`
`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 SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO AMEND
`
`BY XILINX UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... l
`
`I.
`
`Claim Listing ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`11. Written Description Support and Claim Construction ...................................... 6
`
`III. Claims 14-26 are Patentably Distinct Over the Art ....................................... 13
`
`A. Closest Prior Art ......................................................................................... 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Patentable Distinction Over Chakrovorty and Siniaguine ......................... 15
`
`Patentable Distinction Over Chakrovorty, Siniaguine, and Ma ................. 17
`
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`_i i_
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) moves to amend the claims of US.
`
`Patent No. 7,566,960 (“the ’960 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(9) and 37
`
`CPR. § 42.121 and provides a “claim-by-claim approach to specifying the
`
`contingency of substitution,” as required by Idle Free Systems, Inc., v. Bergstrom
`
`Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013) at 10. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`moves to cancel Claims 1-8 and to substitute Claims 14-21, contingent upon a
`
`Board determination that Claim 1 is unpatentable, and similarly to cancel Claims
`
`9-13 and to substitute Claims 22—26, contingent upon a Board determination that
`
`Claim 9 is unpatentable.
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free, “a substitute claim may not enlarge the scope of the
`
`challenged claim by eliminating any feature.” Idle Free at 5. Further, a substitute
`
`claim cannot “introduce[] new matter” and the patent owner must “show written
`
`description support in the original disclosure of the patent.” Idle Free at 8; see
`
`also 37 CPR. §§ 42.22 and 42.121.
`
`Patent Owner submits that this motion fully complies with these
`
`requirements. Specifically, Patent Owner submits that Claims 14—26 do not
`
`introduce new matter and are fully supported by the originally filed specification of
`
`the ’960 Patent as discussed below in the written description support section. Also,
`
`it is submitted that each of Claims 14—26 includes the subject matter of the claim
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`for which it substitutes and does not enlarge the scope of the challenged claim it
`
`replaces.
`
`Idle Free fiirther requires that any amendment be responsive to a ground of
`
`unpatentability involved in the trial. Idle Free at 4-5; see also 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.121(2)(i). Here, the present amendments comply with this requirement because
`
`they include each feature of the claims being replaced and then narrow the
`
`interposer feature, which was a specific focus of Petitioner’s patentability
`
`challenges. See, Petition at pp. 30-37 and 38-49.
`
`I.
`
`Claim Listing
`
`Claims 1-8 (Canceled)
`
`Claims 9-13 (Canceled)
`
`Claim 14 (Proposed substitute for Claim 1) An assembly, comprising:
`
`an integrated circuit die having an array of micro-bumps disposed on a
`
`surface of the integrated circuit die in a first pattern;
`
`an integrated circuit package having an array of landing pads disposed on an
`
`inside surface of the integrated circuit package in a second pattern and an array of
`
`solder balls disposed on an outside surface of the integrated circuit package,
`
`wherein the first pattern and the second pattern are substantially identical
`
`patterns; and
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`an interposing structure comprising a plurality of tiled integposing structures
`
`disposed inside the integrated circuit package between the integrated circuit die
`
`and the inside surface of the integrated circuit package, the plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures being held together using an elastomer, the interposer
`
`electrically coupling a first micro-bump in a first position in the array of micro-
`
`bumps to a first landing pad located opposite to the first position and to a second
`
`landing pad in the array of landing pads.
`
`Claim 15 (Proposed substitute for Claim 2): The assembly of claim [[1]] _1_41,
`
`wherein a line extending through the first micro—bump in a direction orthogonal to
`
`the surface of the integrated circuit does not extend through the second landing pad
`
`of the integrated circuit package.
`
`Claim 16 (Proposed substitute for Claim 3): The assembly of claim [[2]] Q,
`
`wherein the surface of the integrated circuit die is a major surface of the integrated
`
`circuit die, and wherein the interposing structure has a major surface, and wherein
`
`the major surface of the integrated circuit die and the major surface of the
`
`interposing structure have roughly identical surface areas.
