TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2020003586 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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.
15/346,688 11/08/2016 Donald C. Abbott TI-68593.1 1370
23494 7590 06/28/2021
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
PADGETT, MARIANNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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 DONALD C. ABBOTT and KAPIL H. SAHASRABUDHE
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–13. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 7, 2019, 3.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a fabrication process of a metallic leadframe
for a semiconductor package using mask-less selective oxidizing and plating
of the leadframe, comprising oxidizing un-plated leadframe portions to
provide improved adhesion to encapsulating polymeric compounds, while
plating un-oxidized leadframe portions. Specification (“Spec.”) filed
November 8, 2016, ¶¶ 2, 13.2
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising steps of:
using a maskless process to selectively oxidize a plurality
of selected areas of a leadframe made of a first metal leaving a
plurality of exposed un-oxized [sic, un-oxidized] areas and
oxidized areas; and
depositing a layer of a second metal onto the plurality un-
oxidized areas of the first metal having the plurality of exposed
un-oxidized areas and oxidized areas;
wherein the step of selectively oxidizing includes the step
of heating the selected leadframe areas for accelerating
oxidation of the first metal.
Appeal Br. 59 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:

2 This Decision also cites to the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”)
dated January 8, 2019, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December
16, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

3
Name Reference Date
Greenwood et al.
(“Greenwood”)
US 6,593,545 B1 July 15, 2003
Arrington et al.
(“Arrington”)
US 2002/0157861 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Abbott et al. (“Abbott”) US 2003/0146497 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Zuniga-Ortiz et al.
(“Zuniga-Ortiz”)
US 2006/0125062 A1 June 15, 2006
Sato et al. (“Sato”) US 2010/0151358 A1 June 17, 2010

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections:
1. Claim 2 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite;
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Greenwood;3
3. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Greenwood in view of Arrington or Zuniga-
Ortiz;
4. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Greenwood in view of Abbott; and
5. Claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Greenwood in view of any one of Arrington, Zuniga-Ortiz, and
Abbott, and further in view of Sato.

3 The Examiner withdrew claim 10 from this rejection because this claim
depends from non-rejected claim 6.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections for substantially the fact
findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Non-Final Office Action
and the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the
following for emphasis only.
Rejection 1: Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner determines that
the term “diffuse” is indefinite with respect to its use in the limitation, “the
layer of the second metal has diffuse edges bordering the plurality of
selected oxidized areas.” Id. at 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that this
term is relative and subjective, but lacks either clear metes and bounds in the
claim or a clear definition in the Specification or relevant prior art. Id. In
other words, claim 2 fails to describe any structural or dimensional context
to enable those skilled in the art to determine the scope of the “diffuse
edges.” Id.
The Examiner finds that the Specification describes “flood plating”
may result in “diffuse or uneven edges.” Non-Final Act. 3, citing Spec. ¶ 16.
The Examiner determines that “uneven edges” is an alternative to “diffuse
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

5
edges,” rather than that “diffuse” and “uneven” are synonyms. Id. The
Examiner further determines that, if these terms are synonyms, “diffuse” is
still indefinite because there are no metes and bounds on the scope of
unevenness with regard to the edges, i.e., “uneven on a macroscopic scale,
on some range in a microscopic scale.” Id.
The Examiner also finds that the Specification describes the edges of
the oxidized areas bordering the un-oxidized areas as “somewhat diffuse.”
Non-Final Act. 4, citing Spec. ¶ 41. However, the Examiner notes that such
“somewhat diffuse” edges refer to the oxidized areas of the first metal layer,
rather than to the second metal layer as recited in claim 2. Id.
The Examiner further finds that the Specification describes “diffuse
edges” of the deposited second metal layer bordering the oxidized areas, “in
contrast to sharply defined edges in devices employing photomasks.” Non-
Final Act. 4, citing Spec. ¶ 60. The Examiner acknowledges that this
disclosure provides a comparison contrasting “diffuse edges” from “sharply
defined edges,” but notes that claim 2 is not limited to the techniques (e.g.,
stamping or heated probe) described therein. Id. Therefore, the Examiner
interprets, for purposes of examination, that “diffuse edges” encompass any
edges that are not taught to be sharp. Id.
Appellant argues that an ordinary artisan would understand the
meaning of the second metal layer having “diffuse edges,” asserting that the
Specification defines “diffuse edges” as “uneven edges.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The legal
standard for definiteness in prosecution is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The language in 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

6
paragraph, “of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates[] claims are
required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—
terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test
for determining the question of indefiniteness may be formulated as whether
the claims “set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235
(CCPA 1971). With regard to the reasonableness standard, one must
consider the language in the context of the circumstances. Packard, 751 F.3d
at 1313. “[D]efiniteness of the language employed must be analyzed—not in
a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235 (CCPA 1971).
As the Examiner finds, the description of “diffuse edges” in
Specification paragraph 16 (and elsewhere) is not a definition. A definition
is a statement of the exact meaning of a word, whereas the Specification
describes “diffuse edges” within the context of a preferred plating method,
low-cost flood plating such that “[t]he areas of plated metal may have
diffuse or uneven edges.” Spec. ¶ 16. In this context, the presence of diffuse
edges on the areas of plated metal is merely optional or possible because of
the use of the term “may.” In addition, the use of alternative descriptors,
“diffuse” and “uneven,” for the edges does not clearly indicate that these are
equivalent or distinct descriptors. Although Appellant fails to discuss the
comparison recited in Specification paragraph 60, we note that this
comparison is also not a definition of “diffuse,” but merely an example of
edges that are not diffuse, e.g., sharp edges. However, even this comparison
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

7
fails to facilitate a reasonably precise meaning for “diffuse edges” because,
as the Examiner finds, the description fails to provide any metric or
valuation that would enable those skilled in the art to determine whether an
edge is “diffuse,” “uneven,” or “sharp.” In other words, the description
provides no scale on which these terms may be reasonably assessed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claim 2.
Rejection 2: Anticipation by Greenwood
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Greenwood. Non-Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner finds that Greenwood discloses a maskless, laser
irradiation process for selectively oxidizing a copper leadframe to form non-
wettable areas, followed by deposition of a tin/lead solder layer on non-
oxidized, wettable areas of the leadframe.
Appellant argues each of the rejected claims separately, which we
address seriatim below.
Claim 1
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that the second metal must be
deposited on all un-oxidized areas of the first metal because this claim
recites that the second metal is deposited onto the plurality of un-oxidized
areas of the first metal. Appeal Br. 12. In addition, Appellant argues that
Greenwood’s solder cannot correspond to the recited second layer of claim 1
because the solder is formed on the dies while in wafer form. Id. at 12–13.
Appellant directs attention to Greenwood, Figure 6, elements 604 and 610,
as showing that the solder is not deposited onto the first metal of the
leadframe. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

8
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
claim 1 does not require that the second metal be deposited on all un-
oxidized areas of the first metal, but rather on a plurality of un-oxidized
areas. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting
appellants’ nonobviousness argument as based on limitation not recited in
claim); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they
are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Claim 1 does not
limit the plurality of exposed un-oxidized areas left in the oxidizing step to
all areas that weren’t oxidized or to a subset of such areas. See Ans. 6.
In addition, claim 1 does not limit the process of deposition of the
second layer in a manner so as to exclude Greenwood’s process of
depositing the solder first on the dies, followed by depositing the solder onto
un-oxidized areas of the leadframe. Ans. 6–7. Further, Appellant’s reference
to Greenwood’s Figure 6 is misplaced and unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on Greenwood’s alternative embodiment as shown in
Figures 1A, 1B, 4A, and 5, wherein the solder is deposited directly on the
plurality of non-oxidized, wettable areas of the copper leadframe.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the layer of
the second metal has diffuse edges bordering the plurality of selected
oxidized areas.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

