Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2021

2021002414 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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. 15/985,380 05/21/2018 Dolores Babaran Milo TI-79281 1088 23494 7590 12/01/2021 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER CHAN, CANDICE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2021 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 DOLORES BABARAN MILO and ERNESTO PENTECOSTES RAFAEL, JR. Appeal 2021-002414 Application 15/985,380 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7.2 Appeal Br. 4–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 21, 2018 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered April 6, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed November 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer entered December 14, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 We use the term “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 Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002414 Application 15/985,380 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to lead frames and packages formed therefrom. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is reproduced below, and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.)): 1. A semiconductor package comprising: a portion of a lead frame comprising: a first side and a second side, wherein the first side includes a first die attach pad and the second side opposite to the first side includes a second die attach pad; a die attached to the first die attach pad via a die attach material and electrically connected to a lead; and a molding that covers portions of the lead frame, the die attach material, and the die, wherein a portion of the second die attach pad is exposed from the package. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Oh et al. (“Oh”) US 6,977,431 B1 Dec. 20, 2005 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Oh. Final Act. 4–5. 2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oh. Final Act. 5–6. Appeal 2021-002414 Application 15/985,380 3 OPINION Rejection 1 Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 4–5. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Oh, the Examiner found Oh discloses a semiconductor package including a lead frame as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner found Oh discloses a lead frame having a first side and a second side, where the first side includes a first die attach pad (112) and the second side includes a second die attach pad (111). Id. (citing Oh Fig. 1C). Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues the Examiner’s application of Oh to claim 1 is in error because the surfaces of Oh’s die pad that the Examiner points to as meeting the claimed die attach pads are on the same die pad and two surfaces of the same die pad do not form two die attach pads as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant further argues Oh does teach a second die attach pad (210), but this die pad is not exposed from the package as required in claim 1. Id. Thus, Appellant argues Oh does not anticipate claim 1. Id. at 4–5. Appeal 2021-002414 Application 15/985,380 4 Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As pointed out by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3–4), the Specification itself partitions a lead frame 100 (one structure) into three portions, a first side 300, a second side 302, and a middle section 304. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 22; Fig. 3. The Specification discloses the first and second sides “provide for die attach pads.” Spec. ¶ 22. Thus, we do not discern a distinction between the die pad 110 having a first surface 111 and a second surface 112 disclosed in Oh and the lead frame structure recited in claim 1. Oh col. 3, ll. 29–43; Fig. 1C. As a result, we need not consider Appellant’s argument regarding Oh’s disclosure of a second attached die pad 210. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 5–7 dependent therefrom. Rejection 2 Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 4, which depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 2 for similar reasons as discussed above for Rejection 1. Appeal 2021-002414 Application 15/985,380 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7 102(a)(1) Oh 1–3, 5–7 4 103 Oh 4 Overall Outcome 1–7 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