`
`Claim 17 (Proposed substitute for Claim 4): The assembly of claim [[3]] l_6,
`
`wherein the interposing structure includes no transistor and no PN junction.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Claim 18 (Proposed substitute for Claim 5): The assembly of claim [[4]] 11,
`
`wherein the interposing structure includes an array of micro—bumps, wherein the
`
`array of micro-bumps of the interposing structure has a pattern that is substantially
`
`identical to the second pattern of the landing pads on the inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package.
`
`Claim 19 (Proposed substitute for Claim 6): The assembly of claim [[5]] fl,
`
`wherein the interposing structure includes a layer comprising epoxy and fiberglass.
`
`Claim 20 (Proposed substitute for Claim 7): The assembly of claim [[5]] 18,
`
`wherein the interposing structure includes a bypass capacitor.
`
`Claim 21 (Proposed substitute for Claim 8): The assembly of claim [[5]] 1_8,
`
`wherein the first micro-bump is coupled to the first landing pad at least in part by a
`
`conductor disposed in interposing structure, wherein the conductor disposed in the
`
`interposing structure extends in a direction parallel to the surface of the integrated
`
`circuit.
`
`Claim 22 (Proposed substitute for Claim 9): An assembly, comprising:
`
`an integrated circuit die having an array of micro-bumps disposed on a
`
`surface of the integrated circuit die in a first pattern;
`
`an integrated circuit package having an array of landing pads disposed on an
`
`inside surface of the integrated circuit package in a second pattern and an array of
`
`_4_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012—00018
`
`solder balls disposed on an outside surface of the integrated circuit package,
`
`wherein the first pattern and the second pattern are substantially identical patterns;
`
`and
`
`means for electrically coupling a first micro-bump in a first position in the
`
`array of micro-bumps to a first landing pad disposed opposite the first position and
`
`to a second landing pad located in a different position in the array of landing pads,
`
`the means comprising a plurality of tiled interposing structures electrically
`
`coupling the array of landing pads and the array of solder balls, the means
`
`including the plurality of tiled interposing structures being disposed inside the
`
`integrated circuit package between the integrated circuit die and the inside surface
`
`of the integrated circuit package, the plurality of tiled interposing structures being
`
`held together using an elastomer.
`
`Claim 23 (Proposed substitute for Claim 10): The assembly of claim [[9]]
`
`2, wherein the means is also for providing a bypass current to the integrated
`
`circuit die.
`
`Claim 24 (Proposed substitute for Claim 11): The assembly of claim [[9]]
`
`2;, wherein the surface of the integrated circuit die is a major surface of the
`
`integrated circuit die, and wherein the means has a major surface, and wherein the
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`major surface of the integrated circuit die and the major surface of the means have
`
`roughly identical surface areas.
`
`Claim 25 (Proposed substitute for Claim 12): The assembly of claim [[9]]
`
`Q, wherein means has a planar form and is less than 500 microns thick.
`
`Claim 26 (Proposed substitute for Claim 13): The assembly of claim [[9]]
`
`22, wherein the integrated circuit die is an application specific integrated circuit
`
`(ASIC).
`
`II. Written Description Support and Claim Construction
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free, the patent owner must “show written description
`
`support in the original disclosure of the patent.” Idle Free at 8. Further, Idle Free
`
`requires that patent owner include “construction of new claim terms.” Idle Free at
`
`7. The original disclosure of the ’960 Patent is included in Exhibit XLNX-2001
`
`and claim construction for new claim terms is provided below as new claim terms
`
`are introduced.
`
`Claim 14 recites “an integrated circuit die having an array of micro—bumps
`
`disposed on a surface of the integrated circuit die in a first pattern.” This claim
`
`element is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs. 10-14 and
`
`24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and 387), and at least at W 89-92 and W 127-138
`
`(XLNX—2001 at 344-345 and 356-361), as well as original Claim 1.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`The claim further recites “an integrated circuit package having an array of
`
`landing pads disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package in a
`
`second pattern and an array of solder balls disposed on an outside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package.” This claim element is supported in the originally filed
`
`specification at least by Figs. 10-14 and 24 (XLNX—ZOOl at 379-381 and 387), and
`
`at least at W 89—92 and W 127-138 (XLNX-ZOOl at 344-345 and 356-361).
`
`The claim further recites that “the first pattern and the second pattern are
`
`substantially identical patterns.” This claim element is supported in the originally
`
`filed specification at least by Figs. 10-14 and 24 (XLNX—2001 at 379-381 and
`
`387), and at least at W 89-92 and 1111 127-138 (XLNX-2001 at 344-345 and 356-
`
`361), as well as original Claim 1.
`
`The claim further recites “an interposing structure comprising a plurality of
`
`tiled interposing structures disposed inside the integrated circuit package between
`
`the integrated circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated circuit package.”
`
`This claim element is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`8-14 and 24 (XLNX—ZOOl at 378-381 and 387), and at least at W 81-91 and 1M
`
`127-138 (XLNX-ZOOI at 342—345 and 356-361). Regarding the “plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures,” Fig. 8 and accompanying text describe creating a larger
`
`single interposing structure from a plurality of smaller tiles:
`
`[0081] In some embodiments, several smaller interposers are
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`used to mount a larger packaged IC to a PCB. When several
`
`smaller interposers are used,
`
`they can individually expand
`
`and/or
`
`contract over
`
`several
`
`smaller
`
`areas,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`experiencing a larger expansion and/or contraction over a single
`
`larger area. Thus, the structure can withstand greater variations
`
`in temperature without failure.
`
`[0082] FIG. 8 shows one such embodiment. In the pictured
`
`embodiment,
`
`the smaller interposers ("tiles") are separately
`
`soldered to the packaged IC and to the lands of the PCB. In
`
`other embodiments (not shown), the tiles are combined together
`
`to form a
`
`single
`
`interposer device prior
`
`to mounting.
`
`(XLNX-2001 at 342; see also Neikirk, XLNX-2008, W 14—17.)
`
`PACKAGED
`IC 802
`
`TILED
`INTERFOSEH
`ace
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free ’s requirement for a construction of new claim terms,
`
`Patent Owner submits that new claim term “plurality of tiled interposing
`
`structures” should be construed as “a regular pattern of side by side interposing
`
`structures.” (Neikirk, XLNX-ZOOS, 1i 13.)
`
`The claim further recites “the plurality of tiled interposing structures being
`
`—8—
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`held together using an elastomer.” This claim element is supported in the originally
`
`filed specification at least at 11 82 (XLNX-2001 at 342):
`
`[0082] In one embodiment, an elastomer is used to hold the
`
`tiles together, thus forming the single interposer device. The
`
`elastomer also serves to absorb mechanical
`
`stresses from
`
`thermal expansion and/or contraction.
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free ’5 requirement for a construction of new claim terms,
`
`Patent Owner submits that new claim term “elastomer” should be construed
`
`according to the ordinary meaning as “a polymer with elastic properties resembling
`
`those of natural rubber.” (XLNX-2011.)
`
`The claim further recites “the interposer electrically coupling a first micro-
`
`bump in a first position in the array of micro-bumps to a first landing pad located
`
`opposite to the first position and to a second landing pad in the array of landing
`
`pads.” This claim element is supported in the originally filed specification at least
`
`by Figs. 8-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 378—381 and 387), and at least at llll 81-91
`
`and 111] 127-138 (XLNX—2001 at 342-345 and 356-361).
`
`Claim 15 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`13-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 381 and 387), as well as original Claim 2.
`
`Claim 16 is supported in the originally filed specification at least elements
`
`by elements 1016 and 1024 ofFigs. 10-14 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381), as well as
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`original Claim 3.
`
`Claim 17 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`10-14 (XLNX—2001 at 379-381), as well as original Claim 4.
`
`Claim 18 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`10-14 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381), as well as original Claim 5.
`
`Claim 19 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by 11 146
`
`(XLNX-2001 at 362-363), as well as original Claim 6.
`
`Claim 20 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by element
`
`1052 ofFig. l4 (XLNX-2001 at 381) and at least at fl 101 (XLNX-2001 at 348), as
`
`well as original Claim 7.
`
`Claim 21 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by element
`
`1030 of Figs. 13-14 (XLNX-2001 at 381) and at least at 11 99 (XLNX-2001 at 348),
`
`as well as original Claim 8.
`
`Claim 22 recites “an integrated circuit die having an array of micro-bumps
`
`disposed on a surface of the integrated circuit die in a first pattern.” This claim
`
`element is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs. 10—14 and
`
`24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and 387), and at least at W 89—92 and 1111 127-138
`
`(XLNX-2001 at 344—345 and 356-361), as well as original Claim 12.
`
`The claim further recites “an integrated circuit package having an array of
`
`landing pads disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit package in a
`
`_10_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`second pattern and an array of solder balls disposed on an outside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package” This claim element is supported in the originally filed
`
`specification at least by Figs. 10—14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and 387), and
`
`at least at W 89—92 and M 127-138 (XLNX-2001 at 344-345 and 356—361).
`
`The claim further recites that “the first pattern and the second pattern are
`
`substantially identical patterns.” This claim element is supported in the originally
`
`filed specification at least by Figs. 10-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and
`
`387), and at least at W 89-92 and W 127-138 (XLNX-2001 at 344-345 and 356-
`
`361), as well as original Claim 12.
`
`The claim further recites “means for electrically coupling a first micro-bump
`
`in a first position in the array of micro-bumps to a first landing pad disposed
`
`opposite the first position and to a second landing pad located in a different
`
`position in the array of landing pads.” This limitation recites a means-plus—fiinction
`
`limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The function is “electrically
`
`coupling a first micro-bump in a first position in the array of micro-bumps to a first
`
`landing pad disposed opposite the first position and to a second landing pad located
`
`in a different position in the array of landing pads” and the corresponding structure
`
`is a plurality of caposers 1018 and 1082 in the side by side tiled arrangement of
`
`Figure 8. This claim element is supported in the originally filed specification at
`
`least by Figs. 8-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 378-381 and 387), and at least at W 81-
`
`-11_
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`91 and 111] 127-138 (XLNX—ZOOI at 342-345 and 356-361).
`
`The claim further recites “the means comprising a plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures electrically coupling the array of landing pads and the array
`
`of solder balls.” This claim element is supported in the originally filed
`
`specification at least by Figs. 8-14 and 24 (XLNX-ZOOl at 378—381 and 387), and
`
`at least at W 81-91 and M 127-138 (XLNX-ZOOl at 342-345 and 356-361).
`
`The claim further recites “the means including the plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures being disposed inside the integrated circuit package between
`
`the integrated circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated circuit package.”
`
`This claim element is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`8-14 and 24 (XLNX-ZOOI at 378-381 and 387), and at least at W 81-91 and 111]
`
`127-138 (XLNX-2001 at 342-345 and 356-361). (Neikirk, XLNX-ZOOS, W 27-28.)
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free ’s requirement for a construction of new claim terms,
`
`Patent Owner submits that new claim term “plurality of tiled interposing
`
`structures” should be construed as “a regular pattern of side by side interposing
`
`structures.” (Neikirk, XLNX-2008, 1] 13.)
`
`The claim further recites “the plurality of tiled interposing structures being
`
`held together using an elastomer.” This claim element is supported in the originally
`
`filed specification at least at fl 82 (XLNX-ZOOI at 342).
`
`_12_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Pursuant to Idle Free ’5 requirement for a construction of new claim terms,
`
`Patent Owner submits that new claim term “elastomer” should be construed
`
`according to the ordinary meaning as “a polymer with elastic properties resembling
`
`those of natural rubber.” (XLNX-2011.)
`
`Claim 23 is supported in the originally filed specification at least at 1] 88
`
`(XLNX—200l at 344), as well as original Claim 13.
`
`Claim 24 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`10-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and 387), as well as original Claim 14.
`
`Claim 25 is supported in the originally filed specification at least by Figs.
`
`10-14 and 24 (XLNX-2001 at 379-381 and 387) and at least at fil 96 and 1ll47
`
`(XLNX-2001 at 346-347 and 363), as well as original Claim 15.
`
`Claim 26 is supported in the originally filed specification at least at 1i 134
`
`(XLNX—2001 at 359), as well as original Claim 16.
`
`III. Claims 14-26 are Patentably Distinct Over the Art
`
`In Idle Free, the Board stated that “[fjor each proposed substitute claim, we
`
`expect the patent owner: (1) in all circumstances, to make a showing of patentable
`
`distinction over the prior art; (2) in certain circumstances, to make a showing of
`
`patentable distinction over all other proposed substituted claims for the same
`
`challenged claim; and (3) in certain circumstances to make a showing of patentable
`
`distinction over a substitute claim for another challenged claim.” Idle Free at 6-7.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`In connection with scenario (1), Patent Owner provides the expert
`
`declaration of Mr. Neikirk (XLNX-2008) and submits that Claims 14-26 are
`
`patentably distinct over both the prior art of record and the prior art known to
`
`Patent Owner. Regarding scenario (2), Patent Owner submits that this scenario
`
`does not apply as the present motion requests a one-for-one claim substitution.
`
`With respect to scenario (3), Patent Owner submits that this scenario does not
`
`apply because only proposed substitute independent claims 14 and 22 have been
`
`amended substantively.
`
`A.
`
`Closest Prior Art
`
`Idle Free requires that “[s]ome representation should be made about the
`
`specific technical disclosure of the of the closest prior art known to the patent
`
`owner; and not just a conclusory remark that no prior art known to the patent
`
`owner renders obvious the proposed substitute claims.” Idle Free at 7. In the
`
`present proceeding, the Patent Owner is not aware of any circuit die assembly prior
`
`art that discloses an interposer comprising “a plurality of tiled interposing
`
`structures,” nor is the Patent Owner aware of any circuit die assembly prior art that
`
`discloses a “plurality of tiled interposing structures being held together using an
`
`elastomer.” The closest prior art of which the Patent Owner is aware is contained
`
`in the prior art of record, namely US Patent No. 6,970,362 (“Chakravorty ’362”);
`
`US. Patent No. 6,730,540 (“Siniaguine”); and US 6,423,570 (“Ma”). Provided
`
`_14_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`below is a discussion of technical facts and reasoning, supported by declaration
`
`testimony, that show patentable distinction of the substitute claims over these
`
`references.
`
`B.
`
`Patentable Distinction Over Chakravorty and Siniaguine
`
`Grounds 6 and 7 are obviousness rejections that rely on Chakravorty ’362 as
`
`a primary reference and Siniaguine as a secondary reference.
`
`Claims 14 and 22 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362, Siniaguine
`
`and the other obviousness references. (See Neikirk, XLNX-2008, 11 30.) Petitioner
`
`IVM cited Chakravorty ’362’5 Fig. 3 and its interposer 310 as teaching the
`
`interposing structure of Claim 1. Claims 14 and 22 recite a “plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures.” Chakravorty ’362 teaches using only a single interposer to
`
`mount an integrated circuit die to a substrate. (See IVM-1007 at Fig. 3.) There is
`
`no teaching or suggestion in Chakravorty ’362 of using more than one interposing
`
`structure. (Neikirk, XLNX-2008, W 18-19.) And while Siniaguine teaches that
`
`“several interposers are provided, with different parts of a clock distribution
`
`network on different interposers,” there is no express teaching in Siniaguine
`
`regarding the orientation of the several interposers or whether they are even used
`
`with the same integrated circuit die. (See IVM-1004 at 2:59-61; 4:55-58; Neikirk,
`
`XLNX-2008, 11 20.) At best, Siniaguine teaches that “multiple circuits 310 can be
`
`bonded side by side to the top surface of interposer 320.” (See IVM-1004 at 4:54-
`
`_15_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`55; Fig. 3; Neikirk, XLNX-2008, W 21-22.) Thus, Siniaguine does not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of Chakravorty ’362.
`
`The ’960 Patent describes potential drawbacks to packaging an integrated
`
`circuit using a single interposing structure, such as physical stress induced by
`
`differing thermal coefficients of expansion. (See IVM-1001 at 9:40—67; Neikirk,
`
`XLNX-2008, 1] 23.) The prior art of Grounds 6 and 7 do not discuss, or even
`
`appear to be aware of the need to reduce thermal stresses between the integrated
`
`circuit die, interposer, and integrated circuit package. (See, e. g., IVM-1004 at
`
`6:21-48 (recognizing thermal stress only in the context of metal layers in a trench);
`
`Neikirk, XLNX-2008, fil 24.) Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not have been motivated to adopt a plurality of tiled interposing structures due to
`
`the added manufacturing steps and the issues associated with aligning each of the
`
`tiled interposing structures. (See Neikirk, XLNX-2008, W 25-26.) The references
`
`do not teach or suggest the inventive solution of using a “plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures.” (See Neikirk, XLNX-2008, 1] 30.) The remaining prior art
`
`of record also fails to disclose such structures. Further, Patent Owner is not aware
`
`of any circuit die assembly prior art that discloses an interposer comprising “a
`
`plurality of tiled interposing structures.”
`
`Claims 14 and 22 further recite “the plurality of tiled interposing structures
`
`being held together using an elastomer.” The ’960 Patent notes that using an
`
`—l6—-
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`elastomer as claimed is important because it provides the benefit of reducing
`
`mechanical stress from thermal expansion and/or compression.
`
`[0082] In one embodiment, an elastomer is used to hold the
`
`tiles together, thus forming the single interposer device. The
`
`elastomer also serves to absorb mechanical stresses from
`
`thermal expansion and/or contraction. (XLNX-2001 at 342)
`
`As noted above, the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed
`
`“plurality of tiled interposing structures.” Consequently, it cannot be argued that
`
`the prior art of record discloses that tiled interposing structures are “held together
`
`using an elastomer.” Further, Patent Owner is not aware of any circuit die
`
`assembly prior art that discloses holding together a plurality of tiled interposer
`
`structures using an elastomer. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner submits
`
`that Claims 14 and 22 are patentably distinct over the prior art.
`
`Claims 15-21 and 23—26 depend from independent Claims 14 or 22 and are
`
`distinguished over the prior art for at least that reason.
`
`C.
`
`Patentable Distinction Over Chakrovorty, Siniaguine, and Ma
`
`Grounds 8 and 9 are obviousness rejections that rely on Siniaguine as a
`
`primary reference and Ma and Chakravorty ’362 as secondary references.
`
`Petitioner IVM cited Siniaguine’s integrated circuit 320 as teaching the
`
`interposing structure of claim 1. Petitioner IVM also cited Chakravorty ’362’s
`
`-17_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`interposer 310 as further teaching of the claimed interposing structure. (See
`
`Petition at 42.)
`
`Claims 14 and 22 recite a “plurality of tiled interposing structures.” For the
`
`reasons discussed above with respect to Grounds 6 and 7, neither Siniaguine nor
`
`Chakravorty ’362 teach or suggest using a plurality of tiled interposing structures
`
`between a single integrated circuit die and a single integrated circuit package. Ma
`
`is not able to remedy the deficiencies of Siniaguine and Chakravorty ’362 as Ma
`
`teaches only a single interposing structure. (See IVM-1008 at Figs. 1, 18; Neikirk,
`
`XLNX-2008,1l 18.)
`
`As noted above regarding Grounds 6 and 7, Siniaguine and Chakravorty
`
`’362 do not even acknowledge awareness of the potential drawbacks to using a
`
`single interposing structure. Similarly, Ma only recognizes thermal stress issues
`
`in the context of heat sinks. (See lVM-1008 at 6:35-45; Neikirk, XLNX-2008, 11
`
`24.) Accordingly, the prior art references do not teach or suggest the inventive
`
`solution of employing a “plurality of tiled interposing structures” as recited in
`
`proposed Claims 14 and 22. The remaining prior art of record also fails to disclose
`
`such structures. Further, Patent Owner is not aware of any circuit die assembly
`
`prior art that discloses an interposer comprising “a plurality of tiled interposing
`
`structures.”
`
`Claims 14 and 22 further recite “the plurality of tiled interposing structures
`
`—18—
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`being held together using an elastomer.” As noted above, the prior art of record
`
`does not disclose the claimed “plurality of tiled interposing structures” and
`
`consequently it cannot be argued that the prior art of record discloses that tiled
`
`interposing structures are “held together using an elastomer.” Further, Patent
`
`Owner is not aware of any circuit die assembly prior art that discloses holding
`
`together a plurality of tiled interposer structures using an elastomer. For at least
`
`these reasons, Patent Owner submits that Claims 14 and 22 are patentably distinct
`
`over the prior art.
`
`Claims 15-21 and 23-26 depend from independent Claims 14 or 22 and are
`
`distinguished over the prior art for at least that reason.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner submits that Claims 14-26 are patentably distinct
`
`from the prior art because of the recited claim limitations of “a plurality of tiled
`
`interposing structures... held together using an elastomer.” (See also paragraph 30
`
`of Mr. Neikirk XLNX—2008, which states that “[i]t is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, after reviewing Siniaguine, Chakravorty ’362, Ma and
`
`Patel would not find proposed claims 14 and 22 obvious over any combination of
`
`Siniaguine, Chakravorty, Ma, and Patel”)
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`The proposed amendments represent a reasonable number of substitute
`
`claims, are fully supported by the specification of the ’960 Patent, do not broaden
`
`_19_
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`IPR2012—0001 8
`
`the scope of the ’960 Patent, are responsive to the grounds in the petition, and
`
`obviate the grounds of rejection that led to this trial. Accordingly, if it is
`
`determined that Claim 1 is unpatentable, the Board should grant this motion and
`
`find Claims 14-21 patentable, and similarly if it is determined that Claim 9 is
`
`unpatentable, the Board should grant this motion and find Claims 22-26 patentable.
`
`Xilinx thanks the Board for granting a five page extension for this motion
`
`(Paper 20 at 2) and for granting Xilinx’s request to file a second substitute motion
`
`to amend for the purpose of complying with the Idle Free decision (Paper 24 at 2.)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`. %:1\LN\QA
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Registration No. 32,271
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`Customer No. 27683
`
`Telephone: 214/651-5116
`Facsimile: 214/200-0808
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.44
`
`Dated: July 26, 2013
`R_329446_5
`
`_20__
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.
`
`Xilinx’s Exhibit List
`
`July 26, 2013
`
`XLNX-2001
`
`File History of US7566960
`
`XLNX-2002
`
`Tom Ewing & Robin Feldman, “The Giants Among Us,” 2012
`
`STAN. TECH. L. REV. l.
`
`XLNX-2003
`
`Docket from Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Investment Fund I LP, Case
`
`No. 5-11-cv-00671 (ND. Cal.).
`
`XLNX-2004
`
`Declaration of Bradford J. Black, Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention
`
`Investment Fund I LP, Case No. 5-11-cv—00671, Dkt. 45-2 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Apr. 14, 2011).
`
`XLNX-2005
`
`Defendant’s [IVM’s] Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-16 and F.R.C.P. 7.1, Case No. 5-
`
`11-cv-00671, Dkt. 60 (ND. Cal. May 16, 2011).
`
`XLNX-2006
`
`Order of Recusal, Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Investment Fund I LP,
`
`Case No. 5—1 1-cv-00671, Dkt. 93 (ND. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012).
`
`XLNX-2007
`
`Declaration of Dean Niekirk under 37 CPR. § 1.68 (In Support
`
`of Patent Owner’s Response)
`
`XLNX-2008
`
`Declaration of Dean Niekirk under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (In Support
`
`of Motion to Amend)
`
`XLNX—2009
`
`Listing of Proposed Claim Amendments
`
`XLNX—2010
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dean Niekirk
`
`XLNX-2011
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Edition, 2005, page
`
`359.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`V.
`
`Patent of XILINX, INC.
`
`Case IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`Title: INTERPOSING STRUCTURE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 CPR. § 42.205, that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date ofservice July 26, 2013
`
`Manner ofservice Electronic Mail (mspecht@skgf.com; rsterne@skgf.corn)
`
`Documents served Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend,
`
`including Xilinx’s Exhibit List and
`
`Exhibits: XLNX-2011
`
`Persons served STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`
`WASHINGTON DC 20005
`
`NL3\\&\
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`