9
As discussed above, the Examiner interprets “diffuse edges” as any
edges that are not taught to be sharp edges.4 Non-Final Act. 4. In addition,
the Examiner finds that Greenwood’s sequential process of laser forming
oxidized areas on the copper leadframe and depositing solder on non-
oxidized areas would not necessarily create sharp edges. Id. at 7. Therefore,
the Examiner finds that Greenwood’s process would reasonably create
diffuse edges. Id.
Appellant argues that Greenwood does not teach depositing a layer of
a second metal with diffuse edges onto the plurality of un-oxidized areas of
the first metal. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant contends that Greenwood instead
teaches forming wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a single automated step
with a laser thus eliminating selective plating. Id. at 13–14.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
claim 2 is not limited to selective plating (Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184; Self,
671 F.2d at 1348) and Appellant fails to address either the Examiner’s claim
interpretation or findings regarding the diffuse edges.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 4

4 In sustaining the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 2, we
concluded that the term “diffuse” is indefinite. As explained by the Court in
In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 863 (CCPA 1962), it is improper to rely on
speculative assumptions as to the meaning of a claim in an obviousness
rejection. However, the issues raised by Appellant in arguing against the
obviousness rejection of claim 2 do not involve the meaning of the term
“diffuse.”
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

10
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the heating
step includes a movable laser beam.
Appellant repeats the same argument as discussed above with regard
to claim 2, namely that Greenwood does not teach depositing a layer of a
second metal onto the plurality of un-oxidized areas of the first metal.
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends that Greenwood instead teaches forming
wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a single automated step with a laser
thus eliminating selective plating. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons
discussed above. Moreover, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s
finding that Greenwood teaches a laser oxidation process reasonably
including a movable laser beam (Ans. 8) or explain in any detail why
Greenwood’s laser oxidation process does not anticipate the limitation of
claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the first metal
is selected from a group including copper, copper alloy, aluminum, and iron-
nickel alloy.
Appellant again repeats the same argument as discussed above with
regard to claims 2 and 4, namely that Greenwood does not teach depositing a
layer of a second metal onto the plurality of un-oxidized areas of the first
metal. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant again contends that Greenwood instead
teaches forming wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a single automated step
with a laser thus eliminating selective plating. Id.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

11
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons
discussed above. Moreover, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s
finding that Greenwood’s leadframe may be copper (first metal) (Non-Final
Act. 6) or explain in any detail why Greenwood’s copper leadframe does not
anticipate the limitation of claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 5.
Claims 11–13
Claims 11–13 each depend from claim 1. Claim 11 further requires
that the layer of the second metal provides bondability for wire bonds. Claim
12 further requires that the layer of the second metal provides bondability
for metal bumps. Claim 13 further requires that the layer of the second metal
provides solderability for solder attachment.
Appellant argues that Greenwood does not teach depositing a layer of
a second metal that provides bondability for wire bonds (claim 11),
bondability for metal bumps (claim 12), and solderability for solder
attachment (claim 13). Appeal Br. 16–18. Appellant contends that
Greenwood instead teaches forming wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a
single automated step with a laser thus eliminating selective plating. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons
discussed above. Moreover, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s
findings that Greenwood’s solder (second metal) reasonably would have
been expected to have the recited capabilities of these claims (Ans. 8–9) or
explain in any detail why Greenwood’s solder would not necessarily provide
bondability to wire bonds or metal bumps, or solderability for solder
attachment.
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

12
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 11–13.
Rejections 3 and 4: Obviousness over Greenwood in view of any of
Arrington, Zuniga-Ortiz, and Abbott

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–13 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greenwood in view of Arrington or
Zuniga-Ortiz or Abbott. Non-Final Act. 7–12. The Examiner finds that
Greenwood discloses a process for selectively oxidizing a copper leadframe
and depositing a tin/lead solder to non-oxidized, wettable areas of the
leadframe. Id. at 7–8, 10. However, the Examiner acknowledges that
Greenwood fails to disclose that the second metal is deposited by plating,
such as by immersion into a plating bath. Id. at 7, 10. The Examiner finds
that each of Arrington, Zuniga-Oritz, and Abbott teach processes of
patterning leadframes for improved adhesion and solderability, wherein the
leadframes are selectively oxidized in areas where wetting of solder is not
desired, followed by plating by immersion into a plating bath to deposit a
second metal onto non-oxidized areas of the leadframes. Id. at 8, 10–11. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have deposited a
second metal onto Greenwood’s leadframes via plating by immersion into a
plating bath because each of the secondary references disclose alternative
processes for selective oxidation of leadframes for improved adhesion of a
second metal onto the leadframe only in non-oxidized areas of the
leadframes. Id. at 8–9, 11.
Appellant argues each of the rejected claims separately. However, we
note that the Examiner relies on the same findings with regard to Greenwood
as set forth in the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11–13, and
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

13
primarily relies on the secondary references to establish that the subject
matter of claims 6, 7, and 10 would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Non-Final Act. 7. Further, we note that Appellant’s
arguments with regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and
11–13 are substantially the same as raised against the anticipation rejection
of these claims. Because these arguments were not persuasive of reversible
error as discussed above, we need not further discuss these arguments.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1,
2, 4, 5, and 11–13 for the same reasons given above. We address remaining
claims 6, 7, and 10 below.
Claims 6, 7, and 10
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and claims 7 and 10 each depend from
claim 6. Claim 6 further requires that the deposition step includes plating the
leadframe, wherein the deposited layer adheres to the un-oxidized leadframe
areas, but poorly adheres to the oxidized areas. Claim 7 further requires that
the plating includes immersing the leadframe into a plating bath. Claim 10
further requires that the second metal includes tin.
The Examiner finds that Arrington and Zuniga-Ortiz
teach processes of patterning leadframes for improved adhesion
and solderability; where also portions of the leadframe structure
are taught to be desirably provided with patterned oxidation in
areas corresponding to the regions where wetting of solder is
not desired {i.e. Arrington et al. ((861): figure 5–6, ref. #190;
[0018], [0022], [0030]), where patterning of the formed copper
oxide was performed using a solder mask; or Zuniga-Ortiz et
al. ((062): [0046]), Cu base metal, with patterned oxidation}. . .
. these teachings suggest the desirability of depositing
additional metal layer(s) desired for providing a further
improved solder wettable region analogous to the wettable
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

14
region of Greenwood et al. (545), where the plating is
performed before deposition of solder composition.
Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner also finds that Abbott
teach[es] that leadframe structures having metal plated layers
thereon (e.g. Ni, Ni/Pd, etc.); may be desirably selectively
plated with a pure tin solder layer via a “flood plating” process
([0074]); e.g. a species of immersion plating process, as now
defined on the record) that provides pre-plated tin for soldering
that is taught to be advantageous in suppressing something
called “whisker growth” ([0075-81]); and where the deposited
Sn layer may be selectively applied on the leadframe using
inexpensive, temporary masking steps that leave only leadframe
portions exposed that are intended to receive the solder layer
([0082]) [and] . . . further teach[es] that plating the copper leads
with Sn leads to better trim/form performance than the
traditional lead/tin alloy due to ductility; thus motivating one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ a plated Sn coating on the
areas where soldering is desired, in place of the Pb-Sn solder
coatings exemplified by Greenwood et al. (545), in order for
the lead frames to have the taught improved performance.
Id. at 10–11. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Greenwood’s process to include immersive plating of a second metal
layer to further improve adhesion of the solder to the leadframe as taught by
the secondary references. Id. at 9–10, 11.
Appellant argues that Greenwood not only fails to teach depositing a
layer of the second metal onto the plurality of un-oxidized areas of the first
metal, but also teaches it is advantageous not to deposit a layer of second
metal. Appeal Br. 19, 27, 36, 42. Appellant contends that Greenwood instead
teaches forming wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a single automated step
with a laser, thus eliminating selective plating. Id. at 20, 27, 37, 42.
Appellant also repeats the same arguments raised against the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

15
anticipation rejection based on Greenwood. Id. Appellant further argues that
Arrington, Zuniga-Ortiz, and Abbott fail to teach depositing a layer of a
second metal onto the plurality un-oxidized areas of the first metal having
the plurality of exposed un-oxidized areas and oxidized areas. Id. at 19–21,
26–29, 36–38, 42–46.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant’s arguments primarily address the prior art references individually
rather than what the combined teachings of the references as a whole would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established
by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole.”). Appellant fails to address the combination of references as
proposed by the Examiner in which a second metal is provided via plating in
order to further improve the adhesion of solder to the leadframe as suggested
by the secondary references. Indeed, Appellant’s arguments fail to address
with any particularity the Examiner’s findings with regard to the secondary
reference teachings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 6, 7, and 10.
Rejection 5: Obviousness over Greenwood in view of any one of
Arrington, Zuniga-Ortiz, and Abbott, and further in view of Sato
The Examiner rejects claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Greenwood in view of any one of Arrington, Zuniga-
Ortiz, and Abbott, and further in view of Sato. Non-Final Act. 12–13. In
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

16
particular, the Examiner relies on Sato to address the limitation of claim 8.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6, and further requires a step of peeling away
the deposited layer poorly adhering to the oxidized leadframe areas. Because
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6 and 7 as
discussed above, we need not further address these claims. Thus, we limit
our discussion of this rejection to claim 8 only.
The Examiner finds that Sato discloses deposition on a metal surface
cleaned of oxides, and testing to determine if the oxides were adequately
removed by subjecting the surface to heating or a tape test, such that any
deposition on an oxide surface would peel off. Id. at 12. The Examiner finds,
therefore, that it would have been obvious to have applied such post-
deposition heating or tape test to Greenwood’s process as modified in view
of any one of Arrington, Zunig-Ortiz, and Abbott to peel off any of the
second metal adhering to the oxidized areas of the leadframe with a
reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that Greenwood and Sato fail to teach depositing a
layer of a second metal onto the plurality un-oxidized areas of the first metal
having the plurality of exposed un-oxidized areas and oxidized areas. Appeal
Br. 55–56. Appellant contends that Greenwood instead teaches forming
wettable pads (un-oxidized areas) in a single automated step with a laser
thus eliminating selective plating. Id. Appellant further contends that Sato
teaches depositing a layer of a second metal onto a first metal that has been
acetone cleaned and creating oxidized areas after the deposition of the
second metal. Id. at 56.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. In
response, the Examiner finds that Sato teaches oxides on a metal surface,
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

17
including inadequately removed oxides, cause poor adhesion of a
subsequently plated metal, such that subjecting the plated surface to a tape
test would peel the plated metal from the oxide portions of the surface. Ans.
12–13. The Examiner notes that Appellant fails to address this finding, as
well as the application of this teaching to Greenwood’s modified process as
set forth in the rejection. Id. As such, Appellant fails to address the basis of
the rejection which relies on Sato’s teaching as suggesting that any metal
deposited on the oxidized areas of Greenwood’s leadframe may be removed
by peeling using either a heat treatment or tape.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 8.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Non-Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–13 is affirmed.
More specifically,
the rejection of claim 2 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite, is affirmed;
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Greenwood is affirmed;
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Greenwood in view of Arrington or Zuniga-
Ortiz is affirmed;
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Greenwood in view of Abbott is affirmed; and
Appeal 2020-003586
Application 15/346,688

18
the rejection of claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Greenwood in view of any one of Arrington, Zuniga-Ortiz, and Abbott,
and further in view of Sato is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 2
1, 2, 4, 5,
11–13
102(b) Greenwood 1, 2, 4, 5,
11–13

1, 2, 4–7,
10–13
103(a) Greenwood,
Arrington, Zuniga-
Ortiz
1, 2, 4–7,
10–13

1, 2, 4–7,
10–13
103(a) Greenwood,
Abbott
1, 2, 4–7,
10–13

6–8 103(a) Greenwood,
Arrington, Zuniga-
Ortiz, Abbott, Sato
6–8
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–13

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED