TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATEDDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 20212020003586 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation