Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 22, 2020

2019005703 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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. 15/462,881 03/19/2017 Makoto Shibuya TI-77177 2722 23494 7590 10/22/2020 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG QUANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2811 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2020 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 MAKOTO SHIBUYA Appeal 2019-005703 Application 15/462,881 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Texas Instruments Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005703 Application 15/462,881 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “solder joint reinforcement tabs on an integrated circuit package.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising: an IC die disposed on a die attach pad; a plurality of leads electrically connected to terminals on the IC die, each of the plurality of leads including a base metal; and molding compound material covering portions of the IC die, the die attach pad, and the plurality of leads; the plurality of leads including a solder joint reinforcement tab extending from a periphery of the IC package, the solder joint reinforcement tab including a first side extending longitudinally in a first direction, a second side opposite to and in parallel to the first side, a third side that is oriented in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a fourth side opposite to and in parallel to the third side, a fifth side forming an end portion of the solder joint reinforcement tab, the solder joint reinforcement tab including a solderable metal layer on the second, third and fourth sides and on portions of the fifth side. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 10). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Ong US 2006/0180904 A1 Aug. 17, 2006 Abbott US 2008/0224290 A1 Sept. 18, 2008 REJECTION Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Ong. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-005703 Application 15/462,881 3 OPINION The Examiner rejects claim 1 finding, among other limitations, that “when one of ordinary skill in the art form[s][a half-]etching line as taught by Ong into Abbott’s device, . . . Abbott’s device will include the plurality of leads having a solder joint reinforcement tab” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner, on the other hand, also states that “the remain[der] of the haft cut (106) extending from a peripheral of the IC package as shown in Ong’s Fig. 1 is considered as a solder joint reinforcement tab extending from a peripheral of the IC package as claimed” because “before cutting, the lead frame [is half-etched] to form a singulation line as taught by Ong in order ease the singulation process.” Id. at 9. In response to Appellant’s argument that the solderable joint reinforcement tab in Abbott does not “extend[] from a periphery of the IC package” as required by claim 1 but instead remains inside the periphery of the IC package after the lead is half etched (Appeal Br. 6), the Examiner again states that Ong 106 in Figure 1 extends from the IC package. Ans. 3. The Examiner elaborates that “in order to perform the half etch process” taught by Ong on Abbott’s device, “a portion of molding compound is etched and the same etch goes into the half thickness of the lead at the bottom of figure 11 [of Ong]” resulting in the lead extending from the periphery of the IC package. Ans. 3–4. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this case, the record before us does not contain sufficient evidence showing why applying Ong’s half-etch process to Abbott’s device — as proposed by Appeal 2019-005703 Application 15/462,881 4 the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4) — would result in Ong’s device having the recited solderable joint reinforcement tab (Final Act. 9; Ans. 4) that “extend[s] from a periphery of the IC package” (claim 1). The record before us also lacks a showing as to how a skilled artisan would have arrived at the remaining limitations of the solderable joint reinforcement tab if it is Ong’s device instead of the modified Abbott device that includes “a solderable joint reinforcement tab extending from a periphery of the IC package.” See Final Act. 3 (stating that “when one of ordinary skill in the art formed ha[lf] etching line as taught by Ong into Abbott’s device, the Abbott’s device will include the plurality of leads having a solder joint reinforcement tab extending from a periphery of the IC package, the solder joint reinforcement tab including a first side, . . . a second side . . . , a third side . . . , a fourth side . . . , a fifth side . . . , the solder joint reinforcement tab including a solderable metal layer (306 [of Abbott]) on the second, third and fourth sides and on portions of the fifth side”). We accordingly do not sustain the rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–15 103 Abbott, Ong 1–15 REVERSED