throbber
Paper No. 10
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 4, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TESSERA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Broadcom Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1, 11–13, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,856,007 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’007 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Tessera, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of claim 18 of the ’007 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters in which the ’007 patent has
`been asserted: (1) In re Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices,
`Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same, ITC
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1010 (“ITC 1010 Investigation”)1; and (2)
`Tessera, Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00379 (D.
`Del). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 1; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).
`
`B. The ’007 Patent
`The ’007 patent, titled “High-Frequency Chip Package,” describes as
`background that semiconductor chips used in cellular telephones and
`wireless data communication devices to process radio frequency (RF)
`signals “typically generate substantial amounts of heat.” Ex. 1001, [54],
`2:6–10. The ’007 patent states that RF chips connections to a circuit board
`
`
`1 The preliminary record here is different from the record before the ALJ in
`the ITC 1010 Investigation, including different declarants providing
`testimony in support of Broadcom’s unpatentability/invalidity contentions.
`Compare Pet. 15–53 (citing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Suhling)), with Ex.
`2001, 163–192 (citing Direct Witness Statement of Dr. Lall).
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`“should be made with low-inductance leads having controlled, predictable
`impedance at the frequencies handled by the chip.” Id. at 2:10–15. The
`’007 patent also states that “it would be desirable to provide packages which
`are particularly well suited to RF chips using the same production equipment
`and techniques used with other package designs.” Id. at 2:17–20.
`The ’007 patent describes “a chip carrier having a large thermal
`conductor which can be solder-bonded to a circuit board so as to provide
`enhanced thermal conductivity to the circuit board and electromagnetic
`shielding” and “a conductive enclosure which partially or completely
`surrounds the packaged chip to provide additional heat dissipation and
`shielding.” Id. at Abstract. Figure 1 of the ’007 patent, below, illustrates a
`sectional view of an embodiment of the chip assembly:
`
`
`Id. at 7:14–15. As illustrated in Figure 1 above, the chip assembly includes
`packaged chip 10 mounted to circuit board 12. Id. at 7:16–17. Packaged
`chip 10 includes die 14 and chip carrier 16. Id. at 7:17–18. According to the
`’007 patent, chip carrier 16 “has a large metallic thermal conductor 20 in a
`central region and a plurality of terminals 22 in a peripheral region
`surrounding the central region.” Id. at 7:23–26. The patent discloses that
`each terminal 22 has a terminal lead 26 associated with it and that “[t]he
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`terminals, leads and thermal conductor form an electrically continuous
`structure.” Id. at 7:28–29, 7:48–49.
`The ’007 patent states that “[t]he packaged semiconductor chip is
`provided with thin layers of solder 50 on the terminals 22, 22a and with a
`thin layer of solder 52 on thermal conductor 20.” Id. at 9:48–50; see id. at
`Fig. 2 (showing terminals 22, 22a). According to the ’007 patent,
`“[d]esirably, the solder layers are less than about 75 microns thick, most
`preferably between 20 and 50 microns thick.” Id. at 9:53–55.
`The ’007 patent states that, “using conventional surface-mounting
`soldering techniques, the terminals are soldered to the contact pads 54 of the
`circuit board, whereas the thermal conductor 20 is soldered to the thermal
`conductor mounting 56 of the circuit board.” Id. at 9:61–65. The patent
`adds that “[m]ost preferably, the bond between the thermal conductor and
`the thermal conductor mounting covers substantially the entire surface area
`of the thermal conductor, as, for example, at least 80% of the thermal
`conductor surface area.” Id. at 9:65–10:2. The ’007 patent states that “the
`bond between the thermal conductor 20 and the thermal conductor mounting
`of the circuit panel 12 . . . covers a substantial area and thus has substantial
`strength and fatigue resistance.” Id. at 9:40–44.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1, 11, 12, and 18 are illustrative of the subject matter of the
`challenged claims and read as follows:
`1. A packaged semiconductor chip comprising:
`(a) a first semiconductor chip having a front face, a rear
`face, edges bounding said faces and contacts exposed at said
`front face; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`(b) a chip carrier having inner and outer surfaces, the inner
`surface of said chip carrier facing in an upward direction toward
`said chip, said chip carrier having a plurality of terminals and a
`metallic thermal conductor having a unitary solder-wettable area
`exposed at said outer surface, said unitary solder-wettable area
`having an area larger than the area of each of said terminals, said
`thermal conductor being at least partially aligned with said chip,
`at least some of said terminals being electrically connected to at
`least some of said contacts of said chip.
`11. An assembly comprising
`a packaged chip as claimed in claim 1,
`a circuit panel having contact pads and a thermal
`conductor mounting, and
`a unitary layer of solder bonded to said thermal conductor
`mounting,
`said chip carrier being disposed on said circuit panel with
`said outer face of said chip carrier facing downwardly toward
`said circuit panel, said terminals of said chip carrier being
`connected to said contact pads of said circuit panel,
`wherein substantially all of said unitary solder-wettable
`area of said thermal conductor of said chip carrier is bonded by
`said unitary layer of solder to said thermal conductor mounting
`of said circuit panel.
`12. A packaged chip as claimed in claim 1, further
`comprising a unitary layer of solder covering substantially all of
`said unitary solder wettable area.
`18. A packaged semiconductor chip comprising:
`(a) a first semiconductor chip having a front face, a rear
`face, edges bounding said faces and contacts exposed at said
`front face;
`(b) a chip carrier having inner and outer surfaces, the inner
`surface of said chip carrier facing in an upward direction toward
`said chip, said chip carrier having a plurality of terminals and a
`metallic thermal conductor exposed at said outer surface, said
`thermal conductor having area larger than the area of each of said
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`terminals, said thermal conductor being at least partially aligned
`with said chip, at least some of said terminals being electrically
`connected to at least some of said contacts of said chip; and
`(c) a circuit panel having contact pads and a thermal
`conductor mounting, said chip carrier being disposed on said
`circuit panel with said outer face of said chip carrier facing
`downwardly toward said circuit panel, said terminals of said chip
`carrier being connected to said contact pads of said circuit panel,
`said thermal conductor of said chip carrier being bonded to said
`thermal conductor mounting of said circuit panel at a spacing of
`between about 25 µm and 50 µm.
`Id. at 22:39–53, 23:20–33, 24:26–49, Certificate of Correction (emphasis
`added to disputed limitations and indentations added to claim 11).
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 11–13, 16, and 18 of the ’007 patent
`are unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 2–3, 15–54):
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`MLF Application Notes2
`MLF Application Notes,
`Clech,4 Gustafsson,5 Luo,6
`and Syed7
`Sharma8
`Sharma, Clech, Gustafsson,
`Luo, and Syed
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a)3
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`1, 11–13, 16, and 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 11–13, 16, and 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 1
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`11–13, 16, and 18
`
`In its analysis, Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Jeffrey C.
`Suhling (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`2 Application Notes for Surface Mount Assembly of Amkor’s
`MicroLeadFrame (MLF) Packages, Amkor Technologies (March 2001) (Ex.
`1015, “MLF Application Notes”).
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March
`16, 2013. Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013,
`we refer to the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`4 Clech, Solder Reliability Solutions: A PC-Based Design-for-Reliability,
`ESPI (Sept. 1996) (Ex. 1009, “Clech”).
`5 Gustafsson, Solder Joint Reliability of a Lead-Less RF-transistor, 1998
`Electronic Components and Technology Conference 87–91 (Ex. 1010,
`“Gustafsson”).
`6 Luo et al., Effect of the Thickness of a Thermal Interface Material (Solder)
`on Heat Transfer Between Copper Surfaces, 24(2) Int’l J. of Microcircuits
`and Electronic Packaging 141–147 (2nd Q 2001) (Ex. 1011, “Luo”).
`7 Syed et al., LGA vs. BGA: What is more Reliable? A 2nd Level Reliability
`Comparison, Surface Mount Technology Association International
`Conference Proceedings (Sept. 24, 2000) (Ex. 1019, “Syed”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,420,779 B1, filed Sept. 14, 1999, issued July 16, 2002
`(Ex. 1018, “Sharma”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). In addition, the Board may not “construe claims during [an inter
`partes review] so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under
`general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted). An inventor may
`provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by
`defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “chip carrier,” “unitary solder
`wettable area,” and “unitary layer of solder,” arguing that the phrases
`“should be construed consistent with the ALJ’s construction” in the ITC
`1010 Investigation. Pet. 13. For example, Petitioner proposes that “unitary
`layer of solder” should be construed to be consistent with “a single
`continuous layer of solder.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1002, 17–20 (ALJ
`construing the phrase as “a single, continuous layer of solder”)). Petitioner
`also argues that the ALJ’s construction of “substantially all of said unitary
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`solder-wettable area of said thermal conductor” “is indefinite” but that the
`challenged claims “are invalid in view of the grounds set forth [in the
`Petition] under either the ALJ’s construction or the more specific
`construction offered by Respondents” in the ITC 1010 Investigation. Id. at
`14. Petitioner also argues that the phrases “said unitary layer of solder has a
`thickness of between 25 µm and 50 µm” and “bonded to said thermal
`conductor mounting of said circuit panel at a spacing of between 25 µm and
`50 µm” should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning,
`and asserts that Dr. Suhling’s testimony in the ITC 1010 Investigation
`regarding the “accustomed meaning” is correct. Id. at 14–15. Petitioner
`adds that “the claims are invalid based on the grounds asserted in this
`proceeding regardless of whether the Board adopts Dr. Suhling’s testimony
`[from the ITC 1010 Investigation].” Id. at 15. Finally, with respect to the
`phrase “at least partially aligned,” Petitioner argues that no construction of
`the term is required “[b]ecause the prior art relied upon . . . shows a
`packaged chip in which the thermal conductor of the chip carrier is fully
`aligned with the chip.” Id. at 15.
`Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions, asserting that
`“no issued raised by [its] Preliminary Response depends on the proper
`construction of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 23.
`We determine that we do not need to construe any claim term or
`phrase to determine whether or not to institute inter partes review. We
`address the “unitary layer of solder” limitation below in analyzing
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Suhling, opines that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art of the ’007 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in
`physics or engineering and about four years of experience in semiconductor
`packaging.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 16.9
`Patent Owner does not propose an alternative definition for the level
`of ordinary skill in the art, or otherwise comment on Dr. Suhling’s proposed
`definition. See Prelim. Resp. 23.
`We determine on the current record that the level of ordinary skill
`proposed by Dr. Suhling is consistent with the challenged patent and the
`asserted prior art and we therefore adopt that level for the purposes of this
`decision.
`
`C. Asserted Anticipation and Obviousness Based on
`the MLF Application Notes
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 11–13, 16, and 18 of the ’007 patent
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by the MLF
`Application Notes and as obvious over MLF Application Notes and
`“knowledge of a person of ordinary skill” as evidenced by Clech,
`Gustafsson, Luo, and Syed. Pet. 2–3, 16–43. Relying in part on the
`testimony of Dr. Suhling, Petitioner explains how the MLF Application
`Notes disclose each limitation of the claims for purposes of anticipation,
`how the references allegedly teach or suggest the claim limitations for
`
`
`9 In support of its assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`Petitioner miscites to paragraph 13 of Dr. Suhling’s declaration. See Pet. 4
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 13).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`purposes of obviousness, and provides purported reasoning for combining
`the teachings of the references. Id. at 16–43.
`
`1. Summary of the MLF Application Notes
`The MLF Application Notes are purportedly from Amkor
`Technology’s website10 and are titled “Application Notes for Surface Mount
`Assembly of Amkor’s MicroLeadFrame (MLF) Packages.” Ex. 1015, 1.
`According to the MLF Application Notes, the MLF package “is a leadless
`package where electrical contact to the [printed circuit board (PCB)] is made
`by soldering the lands on the bottom surface of the package to the PCB,
`instead of the conventional formed perimeter leads.” Id. at 3.
`Figure 1 of the MLF Application Notes, shown below, illustrates a
`cross section of the MLF package:
`
`Id. As shown in Figure 1 above, and according to the MLF Application
`Notes, the MLF package has “a copper leadframe substrate” and an
`“exposed die attach paddle on the bottom,” which “efficiently conducts heat
`to the PCB.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`10 Section II.C.6.a below addresses the issue of whether Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the MLF Application Notes are prior art to the challenged
`claims.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`The MLF Application Notes discloses that “[s]ince the package does
`not have any solder balls or bumps, the electrical connections between the
`package and the motherboard is made by printing the solder paste on the
`motherboard and reflowing it after component placement.” Id. at 4.
`According to the MLF Application Notes, “[i]n order to form reliable solder
`joints, special attention is needed in designing the motherboard pad pattern
`and solder paste printing.” Id.
