Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 87 PageID #: 16139
`
`Exhibit J
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 87 PageID #: 16140
`
`Nos. 2017-2474, -2475, -2476, -2478, -2479, -2480, -2482, -2483,
`2018-1050, -1079, -1080, -1081, -1082
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`United States Court Of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`SK HYNIX, INC,
`
`Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS LLC,
`Appellee.
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN INTER PARTES REVIEW NOS. IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-
`00387, IPR2016-00388, IPR2016-00390, IPR2016-00391, IPR2016-00393, IPR2016-00394, IPR2016-
`00395, IPR2016-00708, IPR2016-00687, IPR2016-00691, IPR2016-00770, AND IPR2016-00786
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Craig E. Countryman
`Ryan L. Frei
`Oliver J Richards
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 678-5070
`countryman@fr.com
`rfrei@fr.com
`orichards@fr.com
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`Allan M. Soobert
`Phillip W. Citroen
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202)551-1700
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Adam Shartzer
`R. Andrew Schwentker
`Christopher W. Dryer
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`901 15th St. NW, Ste. 700
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202)783-5070
`cordell@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`shartzer@fr.com
`schwentker@fr.com
`Counsel for Micron Technology Inc., and SK hynix, Inc.
`
`February 16, 2018
`
`1
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 87 PageID #: 16141
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is: Micron Technology,
`
`Inc.
`
`2.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption
`
`is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Micron Semiconductor
`
`Products, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc.
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
`
`percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are: None.
`
`4.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
`
`for the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to
`
`appear in this Court (and who have not entered an appearance in this Court) are:
`
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP: John Kappos, Xin-Yi (Vincent) Zhou, and Brian
`
`Cook
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this
`
`or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this
`
`court’s decision in the pending appeal: Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01430-LPS (D. Del.), Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Micron
`
`Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01431-LPS (D. Del.), and Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v.
`
`SK Hynix Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (D. Del.).
`
`Dated: February 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Craig E. Countryman
`
`Craig E. Countryman
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 3 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 87 PageID #: 16142
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is: SK hynix, Inc.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption
`
`is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: None.
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
`
`percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are: SK Telecom Co.
`
`Ltd.
`
`4.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
`
`for the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to
`
`appear in this Court (and have not entered an appearance in this Court) are:
`
`K&L Gates: Jason A. Engel, Benjamin E. Weed, Howard Chen, and Harold
`
`Davis
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this
`
`or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this
`
`court’s decision in the pending appeal: Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01430-LPS (D. Del.), Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Micron
`
`Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01431-LPS (D. Del.), and Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v.
`
`SK Hynix Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (D. Del.).
`
`Dated: February 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Craig E. Countryman
`Craig E. Countryman
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 4 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 87 PageID #: 16143
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is: Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd.
`
`2.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption
`
`is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
`
`percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are: None.
`
`4.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
`
`for the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to
`
`appear in this Court (and have not entered an appearance in this Court) are: Andrew
`
`B. Grossman (no longer with Paul Hastings LLP).
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this
`
`or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this
`
`court’s decision in the pending appeal: Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01430-LPS (D. Del.), Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Micron
`
`Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01431-LPS (D. Del.), and Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v.
`
`SK Hynix Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (D. Del.).
`
`Dated: February 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Naveen Modi
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 5 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 87 PageID #: 16144
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ........................................................................................... 2
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Technology: Stacked Integrated Circuit Chips that
`Combine Known Materials to Prevent the Chip from
`Breaking under Stress ........................................................................................ 2
`
`The Prior Art: Stacked Integrated Circuits with Thinned
`Substrates Were Well-Known, as Were the Benefits of
`Incorporating a Low-Tensile-Stress Dielectric .............................................. 7
`
`The Bertin and Yu References Disclose Stacked
`Integrated Circuits That Meet Most of the Claim
`
`Leedy Discloses Using a Low-Tensile-Stress
`Dielectric in an Integrated Circuit Layer to
`
`A.
`Limitations ............................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Increase Its Structural Integrity ............................................................ 9
`C. Other Prior Art Taught the Limitations in
`Dependent Claims ................................................................................ 13
`III. Elm’s Challenged Patents: Stacked Integrated Circuits
`Tensile-Stress Dielectric .................................................................................. 14
`IV.
`Common to All 13 IPRs ................................................................................. 19
`A.
`Terms and the Basis for Combining Prior Art ................................ 21
`
`with a “Substantially Flexible” Substrate and a Low-
`
`The Proceedings Below: The Board Rejects Appellants’
`Unpatentability Arguments Based on Two Issues
`
`Appellants’ Petitions Established the Proper
`Construction of the “Substantially Flexible”
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 6 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 87 PageID #: 16145
`
`Elm’s Preliminary Response Did Not Challenge
`that the Prior Art Met the “Substantially Flexible”
`
`The Board Largely Adopts Appellants’
`Constructions at Institution and Finds the
`
`Elm’s Patent Owner Response Reverses Course
`on “Substantially Flexible” and Argues the
`
`Appellants’ Replies Demonstrates that Elm’s
`Arguments Against Combining the References
`
`The Board Upholds the Claims Based on an
`Erroneous Construction and Overly Rigid Legal
`
`B.
`Limitation .............................................................................................. 23
`C.
`Evidence Supports Combining the Prior Art .................................. 24
`D.
`References Cannot Be Combined ..................................................... 25
`E.
`Are Legally Insufficient ....................................................................... 26
`F.
`Standard ................................................................................................. 27
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 31
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 34
`I.
`Be Reversed ...................................................................................................... 34
`A.
`Limitations ............................................................................................. 34
`B.
`Dielectric into Bertin and Yu ............................................................. 51
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 69
`
`The Board’s Non-Obviousness Determination Should
`
`The Board Erred in Finding that the Prior Art
`Did Not Disclose the “Substantially Flexible”
`
`The Board Erred in Finding It Was Not Obvious
`to Substitute Leedy’s Low-Tensile-Stress
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 7 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 8 of 87 PageID #: 16146
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 40, 41, 42
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 58
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 63, 65
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 39, 42
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 64, 65
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 38, 39
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................... 37
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d at 1357 ................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l LLC v. Uni. Of Phoenix, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 45
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 43
`
`In re Etter,
`756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ........................................................................... 61
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 8 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 9 of 87 PageID #: 16147
`
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commun. Equip., LLC,
`877 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 58
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d at 1376 ................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Cardiac Sci. Operating Co.,
`590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 1, 52
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ 58
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ 43
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut Auto Inc. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ............................................................................................................. 63
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 61
`
`Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ 45
`
`Omega Engr., Inc, v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 40, 42
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................................... passim
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 37
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 9 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 10 of 87 PageID #: 16148
`
`Randal Mfg. v. Rea,
`753 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................ 63
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .................................................................................................... 35, 48
`
`Shinn Fu Co. of Am. V. Tire Hanger Corp,
`701 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 63
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 46
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed.Cir.1985) ..................................................................................... 39, 42
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 39, 45
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d at 1369 ................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Industries, Inc.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................ 45
`
`Trustees of Columbia v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 37, 43, 46, 47
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 62
`
`Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 33
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 37
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 37, 47
`
`Wireless Agents LLC v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commun. AB,
`189 Fed. Appx. 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 46
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 10 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 11 of 87 PageID #: 16149
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) ...................................................................................................... viii
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) ...................................................................................................... viii, 3, 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 142 ........................................................................................................................ viii
`
`Administrative Procedure Act ............................................................................................... 33
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. viii
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 11 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 12 of 87 PageID #: 16150
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`The consolidated appeals in the caption above involve final written decisions in
`
`13 inter partes review proceedings involving 11 of Elm 3DS Innovations LLC’s
`
`(“Elm”) U.S. Patents.
`
`The parties also have several co-pending district court cases, in which Elm has
`
`accused Appellants of infringing the patents at issue in these appeals: Elm 3DS
`
`Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01430-LPS (D. Del.),
`
`Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01431-LPS (D.
`
`Del.), and Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (D.
`
`Del.).
`
`The outcome of these consolidated appeals may impact the district court cases
`
`if the challenged claims are ultimately found unpatentable. In addition, the
`
`construction of the “substantially flexible” claim terms at issue in this appeal could
`
`have a major impact on the litigations, because adopting Appellants’ construction
`
`would make it even more clear that many of the accused products do not infringe. (It
`
`is worth noting that the claims were construed in these IPRs according to the same
`
`standard used in district court.) It is necessary for the Court to resolve that claim
`
`construction dispute to decide these appeals, because, for at least some claims, the
`
`Patent Office upheld the claims based solely on its disputed, erroneous construction.
`
`Given the importance of the claim construction issue both to these appeals and the
`
`pending district court actions, the Court should resolve the parties’ claim construction
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 12 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 13 of 87 PageID #: 16151
`
`
`dispute in a written opinion to promote judicial economy in the litigation. See, e.g.,
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In the
`
`interest of judicial economy, we have the discretion to review a non-dispositive claim
`
`construction if we believe that the construction may become important on remand.”);
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (addressing claim
`
`construction arguments to “streamline th[e] case”); Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am.
`
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (rejecting the argument that the Court is
`
`precluded from “deciding claim construction issues that are not implicated by the”
`
`judgment being reviewed, concluding that “it would waste judicial resources to refuse
`
`to decide this issue on appeal”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 13 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 14 of 87 PageID #: 16152
`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`These are consolidated appeals from final written decisions in 13 inter partes
`
`reviews, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its various decisions on
`
`June 23, 2017; August 8, 2017; August 22, 2017, and August 28, 2017. (Appx1–124;
`
`Appx125–248; Appx249–372; Appx373–437; Appx438–501; Appx502–546;
`
`Appx547–596; Appx597–628; Appx629–698; Appx699–769; Appx770–807;
`
`Appx808–835; Appx836–870.) Appellants filed their notices of appeal in the various
`
`proceedings on, respectively, August 24, 2017; October 9, 2017; and October 18,
`
`2017, (Appx2018–2146; Appx2746–2874; Appx3459–3587; Appx3965–4034;
`
`Appx5162–5211; Appx5711–5765; Appx6309–6345; Appx6863–6937; Appx7453–
`
`7528; Appx8040–8082; Appx8612–8644; Appx9272–9311), all within the 63-day
`
`deadline set by the applicable statutes and regulations. See 35 U.S.C. § 142; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 90.3(a)(1). This Court thus has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 141(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 14 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 15 of 87 PageID #: 16153
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether the Board erred in construing the “substantially flexible” terms
`
`by using a generalist dictionary definition, while ignoring the intrinsic evidence,
`
`including the patentee’s statements about the scope of the terms in the specification
`
`and prosecution history.
`
`2. Whether the Board erred in finding that a skilled artisan would not have
`
`been motivated to substitute the low-tensile-stress dielectric of the prior art Leedy
`
`patent into the Bertin or Yu references, where the prior art Leedy reference itself
`
`touted the benefits of its dielectric.
`
`3. Whether the Board erred in concluding that a skilled artisan would not
`
`have reasonably expected success substituting Leedy’s low-tensile-stress dielectric into
`
`Bertin or Yu, where Leedy itself says that its dielectric is “compatible” with most
`
`manufacturing processes and where Elm’s own challenged patents simply
`
`incorporated Leedy by reference for its dielectric without any further comment or
`
`suggestion that doing so would be difficult.
`
`4. Whether, at a minimum, the Board’s decision should be set aside
`
`because it failed to adequately consider all of Appellants’ evidence and explain its
`
`reasons for rejecting that evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 15 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 16 of 87 PageID #: 16154
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`These consolidated appeals arise from proceedings in which the Board upheld
`
`the claims based on legal errors common to all the IPRs. Most claims cover a stacked
`
`integrated circuit including (i) at least one layer having a “substantially flexible”
`
`substrate and (ii) a low-tensile-stress dielectric. The prior art combinations included
`
`prior art (e.g., Bertin/Poole or Yu) that disclosed stacked integrated circuits that met
`
`most claim limitations, and a secondary reference (Leedy) that disclosed a low-tensile-
`
`stress dielectric and its benefits. These combinations render the claims obvious.
`
`The Board’s first error was in claim construction. The specification equates a
`
`“substantially flexible” substrate to one that has been thinned to a thickness of less
`
`than 50 microns and subsequently smoothed or polished. During prosecution, Elm
`
`relied on this very description to overcome an indefiniteness rejection, confirming this
`
`description defined the term. Yet the Board dismissed that intrinsic evidence, instead
`
`adopting a generalist dictionary definition divorced from the specification. That was
`
`error, and, for some claims, the Board’s only stated basis for upholding patentability.
`
`The Board’s other errors relate to the combinations of references. The Board
`
`ignored the evidence showing a skilled artisan would have readily combined the prior
`
`art, including the fact that Elm’s challenged patents incorporate the prior art Leedy
`
`patent by reference without any suggestion it would be difficult to do so. Instead, the
`
`Board demanded far more of the prior art than required by KSR or provided by the
`
`challenged patents. This Court should thus set aside the Board’s decision.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 16 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 17 of 87 PageID #: 16155
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`I.
`
`The Technology: Stacked Integrated Circuit Chips that Combine
`Known Materials to Prevent the Chip from Breaking under Stress
`
`The patents at issue here relate to stacked integrated circuits (ICs). The
`
`common specification describes integrated circuits with a control circuit that forms a
`
`base layer and other circuits stacked on top of it that perform memory operations.
`
`Each integrated circuit in the stack includes circuit components arranged in a compact
`
`structure on a silicon wafer. (Appx2371 at ¶ 20.) The components in the integrated
`
`circuit are microscopic and control the electricity flow through the circuit.
`
`(Appx2370–2371 at ¶¶ 18–19.) Combinations of these components are connected in
`
`the integrated circuit, allowing the integrated circuit to perform computing tasks like
`
`logic, calculations, and storing information. (Appx2156 at ¶ 18.)
`
`Integrated circuits are made of three types of materials: semiconductors,
`
`metals, and dielectrics. (Appx2375 at ¶¶ 31–34.) Semiconductors like silicon are
`
`fashioned into the basic components of the integrated circuit, such as transistors, and
`
`they are also used as a substrate, with the entire circuit built on a silicon “wafer.”
`
`(Appx2373–2375 at ¶¶ 25, 34.) Metallic conductors are used to connect the
`
`transistors, much like the wiring in a house, linking the circuits in the desired
`
`arrangement. (Appx2375 at ¶ 32.) Dielectrics like silicon dioxide insulate the
`
`integrated circuit components and metallic conductors from making unwanted
`
`contacts and short-circuiting the integrated circuit. (Id. at ¶ 33.) One issue on appeal
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 17 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 18 of 87 PageID #: 16156
`
`
`relates to the use of specific dielectrics in the stacked integrated circuits claimed in
`
`Elm’s challenged patents, as discussed below.
`
`There are two stages to integrated circuit fabrication—“front end of line” and
`
`“back end of line.” The “front end of line” stage involves the formation of
`
`transistors and other components on the wafer in the desired pattern. (Appx2374 at
`
`¶ 29.) Once those components are formed, the “back end of line” stage is
`
`performed, in which layers of metal and dielectric for insulation are added to wire the
`
`circuits together. (Id.) A series of addition and removal steps occurs within each
`
`stage. The most common addition technique at the time of invention was “plasma-
`
`enhanced chemical vapor deposition” or PECVD, where a thin layer of material was
`
`added on top of the fabricated structures. (Appx11543–11544, at 180:21–182:6.)
`
`Relevant removal techniques include polishing and grinding, where materials are
`
`removed in flat layers, and etching, where materials with specific properties are
`
`chemically removed. At the end of the fabrication process, the wafer on which the
`
`circuits were formed is cut up, separating each discrete integrated circuit on the wafer
`
`into “dice,” with each “die” containing a completed integrated circuit.
`
`Integrated circuit chip designers have always sought to create more compact
`
`circuits. In the early 1980s, chip designers began to use “stacking” to create three-
`
`dimensional integrated circuits. (Appx2171–2172 at ¶¶ 40–42.) In this arrangement,
`
`multiple integrated circuits are layered on top of each other with vertical connections
`
`between them. (Appx2404 at ¶ 106.) By stacking integrated circuits, designers could
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 18 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 19 of 87 PageID #: 16157
`
`
`make smaller, more powerful chips. (Appx2171–2173 at ¶¶ 39–43.) Stacked
`
`integrated circuits typically use a standard thickness substrate as their base, with
`
`thinned subsequent layers to reduce the distance that the interlayer connections have
`
`to traverse. (Appx2174–2175 at ¶¶ 45–46.)
`
`Unfortunately, stacking these thin layers on top of each other exacerbates a
`
`problem well known to chip designers: the problem of stresses within the chip. As
`
`discussed above, integrated circuits are made of layers of different types of materials.
`
`When these different materials cool from the high temperatures used to form them,
`
`the adhered layers may contract at different rates and develop stresses. (Appx2161–
`
`2162 at ¶ 26.) Layers that contract more than the layers around them develop “tensile
`
`stress,” where tension on the layer pulls toward its edges. (Appx2388–2389 at ¶ 68.)
`
`Layers that contract less than the layers around them develop “compressive” stress,
`
`where the layers are squeezed together at their edges. (Id.) If the chip designer fails
`
`to manage these stresses properly, then the layers can warp, as illustrated below, or if
`
`the stress becomes too high, could even crack or separate from the other layers.
`
`(Appx2168 at ¶ 35; Appx2388–2389 at ¶ 68.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 17-2474 Document: 31-1 Page: 19 Filed: 02/16/2018Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-10 Filed 12/12/19 Page 20 of 87 PageID #: 16158
`
`
`(Appx10650.) In stacked integrated circuits, the thinness of the substrate in the upper
`
`layers makes them even more prone to the warping and cracking that arises from
`
`improperly managing stress. (Appx2170, Appx2175–2176, Appx2180–2181 at ¶¶ 37,
`
`46, 50.)
`
`To create integrated circuits that are less susceptible to these issues, chip
`
`designers have developed ways to manage stress. (Appx2163–2174 at ¶¶ 29–44.)
`
`Long before Elm’s patents, there were two general ways to minimize the net stress on
`
`the chip. One was to use compatible materials that create low net stress. The other
`
`was to use materials that “balance” the stresses, sandwiching layers with compressive
`
`stress between opposing layers with tensile stress. (Appx2164–2171 at ¶¶ 30–38.)
`
`Either approach keeps the net stress low and creates a flat, well-adhered chip that
`
`resists warping and cracking. (Id.)
`
`By the time Elm’s challenged patents were filed, using low-stress materials was
`
`well known as a useful tool for preventing the defects discussed above. (Appx2163–
`
`2164 at ¶¶ 29–33.) Scientists routinely published the stress levels o