`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of XILINX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2012-00018
`Patent 7,566,960
`Title: INTERPOSING STRUCTURE
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`I. Overview of U.S. 7,566,960 .............................................................................. 1
`
`II. The initial construction of “inside” should be refined to clarify that
`“inside” means “within” .................................................................................... 2
`
`A. No construction is necessary for “an array of landing pads disposed
`on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package” ............................. 2
`
`B. The initial claim interpretation is unduly broad and effectively
`removes the “inside” limitation from the claims ....................................... 3
`
`C. The Board’s final claim interpretation, if any, should clarify that
`“inside” means “within” ............................................................................ 6
`
`III. Ground 6: Neither Chakravorty ’362 nor Siniaguine teach “an interposing
`structure disposed inside the integrated circuit package”.................................. 9
`
`IV. Ground 7: Patel does not rehabilitate Chakravorty ’362 ................................12
`
`V. Ground 8: Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ’362 fail to teach all of the
`limitations and are not combinable ..................................................................12
`
`A. Siniaguine does not teach “an array of landing pads disposed on an
`inside surface of the integrated circuit package” .................................... 13
`
`B. Ma does not teach first and second “substantially identical patterns” .... 13
`
`C. The proposed modification would render Siniaguine inoperable ........... 16
`
`VI. Ground 9: Patel does not rehabilitate Siniaguine, Chakravorty ’362 and
`Ma ....................................................................................................................18
`
`VII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Cases
`
`Chamberlain v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................... 6
`
`In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................... 5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................. 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.220 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP 2143.01 .........................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) provides this response under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.220. Xilinx respectfully submits that the prior art
`
`in Grounds 6-9 fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims and fails to
`
`teach all of the elements arranged as in the claim. Accordingly, the claims are
`
`patentable over the prior art and should be confirmed.
`
`Concurrently with this filing, Xilinx files a separate Motion to Amend that
`
`presents reasons why the proposed substitute claims are still further distinguished
`
`from the prior art of record. Since the proposed substitute claims recite all of the
`
`limitations of the original independent claims, the arguments presented in this
`
`Response apply equally to the proposed substitute claims. Nevertheless, Xilinx
`
`requests that the Board accept the proposed substitute claims only to the extent that
`
`the Board determines that the original claims are invalid under Grounds 6-9.
`
`I.
`
`Overview of U.S. 7,566,960
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7566960 to Robert O. Conn, assigned to Xilinx, Inc.,
`
`describes various innovative structures for capacitive interposers (caposers) for use
`
`with integrated circuits. The novel caposers described in the ’960 patent are useful
`
`in addressing the problem of excessive noise in the power leads of integrated
`
`circuitry operating at high frequencies. Placing a caposer with an integrated circuit
`
`die inside an encapsulating package, as described and claimed, minimizes the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`length of wiring between the capacitive element and the integrated circuit. This, in
`
`turn, minimizes the parasitic inductance due to the wiring and allows the capacitor
`
`to more effectively provide transient power.
`
`II. The initial construction of “inside” should be refined to clarify that
`
`“inside” means “within”
`
`Xilinx objects to and asks for reconsideration of the Board’s proposed
`
`interpretation of an “array of landing pads disposed on an inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package.” The Board’s initial analysis interprets this phrase “to
`
`mean that the integrated circuit package has at least two surfaces (one facing in and
`
`once facing out) and that the array of landing pads is located on the surface facing
`
`in.” (Paper 13 at 11.)
`
`The initial claim interpretation is overly broad and fails to capture the
`
`essential point that the “inside surface” is inside the integrated circuit package. For
`
`the reasons outlined more specifically below, further analysis of the claim
`
`interpretation is appropriate and leads to a conclusion that either no formal
`
`interpretation is necessary, or alternatively that “inside” means “within.”
`
`A. No construction is necessary for “an array of landing pads
`
`disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package”
`
`The Board’s order stated that there is a “‘heavy presumption’ that a claim
`
`term carries its ordinary and customary meaning” (Paper 13 at 7). Xilinx submits
`
`that the evidence in this case does not overcome that presumption, and accordingly
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`no claim construction is needed at all for the term “an array of landing pads
`
`disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package.” Neither IVM nor
`
`Xilinx indicated in their pre-trial filings that the “array of landing pads” limitation
`
`was in any way ambiguous or otherwise in need of interpretation. Xilinx believes
`
`that the claim language is readily understood and does not require construction.
`
`The Board’s initial claim interpretation focuses on the meaning of inside in
`
`an “array of landing pads disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit
`
`package.” Notably, the Board’s initial claim interpretation uses many of the same
`
`words in the original claim language, still referring to an “array of landing pads,”
`
`to an “integrated circuit package,” and to a “surface.” Thus, the initial claim
`
`interpretation only provides an interpretation of the word inside.
`
`Xilinx’s expert, Dr. Niekirk, explains that inside does not have a specialized
`
`meaning in the semiconductor arts and is instead a commonly understood word.
`
`(XLNX-2007, ¶ 19.) Thus, no construction is necessary here. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“In some cases, the
`
`ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
`
`may be readily apparent even to lay judges.”).
`
`B.
`
`The initial claim interpretation is unduly broad and effectively
`
`removes the “inside” limitation from the claims
`
`In reaching its preliminary construction, the board emphasized an analogy
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`between the claimed integrated circuit package and a “box with its top off.” (Paper
`
`13 at 9.) Xilinx respectfully submits that this analogy does not adequately
`
`represent the claims and specification of the ’960 patent. The ’960 specification
`
`never describes an integrated circuit package as being like a box, much less a box
`
`with its top off. To the contrary, the integrated circuit package 1012 in Fig. 10
`
`completely encapsulates the interposer and die, and thus, is not without a top.
`
`Fig. 10 of the ’960 Patent
`
`
`
`Thus, although the ’960 patent refers to an “integrated circuit package,” it is not
`
`fair to analogize that “package” to a box with its top off.
`
`The initial construction is also problematic because the terms “facing in” and
`
`“facing out” are relative, but the interpretation provides no context for evaluating
`
`them and determining which direction a surface faces. Thus, the claim
`
`interpretation is ambiguous. A building’s façade faces out from the building but
`
`faces in to the street. Or to take the Board’s “box with its top off” analogy, do the
`
`arrows drawn on the box below “face in” or “face out”? Both terms could apply to
`
`either arrow, depending on context and perspective. But inside and outside are
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`markedly different concepts, and it is not reasonable to treat them as
`
`interchangeable or equal. Cf. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(reversing on claim construction because “it is not a reasonable claim interpretation
`
`to equate ‘flexible’ with ‘rigid’”). Thus, the initial claim interpretation will not
`
`assist the Board and the parties in evaluating the claims relative to the prior art in
`
`this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And since a surface can be described as either “facing in” or “facing out”
`
`depending simply on perspective, the initial claim interpretation would be no
`
`different if it simply called for a “first surface” and a “second surface.” But the
`
`claim does not merely require that the integrated circuit package have two generic
`
`surfaces. Instead, the claim calls for an integrated circuit package with an inside
`
`surface and an outside surface and for specific features to be present on those
`
`surfaces. Because the initial claim interpretation removes the inside and outside
`
`limitations from the claim, the interpretation is unreasonably broad.
`
`Accordingly, further refinement of the claim construction is appropriate.
`
`See Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`(a court may “revisit[] and alter[] its interpretation of the claim terms as its
`
`understanding of the technology evolves.”) In particular, additional claim
`
`construction analysis should focus on the intrinsic evidence of meaning. See
`
`Chamberlain v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Intrinsic evidence …
`
`is a more reliable guide to the meaning of a claim term.”).
`
`C. The Board’s final claim interpretation, if any, should clarify that
`
`“inside” means “within”
`
`As noted previously, Xilinx submits that the phrase “array of landing pads
`
`disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package” does not require
`
`construction. To the extent that any construction is necessary, however, Xilinx
`
`submits that the construction should be for the word “inside” and not on the
`
`broader phrase that the Board construed. This is because the word “inside” is the
`
`focus of the interpretation dispute and the meaning of the rest of the phrase is not
`
`in dispute. For the reasons explained below, Xilinx respectfully submits that the
`
`term “inside” should be construed, if at all, to mean “within.”
`
`The intrinsic evidence supports Xilinx’s construction. Claims 1, 5, and 9 all
`
`use the word “inside,” referring for example to “an interposing structure disposed
`
`inside the integrated circuit package” and to an “inside surface of the integrated
`
`circuit package.” The claims do not further describe the meaning of “inside.”
`
`Turning to the specification, the patent uses “inside” repeatedly to describe
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`components encapsulated within, and completely surrounded by, the integrated
`
`circuit package. In introducing Fig. 10 (showing caposer 1018 within ceramic
`
`package 1012), the specification states, “Various embodiments are now disclosed
`
`in which caposers are disposed inside an IC package as opposed to being disposed
`
`outside the IC package between the package and a printed circuit board.” (IVM-
`
`1001, 10:47-50.) Thus, the specification distinguishes inside from outside.
`
`Fig. 10 of the ’960 Patent
`
`Describing Fig. 24, the specification provides that “caposer 1082 is disposed
`
`
`
`inside an integrated circuit package 1084 between a die 1083 and an inside upper
`
`surface 1088 of the package 1084.” (IVM-1001, 17:45-48.) The specification later
`
`restates this “inside” relationship using the substitute word within: “By placing the
`
`caposer 1083 [sic, 1082] immediately adjacent die 1083 within integrated circuit
`
`package 1084….” (IVM-1001, 18:42-43.) The restatement also clarifies that
`
`inside is distinguishable from immediately adjacent (which describes the relative
`
`position of the caposer and die).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Fig. 24 of the ’960 Patent
`
`
`
`In the prosecution file history, the Examiner asked for clarification regarding
`
`what is “meant by and what shows the interposing structure disposed inside the
`
`integrated circuit package.” (XLNX-2001 at 39 (emphasis in original).) In
`
`response, Xilinx explained that “inside” means “completely surrounded” or
`
`“within”:
`
`The Applicant refers the Examiner to FIG. 10, which shows a die
`
`1011 inside a package 1012. The package 1012 completely
`
`surrounds the die 1011, and hence the die 1011 is inside the
`
`package 1012. Further Applicant’s specification states “[a]n
`
`integrated circuit die 1011 is mounted within an integrated circuit
`
`package 1012.” (Applicant’s specification, para. 0089).
`
`(XLNX-2001 at 31.)
`
`Thus, the intrinsic evidence shows that the word “inside” has been
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`consistently used according to its ordinary meaning, “within.”
`
`The extrinsic evidence further supports the interpretation of “inside” as
`
`meaning “within.” The claim uses “inside” in reference to an integrated circuit
`
`package. Those of skill in the art understand that the purpose of packaging is to
`
`encapsulate and protect the fragile circuitry of an integrated circuit die from
`
`potentially destructive or corrosive substances in the environment, such as oxygen
`
`and water vapor. (XLNX-2007 ¶25.) The package also protects the integrated
`
`circuit die from physical damage in subsequent manufacturing steps and in a
`
`product’s use. (XLNX-2007 ¶25.) Since the role of the integrated circuit package
`
`is to encapsulate at least the integrated circuit die, one of skill in the art would
`
`understand that “inside” with respect to an integrated circuit package refers to a
`
`structure that is within the integrated circuit package. (XLNX-2007 ¶25.)
`
`Accordingly, Xilinx submits that, to the extent that any construction is
`
`necessary, the term “inside” means “within.” Similarly, the phrase “inside surface”
`
`refers to a “surface within.”
`
`III. Ground 6: Neither Chakravorty ’362 nor Siniaguine teach “an
`
`interposing structure disposed inside the integrated circuit package”
`
`In Ground 6, IVM contends that claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13 are unpatentable
`
`over Chakravorty ’362 in view of Siniaguine. IVM fails to show, however, that the
`
`prior art teaches the limitation of claim portion [1.3a], which recites in part, “an
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`interposing structure disposed inside the integrated circuit package.”
`
`IVM contends that the Chakravorty ’362’s primary substrate 320
`
`corresponds to the claimed “integrated circuit package.” (Paper 6 at 29, 30.) IVM
`
`further contends that Chakravorty ’362’s interposer 310 is the claimed “interposing
`
`structure.” (Paper 6 at 30.) However, Fig. 3 of Chakravorty ’362 shows that
`
`interposer 310 is not inside primary substrate 320. To the contrary, interposer 310
`
`is plainly illustrated as outside primary substrate 320:
`
`Interposer 310 is not
`inside primary substrate
`320
`
`Primary substrate 320 is
`the purported “integrated
`circuit package”
`
`
`
`Chakravorty ’362 Fig. 3 (Annotated)
`
`The Petition compounds this error by making the confusing assertion that
`
`interposer 310 is both between primary substrate 320 and die 300 and—
`
`incongruously—inside primary substrate 320:
`
`For example, in reference to annotated Fig. 3 of Chakravorty ’362
`
`above, interposer 310 is disposed inside the integrated circuit
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`package between IC die 300 and primary substrate 320 (i.e.,
`
`integrated circuit package). (Paper 6 at 30.)
`
`The Petition provides no evidence or explanation for how or why the interposer
`
`310 can be simultaneously inside and outside the primary substrate 320.
`
`IVM did not rely on Siniaguine to supplement Chakravorty ’362 regarding
`
`this claim limitation. Even if it had, Siniaguine does not provide a relevant
`
`teaching. IVM argues that Siniaguine’s substrate 330 corresponds to Chakravorty
`
`’362’s substrate 320 and the claimed “integrated circuit package.” (Paper 6 at 29.)
`
`Like Chakravorty ’362, Fig. 12 of Siniaguine similarly shows that interposer 320 is
`
`outside substrate 330.
`
`Siniaguine Fig. 12
`
`
`
`Siniaguine states that Fig. 12 shows “exemplary packaging.” But even if
`
`Fig. 12 as a whole is considered as the integrated circuit package, the figure does
`
`not teach situating an interposer as claimed. Specifically, interposer 320 contacts
`
`the upper surface of substrate 330, which is an outside surface of the package.
`
`Claims 1 and 9 require, in contrast, an “interposing structure … between the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`integrated circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated circuit package.” Fig.
`
`12 merely shows interposer 320 between circuit 310 and the upper surface of
`
`substrate 330, but the upper surface of substrate 330 is an exposed, outside surface
`
`of the package. (XLNX-2007 ¶33-34.) Even under the Board’s initially proposed
`
`claim interpretation, the upper surface of substrate 330 is not an “inside surface of
`
`the integrated circuit package” because it faces out. (XLNX-2007 ¶35.) Thus, the
`
`prior art fails to teach or suggest “an interposing structure disposed inside the
`
`integrated circuit package between the integrated circuit die and the inside surface
`
`of the integrated circuit package” as recited in claims 1 and 9.
`
`IV. Ground 7: Patel does not rehabilitate Chakravorty ’362
`
`IVM contends that claims dependent claims 6 and 12 are unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ’362 in view of Siniaguine and further in view of Patel. Patel does
`
`not provide a teaching relevant to the features missing from Chakravorty ’362 and
`
`Siniaguine with respect to the independent claims. (XLNX-2007 ¶37.) Thus,
`
`claims 6 and 12 are patentable at least for the reason that they dependent from
`
`independent claims 1 and 9, which as shown above, are patentable over the
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`V. Ground 8: Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ’362 fail to teach all of the
`
`limitations and are not combinable
`
`IVM contends that claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13 are unpatentable over Siniaguine
`
`in view of Chakravorty ’362 and further in view of Ma. Because IVM’s
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`allegations fail to present a prima facie case of obviousness for Ground 8, these
`
`claims should be confirmed as patentable.
`
`A.
`
`Siniaguine does not teach “an array of landing pads disposed on
`
`an inside surface of the integrated circuit package”
`
`IVM fails to show that the prior art combination teaches the limitation of
`
`claim portion [1.2a], which recites “an array of landing pads disposed on an inside
`
`surface of the integrated circuit package in a second pattern.” Claim 9 includes the
`
`same language in claim portion [9.2a]. As analyzed above for Ground 6,
`
`Siniaguine teaches a set of pads 388 on an upper surface—not an “inside
`
`surface”—of wiring substrate 330. (XLNX-2007 ¶ 39.) For this reason,
`
`independent claims 1 and 9 (and all dependent claims) distinguish over Ground 8.
`
`B. Ma does not teach first and second “substantially identical
`
`patterns”
`
`IVM also fails to show that the prior art combination teaches the limitation
`
`of claim portion [1.2c], which recites “wherein the first pattern and the second
`
`pattern are substantially identical patterns.” IVM asserts that this limitation is
`
`taught by Ma’s Fig. 18. (Paper 6 at 41.) IVM further asserts that it would have
`
`been obvious to couple Ma’s external contacts 244 (IVM-1008, Fig. 18) to
`
`Siniaguine’s pads 388 (IVM-1004, Fig. 4). (Paper 6 at 41.) These arguments fail
`
`for two reasons.
`
`First, IVM provided no evidence of the alleged obviousness of combining
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Siniaguine and Ma. The analysis in the Petition includes only an aborted attempt
`
`at citing to such evidence:
`
`As would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art, external contacts 244 of Ma can make contact with
`
`pads 388 of Siniaguine to provide communication to the external
`
`electrical system (e.g., wiring substrate 330 of Siniaguine). See
`
`[sic.]
`
`(Paper 6 at 41.) Thus, IVM’s proposed obviousness combination is merely an
`
`empty attorney argument without any evidentiary support. As such, it fails.
`
`Second, even if IVM had cited some evidence to support the proposed
`
`combination, the combination still fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious that
`
`“the first pattern and the second pattern are substantially identical patterns.” The
`
`claimed “first pattern” is an “array of micro-bumps disposed on a surface of the
`
`integrated circuit die,” which is alleged to correspond to Ma’s small solder balls
`
`228. (Paper 6 at 41.) The claimed “second pattern” is an “array of landing pads
`
`disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package,” alleged to
`
`correspond to Siniaguine’s pads 388 when bonded to Ma’s externals contacts 244.
`
`(Paper 6 at 41.) This hypothetical arrangement is visualized below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Ma Fig. 18
`
`Siniaguine
`Fig. 4
`
`
`
`Annotated Combination of Ma Fig. 18 and Siniaguine Fig. 4
`
`It is readily apparent that the pattern of small solder balls 228 is not
`
`substantially identical to the pattern of pads 388. (XLNX-2007 ¶ 46.) For
`
`example, if Ma’s microelectronic die 224 were placed directly on Siniaguine’s
`
`substrate 330, none of the small solder balls 228 would contact the left-most and
`
`right-most pads 388. Additionally, Ma shows that small solder balls 228 are
`
`regularly spaced apart, while Siniaguine shows that pads 388 are irregularly spaced
`
`apart. (XLNX-2007 ¶ 46.)
`
`IVM has not shown how the combination of Siniaguine and Ma teach,
`
`suggest, or render obvious that “the first pattern and the second pattern are
`
`substantially identical patterns.” On this basis, independent claims 1 and 9 (along
`
`with all dependent claims) should be affirmed as patentable over Ground 8.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`C. The proposed modification would render Siniaguine inoperable
`
`
`
`Additionally, the proposed combination of Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty
`
`’362 is improper because it would render Siniaguine inoperable for its intended
`
`purpose. See MPEP 2143.01(V) and cases cited therein.
`
`Specifically, Siniaguine teaches that purpose and function of interposer
`
`circuit 320 is to contain the clock distribution network for semiconductor die 310.
`
`(IVM-1004, 2:1-3 & 3:43-47.) Siniaguine illustrates in Fig. 1 that in an exemplary
`
`clock distribution network, a single input clock signal 120 is distributed to
`
`numerous terminals 130, which are further coupled to circuit blocks 140. (IVM-
`
`1004, 1:12-16.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Siniaguine Fig. 1 (Top View)
`
`Siniaguine Fig. 3 (Side View)
`
`Siniaguine further illustrates in Fig. 3 that clock inputs are placed on the
`
`“bottom” of the interposer, while the (more numerous) clock outputs are placed on
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`the “top” of the interposer. (IVM-1004, 3:65–4:3; XLNX-2007 ¶ 42.) Siniaguine
`
`also illustrates this, for example, in Fig. 15C showing twelve contact pads 323 on
`
`the bottom of the interposer and twenty solder balls on the top of interposer
`
`coupled to die 310.
`
`Siniaguine Fig. 15C
`
`
`
`Thus, the purpose of Siniaguine’s interposer is to house a clock distribution
`
`circuit where the outputs are more numerous than the inputs. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 42.)
`
`Modifying Siniaguine such that the pattern of micro-bumps on a die (generally
`
`corresponding to Siniaguine’s outputs) is substantially identical to the pattern of
`
`landing pads in a package (generally corresponding to Siniaguine’s inputs) would
`
`render Siniaguine inoperable for its intended purpose. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 44.) For
`
`Siniaguine’s clock distribution interposer to work, it necessarily must have an
`
`unequal number of inputs and outputs, and more specifically, more outputs than
`
`inputs. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 44.) If the pattern of micro-bumps on die 310 were
`
`substantially identical to the pattern of landing pads on substrate 330, then the
`
`number of inputs and outputs would be substantially identical and there could be
`
`no distribution of clock signals. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 44.) Thus, even if Ma taught
`
`“substantially identical patterns”—which it does not—making the proposed change
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`would make Siniaguine’s interposer inoperable for clock signal distribution, its
`
`intended purpose. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 44.) Thus, the proposed combination of
`
`Siniaguine and Ma is unsupportable.
`
`IVM did not argue that Chakravorty ’362 teaches “substantially identical
`
`patterns” for Ground 8. To the extent that it might provide a relevant teaching,
`
`however, any combination of Siniaguine and Chakravorty ’362 would likewise be
`
`unworkable. Any modification of Siniaguine to have “substantially identical
`
`patterns”—regardless of the source of that teaching—would render Siniaguine’s
`
`interposer inoperable for its intended purpose. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 45.)
`
`Accordingly, the claims should be confirmed as patentable over Ground 8.
`
`VI. Ground 9: Patel does not rehabilitate Siniaguine, Chakravorty ’362
`
`and Ma
`
`IVM contends that claims dependent claims 6 and 12 are unpatentable over
`
`Siniaguine in view of Chakravorty ’362 and Ma and further in view of Patel. Patel
`
`does not provide a teaching relevant to the features missing from Chakravorty ’362
`
`and Siniaguine with respect to the independent claims. (XLNX-2007, ¶ 49.) Thus,
`
`claims 6 and 12 are patentable at least for the reason that they dependent from
`
`independent claims 1 and 9, which as shown above, are patentable over the
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`VII. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Because IVM has failed to meet its burden, all the claims (claims 1-13) of
`
`the ’960 Patent should be confirmed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`Telephone: 214/651-5116
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.44
`
`
`Dated: May 7, 2013
`
`R_320382_2
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`