`Figure 2 of the MLF Application Notes, shown below, illustrates the
`bottom and side views of the package, indicating the dimensions needed in
`connection with designing the pad pattern for the PCB:
`
`
`
`Id. As shown in Figure 2 above and as described in the MLF Application
`Notes, “[s]ince most packages are square with [dimensions] D=E and the
`leads are along the E direction for dual packages, the side view dimensions
`(D, S, D2, and L) are used to determine the land length on the PCB.” Id.
`Figure 3 of the MLF Application Notes, shown below, illustrates the
`PCB pad pattern dimensions that also need to be determined:
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`
`Id. Figure 3 above illustrates, among other dimensions, dimensions for the
`width and length of the pad and clearances to avoid solder bridging. Id.
`Table 1 of the MLF Application Notes identifies particular package and PCB
`land pattern dimensions for packages of different sizes, including 3x3, 7x7,
`and 10x10 mm. Id. at 7.
`The MLF Application Notes discloses that the thermal pad “provides
`a solderable surface on the top surface of the PCB (to solder the package die
`paddle on the board).” Id. at 8. The MLF Application Notes also states that
`“[n]ormally, the size of the thermal pad should at least match the exposed
`die paddle size.” Id.
`The MLF Application Notes describes designing the solder paste
`stencil for the thermal pad. Id. at 12. The MLF Application Notes states:
`“In order to effectively remove the heat from the package and to enhance
`electrical performance[,] the die paddle needs to be soldered to the PCB
`thermal pad, preferably with minimum voids. However, eliminating voids
`may not be possible because of presence of thermal vias and the large size of
`the thermal pad for larger size packages.” Id. The MLF Application Notes
`recommends that “smaller multiple openings in [the] stencil should be used
`instead of one big opening for printing solder paste on the thermal pad
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`region,” and states that “[t]his will typically result in 50 to 80% solder paste
`coverage.” Id. Example stencil designs are illustrated in Figure 11 below:
`
`
`
`Id. According to the MLF Application Notes, Figure 11 above illustrates
`thermal pad stencil designs for 7x7 and 10x10 mm MLF packages, with
`solder paste coverages ranging from 48% to 81%. Id.
`
`2. Summary of Clech
`Clech is an article titled “Solder Reliability Solutions: A PC-Based
`Design-for-Reliability Tool.” Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner asserts that Clech was
`published on September 10, 1996 at the Surface Mount International
`Conference, and made available through the Surface Mount Technology
`Association (SMTA) Knowledgebase website. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 63). Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, does not challenge
`Petitioner’s assertion that Clech is prior art under Section 102(b).
`Clech describes a solder joint fatigue model “to capture the main
`effects of solder joint deformations and joint interaction with the attached
`component and substrate.” Ex. 1009, 14. According to Clech, the model
`“has been implemented as a PC-based design-for-reliability tool that applies
`to the grand families of surface mount components from [Leadless Ceramic
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`Chip Carriers (LCCCs)] to leaded assemblies, area-array and emerging chip-
`scale packages.” Id. Clech discloses that the model was applied to
`castellated LCCCs, the solder joint parameters of which are shown in Figure
`6 of Clech below:
`
`
`Id. at 6–7. As shown in Figure 6 above, and according to Clech, castellated
`LCCCs “have a low stand-off height (h1) and toe fillets that run up the
`castellations.” Id. at 7. Clech states that dimensions h1, A1, and A2 “are
`estimated from solder joint cross sections and crack areas.” Id. at 7. Clech
`discloses h1 values of 1.4 mil and 1.6 mil.11 Id. Clech discloses that
`“[s]older joint cracking initiates in the heel fillet under the component and
`propagates under the LCCC termination (crack area A1).” Id. Clech adds
`that “[p]rovided that solder volume is large enough, a significant fraction of
`the fatigue life is spent propagating cracks through the toe fillet (crack area
`A2).” Id.
`
`3. Summary of Luo
`Luo is a journal article bearing a date of “Second Quarter, 2001” and
`is titled “Effect of the Thickness of a Thermal Interface Material (Solder) on
`
`11 Petitioner asserts that a range of 1.4 to 1.6 mil is “around 35 µm – 41 µm.”
`Pet. 22.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`Heat Transfer Between Copper Surfaces.” Ex. 1011, 1. Petitioner asserts
`Luo is prior art under Section 102(b). Pet. 20–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002
`¶ 74). Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, does not challenge
`Petitioner’s assertion that Luo is prior art under Section 102(b).
`Luo describes a study of “[t]he effect of solder thickness (from 10 to
`30 µm12) on the heat transfer between two copper surfaces.” Id. at 2. Luo
`states that “[h]eat dissipation[] is a critical problem that limits the reliability,
`performance and further miniaturization of microelectronics.” Id. at 1. Luo
`states that “[a]lthough solder is commonly used and the solder thickness can
`vary greatly in practice, the effect of its thickness on the heat transfer has not
`been previously addressed.” Id. at 2 (noting that previous work has
`addressed solder thickness on the electrical resistance of a soldered joint).
`According to Luo, “the greater the solder thickness in the copper-
`solder-copper sandwich, . . . the slower is the heat transfer.” Id. at 3. Luo
`states that “[i]ncreasing the solder thickness from 10 to 30 µm causes a 25%
`increase” in heat transfer time. Id. at 4; see also id. at 1. Thus, according to
`Luo, “minimization of the solder thickness is recommended in practice.” Id.
`at 1, 4.
`
`4. Summary of Gustafsson
`Gustafsson is a journal article titled “Solder Joint Reliability of a
`Lead-Less RF-transistor.” Ex. 1010, 1. Petitioner asserts that Gustafsson
`was published in 1998 in the Proceedings of the 48th Electronic Components
`and Technology Conference. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). Patent Owner,
`
`
`12 Both Petitioner and Patent Owner refer to Luo’s disclosure of the
`measurement in terms of micrometers. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 15.
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`in its Preliminary Response, does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion that
`Gustafsson is prior art under Section 102(b).
`Gustafsson describes a study of “the solder joint life of a lead-less RF-
`transistor mounted on a 2-layer PCB.” Ex. 1010, 1. Gustafsson states that
`“[a]lthough the solder joint reliability of lead-less ceramic chip carriers has
`been studied for many years, this component is different because the
`package material is aluminum nitride and almost the entire bottom surface of
`the package is soldered to the board to achieve good thermal conduction.”
`Id.
`
`Figure 2 of Gustafsson is shown below:
`
`
`Id. at 2. According to Gustafsson, Figure 2 above illustrates a cross section
`on one of the solder joints of the lead-less RF transistor component. Id. at
`1–2. Gustafsson states that “the solder thickness underneath the component
`was typically 0.04 mm.” Id. at 2.
`
`5. Summary of Syed
`Syed is an article titled “LGA vs. BGA: What Is More Reliable? A
`2nd Level Reliability Comparison.” Ex. 1019, 1. Petitioner asserts that Syed
`was published September 2000 in the Proceedings of the SMTA
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`International Conference, available through the SMTA website. Pet. 24
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, does not
`challenge Petitioner’s assertion that Syed is prior art under Section 102(b).
`Syed discloses that a land grid array (LGA) “is an area array package
`similar to the [ball grid arrays (BGAs)] but without solder sphere or balls
`attached to the package.” Ex. 1019, 1. According to Syed, the LGA
`package is “mounted on the motherboard by printing and reflowing solder
`paste on the board resulting in solder joint height of 2 to 3 mils13 as opposed
`to 8 to 15 mils for a fine pitch BGA package.” Id. Syed states that “[t]his
`not only reduces the overall mounted height of the package (a plus of slim
`portable electronic products) but has also been thought to improve the board
`level reliability for cyclic bending and drop.” Id.
`
`6. Analysis
`a. Whether Petitioner Has Made a Sufficient Showing that the MLF
`Application Notes Are Prior Art under § 102(a)
`Petitioner contends that the MLF Application Notes are prior art to the
`’007 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 2–3, 16–18. Petitioner asserts
`that “the MLF Application Notes were publicly accessible to persons
`interested in the art prior to the filing date” of the ’007 patent. Id. at 18.14
`Petitioner relies on the date appearing on the MLF Application Notes—
`
`
`13 A range of 2 to 3 mils equals a range of 50.8 to 76.2 µm. See Pet. 24;
`Prelim. Resp. 21.
`14 Petitioner refers to both the filing date of the ’007 patent and to “the
`August 28, 2001 priority date” of the ’007 patent. Pet. 17 (“The MLF
`Application Notes bear a date of March, 2001, i.e., five months prior to the
`August 28, 2001 priority date of the ‘007 patent”), 18 (referring to “the filing
`date” of the patent).
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`March 2001—and a printout from the Internet Archive’s “Wayback
`Machine” purportedly indicating that the Notes were “publicly accessible to
`persons of ordinary skill through Amkor’s website.” Id. at 17 (citing Exs.
`1015, 1016). Although Petitioner asserts that Internet Archive printout
`shows access to the Notes as of April 2000, we understand Petitioner to
`assert access as of April 2001 because the Internet Archive printout actually
`lists a date of March 26, 2001 next to the title of the MLF Application Notes
`document. Compare Pet. 17, with Ex. 1016. Petitioner further relies on an
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted in August 2001 by
`Micron to the Patent and Trademark Office which cites the MLF Application
`Notes. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1017).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to make a threshold showing
`that the MLF Application Notes were available to the interested public
`before August 28, 2001, the filing date of the related provisional application
`identified on the front page of the ’007 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 25–29; Ex.
`1001, [60]. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to explain how the
`Internet Archive printout establishes that the MLF Application Notes “were
`sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art before the critical
`date.” Prelim. Resp. 26–27. With respect to Micron’s citation of the MLF
`Application Notes in an IDS, Patent Owner argues that “[t]here is no
`evidence in the record about how Micron obtained the document, nor
`whether Micron complied with any applicable restrictions on use by
`identifying the document by name to the USPTO.” Id. at 28.
`On the current record, there is sufficient evidence showing that the
`MLF Application Notes is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) to the challenged claims of the ’007 patent. Petitioner relies on a
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`document with a URL for the Internet Archive illustrating that a document
`with the identical title and date as that of the MLF Application Notes was
`available on Amkor’s website by April 2001. Pet 17 (citing Ex. 1016).
`Petitioner also cites to an August 2001 IDS filed by a third party (Micron)
`that cites the identically-titled and dated MLF Application Notes. Id. at 18
`(citing Ex. 1017). Petitioner also relies on Dr. Suhling’s testimony that “[i]t
`was commonplace in the industry for chip manufacturers to make soldering
`guidelines publicly available to its customers without restrictions on use.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). Considering the evidence as a whole, Petitioner
`has a made a sufficient showing for institution purposes.
`b. Claim 1
`Patent Owner requests that “the Board cancel claim 1” of the ’007
`patent and that, “pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b),” “the Board enter adverse
`judgment against claim 1 in this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 24. On
`November 29, 2017, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming
`claim 1 of the ’007 patent. See Paper 8, 1; Ex. 2004.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory
`disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a)[,] disclaiming one or more claims in the
`patent.” According to Rule 42.107(e), “[n]o inter partes review will be
`instituted based on disclaimed claims.” Because Patent Owner filed a
`statutory disclaimer disclaiming claim 1, we do not institute review as to
`claim 1 of the ’007 patent.
`c. Anticipation of Claims 11, 12, 13, and 16
`Each of claims 11, 12, 13, 16 requires “a unitary layer of solder.”
`Claim 11 recites, among other limitations, “a circuit panel having contact
`pads and a thermal conductor mounting” and “a unitary layer of solder
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01470
`Patent 6,856,007 B2
`
`bonded to said thermal conductor mounting.” Claim 12 requires, among
`other components, a packaged semiconductor chip including a “a chip
`carrier[,] said chip carrier having . . . a metallic thermal conductor having a
`unitary solder-wettable area” (recited in claim 1), the packaged chip “further
`comprising a unitary layer of solder covering substantially all of said unitary
`solder wettable area” (recited in claim 12). Claims 13 and 16 depend from
`claims 11 and 12, respectively.
`Petitioner applies the ALJ’s construction in the ITC 1010
`Investigation—“a single, continuous layer of solder”—and contends that the
`MLF Application Notes discloses a single, continuous layer of solder. Pet.
`28–33 (analyzing limitation in claim 12), 40–41 (in addressing limitation in
`claim 11, relying on analysis of claim 12 for how “the MLF Application
`Notes describe a unitary layer of solder that is applied to the thermal pad”).
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the “[t]he MLF Application Notes make
`clear that layer of solder is applied to the large rectangular PCB land pattern
`shown in Figure 3” of the MLF Application Notes, and that the Notes state
`that “the thermal pad provides a solderable surface on the top surface of the
`PCB (to solder the package die paddle on the board).” Pet. 28–29.
`Petitioner asserts that “solder applied to the thermal pad would adhere to the
`entire surface of both the thermal pad and exposed die paddle during reflow”
`and “[c]onsequently, there would be a unitary layer of solder covering
`substantially all of said unitary solder wettable area.” Id. at 29–30.
`Pet

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket