting in defective wire bonds. Id.
A prior art solution to the above-described problems is to use a
window pane-type gridwork within the frame structure. Spec. ¶ 18.
However, according to the Specification, such gridworks are relatively rigid
and may damage the underlying leadframe or associated devices, such as
integrated circuit dies. Id.
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

4
The invention is said to “overcome leadframe buckling, vibration and
disengagement problems.” Id. ¶ 19. The inventive window clamp assembly
is illustrated in Figure 5, reproduced below.

Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of window clamp 50 engaged with a
portion of underlying leadframe strip 40. Spec. ¶¶ 10, 22. Vacuum holes 37
in support plate 39 are in registration with leadframe portions 42 of
leadframe strip 40. Id. ¶ 22. Leadframe portions 42 support Quad Flat No-
lead (“QFN”) component stacks. Id. ¶¶ 10, 20. As shown in Figure 5, QFN
component stack 44 may comprise lower die 41, lower clip leadframe 43,
upper die 45, and upper clip leadframe 47. Id. ¶ 20. The components may be
solder bond attached. Id. Leadframe portion 42 and the various components
of QFN component stack 44 ultimately are electrically connected through
wire bonding performed by a wire bonding machine. Id.
Similar to prior art frame structure 26, frame structure 52 includes flat
bottom surface 68 for engaging tip surface 69 of leadframe strip 40.
Compare Spec. ¶ 24, Figure 5, with Spec. ¶ 15, Figures 2, 3. Unlike prior art
frame structure 26, frame structure 52 includes lip portion 61 having
downwardly facing surface portion 65 for engaging top surface 70 of QFN
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

5
component stack 44. Id. ¶ 24, Figure 5. According to the Specification,
“[s]uch engagement firmly holds the leadframe strip 40 in engagement with
the window clamp support plate 39 and obviates microbouncing of the
leadframe strip and defective wire bonds caused by such microbouncing.”
Id. ¶ 25. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A wire bonding machine window clamp assembly
comprising:
a support plate adapted to support a leadframe strip
having more than one row and more than one column of
leadframe portions; and
a frame structure defining a central clamp opening
adapted to expose a portion of said leadframe strip, said frame
structure comprising at least one elongate frame member having
a first surface portion adapted to engage a top surface of said
leadframe strip and a second surface portion adapted to engage
upper surfaces of only adjacent integrated circuit (“IC”)
component stacks mounted on said leadframe portions.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix).

OPINION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–12 as unpatentable over Fogal in
view of Kampschreur. See Final 2–3. Fogal Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

6

Fogal Figure 1 is a top view of a dual clamp apparatus in dual bond site wire
bonding assembly 10. Fogal 4:11–13. Assembly 10 includes primary clamp
12 that is mountable on a wire bonding apparatus and contacts the lead
frame. Id. at 3:29–30, 4:36–41. Primary clamp 12 is formed from a
substantially rigid material and is movable toward and away from an
underlying heater block. Id. at 4:41–44. Primary clamp 12 includes two,
rectangular-shaped, bond site windows 16, 18 that are spaced to match the
spacing of the lead frames of a lead frame strip. Id. at 4:51–56. Each bond
site window 16, 18 includes an opposing pair of secondary clamps 34. Id. at
5:4–5. When a semiconductor die mounted to the lead frame strip is aligned
with one of bond site windows 16, 18 and pressure is exerted on the lead
frame, secondary clamps 34 contact the semiconductor die. Id. at 5:19–23.
The Examiner found that Fogal discloses a wire bonding machine
window clamp assembly as recited in claim 1, except that Fogal does not
disclose that the support plate is “adapted to support a leadframe strip having
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

7
more than one row and more than one column of leadframe portions”
(claim 1). Final 2–3. The Examiner found that “Kampschreur discloses a
support plate and a frame structure with central clamp openings for holding
and clamping more than one row and more than one column.” Id. at 3. The
Examiner determined that the ordinary artisan would have modified Fogal to
include this feature “because it would allow for more portions to be clamped
at once saving on production time.” Id.
The Appellant contends that both Fogal and Kampschreur use the
same type of window pane-type gridwork within the frame structure
described in the present Specification as potentially damaging to the
underlying leadframe or associated devices. Id. at 11–12 (citing Spec. ¶ 18;
Fogal 4:53–59; Kampschreur ¶ 34, Fig. 2). The Appellant argues that the
combination of Fogal and Kampschreur likewise would have resulted in a
gridwork frame structure that would not have met the claim 1 requirement of
a wire bonding window clamp assembly comprising “at least one elongate
frame member having . . . a second surface portion adapted to engage upper
surfaces of only adjacent integrated circuit . . . component stacks mounted
on [the] leadframe portions” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). See Appeal Br. 10–
12.
The Examiner determines that the Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
See Ans. 6–7. The Examiner explains that “[t]he claim does not preclude
bond site windows or claim a specific shape. The claim also does not
preclude using multiple windows” (id. at 7), and “the way the claim is
written, it can be broadly interpreted that only the components on the lead
frame are clamped (any components not on the lead frame would not be
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

8
clamped)” (id. at 6). We agree with the Examiner that the Appellant has not
persuasively shown that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
defines over the wire bonding machine window clamp assembly resulting
from the combination of Fogal and Kampschreur.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In support of its argument, the
Appellant references Specification paragraphs 13, 17, and 25, and Figure 4.
See Appeal Br. 11–12. Specification paragraphs 13 and 17 describe prior art
wire bonding machines. Specification paragraph 25 and Figure 4 describe
embodiments of the invention. See Spec. ¶ 9 (“Fig. 4 is a top isometric view
of an example embodiment of a window clamp of a wire bonding
machine.”); id. ¶ 25 (“in one embodiment”).
Notably, Specification paragraph 25 describes the window clamp’s
frame structure as engaging “both the peripheral portion of a leadframe
strip . . . and the top surfaces of IC component stacks mounted adjacent to
this engaged peripheral portion of the leadframe strip” (emphasis added).
Claim 1, however, does not recite all of the features described in
Specification paragraph 25. For example, there is no recitation of the frame
structure’s first surface portion being adapted to engage the leadframe
strip’s peripheral portion, nor does claim 1 recite that the frame structure’s
second surface portion is adapted to engage only IC component stacks
mounted adjacent to the leadframe strip’s engaged peripheral portion.5

5 We direct the Appellant to pages 10–11 of our decision in related Appeal
2019-004394 in which we determine that the term “peripheral portion” is not
limited to a particular area of the leadframe strip.
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

9
Rather, claim 1 recites that the frame structure is “adapted to engage a top
surface of said leadframe strip,” the “leadframe strip having . . . leadframe
portions,” thereby encompassing a frame structure that engages any areas of
the leadframe strip’s top surface, not just a peripheral portion. In other
words, claim 1 reads on a window clamp’s frame structure having a first
surface portion that engages all of the leadframe strip’s leadframe portions
and having a second surface that engages all of the IC component stacks
mounted on all of the leadframe strip’s leadframe portions. Note that claim 1
does not specify a structure to which the IC component stacks are adjacent.
Thus, claim 1 broadly reads on a frame member’s second surface that is
adapted to engage an upper surface of a first IC component mounted on a
first engaged leadframe portion, where the first IC component is adjacent to
a second IC component mounted on a second engaged leadframe portion,
regardless of whether the first and second engaged leadframe portions are
located on the leadframe strip’s periphery. We have reviewed the
Specification, but find no support for a narrower claim construction that
would not encompass the wire bonding machine window clamp assembly
resulting from the combination of Fogal and Kampschreur. Cf. Epistar Corp.
v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Disavowal
requires ‘expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a
clear disavowal of claim scope.’ Teleflex, [Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299
F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)]. A patentee’s discussion of the
shortcomings of certain techniques is not a disavowal of the use of those
techniques in a manner consistent with the claimed invention.”).
Appeal 2019-004395
Application 15/973,782

10
In sum, because the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
The Appellant argues in support of patentability of several dependent
claims. See Appeal Br. 13–23. We agree with the Examiner that these
arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the Answer. See Ans.
7–8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2018) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”). Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 2–12.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 103 Fogal, Kampschreur 1–12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED