UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATEN? TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`XILINX, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER
`
`RESPONSE Ti) PETITION
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested .......................................................................... 1
`
`II. Original Claims 1—13 Are Obvious over the Art Cited in the Petition.............. 1
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Application of the Term “Inside Surface” Contradicts Its Prior
`
`Application of the Same Term During Prosecution .......................................... 2
`
`IV. The Board Correctly Construes the Claims, and Patent Owner’s Alternative
`
`Constructions Do Not Affect the Unpatentability of Claims 1-13 .................... 4
`
`A.
`
`T16 Board Correctly Construes the Term “Inside Surface” Based on Its
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning .................................................................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Impermissibly Attempts to Incorporate Embodiments into
`
`the Claims .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation of “Inside Surface” Does Not Affect the
`
`Unpatentability of Claims 1-13 ............................................................................. 7
`
`V. Ground 6: Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 Remain Obvious Based on Chakravorty
`
`‘362 and Siniaguine ........................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 Discloses “an Interposing Structure Disposed Inside the
`
`Integrated Circuit Package” ................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Siniaguine Discloses “an Interposing Structure Disposed Inside the
`
`Integrated Circuit Package” ................................................................................... 9
`
`VI. Ground 7: Claims 6 and 12 Remain Obvious Based on Chakravorty ‘362,
`
`Siniaguine and Patel .......................................................................................... 9
`
`VII. Ground 8: Claims 1-5, 7-l,l and 13 Remain Obvious Based on Siniaguine,
`
`Ma, and Chakravorty ‘362 ............................................................................... lO
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`A.
`
`Siniaguine Discloses “an Array of Landing Pads Disposed on an Inside
`
`Surface of the Integrated Circuit Package” ......................................................... 10
`
`B. Ma Discloses First and Second “Substantially Identical Patterns” ............ 11
`
`C.
`
`Combination of Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ‘3 62 Is Proper ............ 13
`
`VIII.Ground 9: Claims 6 and 12 Remain Obvious Based on Siniaguine, Ma,
`
`Chakravorty ‘362, and Patel ............................................................................ 14
`
`IX. Dr. Neikirk’s Testimony Should Be Given Little to No Weight .................... 14
`
`X. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki, 535 US. 722, 733 (2002) ....... 2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2005) ................................. 4
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Ca, 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2
`
`Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioner Intellectual Ventures provides this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`to Patent Owner Xilinx’s Patent Owner’s Response dated May 7, 2013. At issue is
`
`the inter partes review of claims 1-13 of US. Patent No. 7,566,960 (“the ‘960
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`patent”; IVM 1001).
`
`T.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-13 in US. Patent No. 7,566,960
`
`(“the ‘960 patent”) and. denial of Xilinx’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend
`
`filed July 26, 2013. An opposition to the Second Substitute Motion to Amend is
`
`being filed concurrently.
`
`11.
`
`Original {Slaims 1-13 Are Obvious over the Art Cited in the Petition
`
`The Patent Owner Response to Petition (“Response”; Paper 17) fails to
`
`demonstrate the patentability of claims 1-13. The Response attempts to contort the
`
`plain and ordinary meanings of “inside surface” and “inside,” while impermissibly
`
`offering claim constructions that reverse positions that the Patent Owner took
`
`during original prosecution of the ‘960 patent. This reversal was confirmed by the
`
`Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr. Neikirk, during his deposition.
`
`The Response also “cuts” figures from Ma and Siniaguine and then literally
`
`“pastes” these figures together to attempt to show that the patterns in the figures
`
`are not “substantially identical,” while ignoring well-settled law that figures
`
`cannot be assumed to be drawn to scale.
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`Finally, the Response alleges that combining Ma, Siniaguine, and
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 is improper because it would render Siniaguine inoperable for its
`
`intended purpose. This argument is once again flawed. As admitted by Dr. Neikirk
`
`during his deposition and confirmed by the declaration of Morgan T. Johnson
`
`attached hereto as IVM 1012, Siniaguine is not inoperable for its intended purpose
`
`when combined with Ma and Chakravorty ‘362.
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Appiication of the Term “Inside Surface” Contradicts
`Its Prior Application of the Same Term During Prosecutéon
`
`Prosecution history estoppel requires that patent claims are interpreted in
`
`light of the proceedings before the US. Patent and Trademark Office. See Festo
`
`Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki, 535 US. 722, 733 (2002). Statements
`
`made in a response to an Office Action can give rise to prosecution history
`
`estoppel. See Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311,
`
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Consequently, inconsistent statements between those made
`
`during prosecution and a related proceeding are not permitted. See Standard Oil
`
`Co. v. American Cyanamid C0., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner makes statements related to “inside surface”
`
`and “inside” that are inconsistent with those made during prosecution of the ‘960
`
`patent.
`
`In fact, the statements made in the Response directly contradict statements
`
`made during original prosecution of the ‘960 patent. During prosecution, Patent
`
`Owner characterized FIG. 2 of Chakravorty ‘362 and stated that “the bumps (42)
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`are disposed on the die in Chakravorty and not an outside surface of the integrated
`
`circuit package. The bumps (58) of the primary substrate in Chakravorty are
`
`
`disposed on the inside surface thereof, not the outside surface.” XLNX 2001, p.
`
`121, emphasis added (Response to Office Action, filed April 9, 2007). FIG. 2 of
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 illustrates that solder balls 58 reside in an area between a
`
`primary substrate 60 and an interposer 50.
`
`Patent Owner impermissibly contradicts these statements made during
`
`prosecution when characterizing the same reference and Siniaguine in its
`
`Response. Patent Owner now contends that what Patent Owner referred to as an
`
`“inside surface” of a primary substrate in the prosecution history of the ‘960 patent
`
`is no longer an “inside surface.” Specifically, Patent Owner argues that, as to FIG.
`
`4 of Siniaguine, “Siniaguine teaches a set of pads 388 on an upper surface—not an
`
`‘inside surface’—of wiring substrate 330.” Paper 17, p. 13, emphasis in original.
`
`Dr. Neikirk recognizes that the statements made in the prosecution history
`
`are inconsistent with his statements in his declaration. In his declaration, Dr.
`
`Neikirk opined that “Siniaguine teaches a set of pads 388 on an upper surface of
`
`wiring substrate 330, which is not an ‘inside surface’ as recited in the claims.”
`
`XLNX 2007, ‘II 39. However, during his deposition, he recognized that his
`
`declaration was inconsistent with Patent Owner’s characterization of Chakravorty
`
`‘362 during prosecution of the ‘960 patent. See IVM 1013, p. 56, In. 25—p. 57, In. 4.
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`Under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, Patent Owner’s new and
`
`inconsistent positions relative to “inside surface” and “inside” are not permitted.
`
`The Board’s and Petitioner’s interpretation of “inside surface” and “inside” are
`
`consistent with the prosecution history, are appropriate, and should be used.
`
`IV. The Board Correctly Construes the Claims, and Patent Owner’s
`Alternative Constructions Do Not Affect the Unpatentability of Claims
`1-13
`
`Patent Owner faults the Board for its interpretation of the term “inside
`
`surface.” See Paper 17, pp. 2-9. Patent Owner argues that the Board’s construction
`
`of this term “is overly broad and fails to capture the essential point that the ‘inside
`
`surface’ is inside the integrated circuit package. Id, p. 2, emphasis in original.
`
`Petitioner disagrees.
`
`A.
`
`Tlee Beard Correctly Construes the Term “Inside Surface” Based
`on Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`Patent Owner’s expert concedes that “inside does not have a specialized
`
`meaning in the semiconductor arts and is instead a commonly understood wor .”
`
`Paper 17, p. 3. Similarly, the term “surface” does not require construction and is
`
`also a commonly understood word. See Phillips v. A WH 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”). The term “inside surface” should therefore be construed based on
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning. The Board’s analysis is consistent with this
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`approach.
`
`The Board analogizes the term “inside surface” to a box with its top off, in
`
`which the box has an “inside surface” and “may have an object on that surface,
`
`even though it does not completely surround the object.” Paper 13, p. 9. But Patent
`
`Owner finds faults in this analogy. See Paper 17, p. 4 (“[A]lthough the ‘960 patent
`
`refers to an ‘integrated circuit package,’ it is not fair to analogize that ‘package’ to
`
`a box with its top off”). Patent Owner complicates the Board’s box analogy and
`
`causes confusion when stating that “[t]he 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 facade faces out
`
`from the building butfaces in to the street.” Paper 17, p. 4, emphasis in original.
`
`The term “facade” refers to a face or exterior surface of a building. See IVM
`
`1015. Here, in using Patent Owner’s example, the facade faces outward to the
`
`street (e.g., facing out). The facade can also face inward to the building (e. g.,
`
`facing in). For example, in reference to the example below that illustrates the
`
`Board’s box analogy, each of the three sides of the box can be considered a
`
`facade—each facade is labeled 1, 2, or 3. Each facade of the box can have a
`
`surface that “faces in” and a surface that “faces out.” The surface “facing in” is an
`
`inside surface of the box and, conversely, the surface “facing out” is an outside
`
`

`

`surface of the box.
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`OUT
`
`OUT
`
`Consistent with the Board’s construction, the above analysis confirms that
`
`“the landing pads to be disposed on the ‘inside surface’ of the integrated circuit
`
`package simply means that the integrated circuit package has at least two surfaces
`
`(one facing in and one facing out) and that the landing pads are located on the
`
`surface that is facing in.” Paper 13, p. 9.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Impermissibly Attempts to Incorporate
`Embodiments into the Claims
`
`Patent Owner faults the Board for finding that the intrinsic evidence does not
`
`support the interpretation of term “inside” as meaning “within.” See Paper 17, pp.
`
`6-9. Here, Patent Owner points to Figures 10 and 24 of the ‘960 patent and their
`
`respective descriptions, as well as the prosecution history from the ‘960 patent, to
`
`support its interpretation. See id. , pp. 6—8. Petitioner agrees with the Board’s
`
`finding that the intrinsic evidence does not “amount[] to an explicit definition of
`
`the claim language or an express and clear disclaimer of a broader definition.”
`
`Paper 13, p. 10. For example, during prosecution of the ‘960 patent, Patent Owner
`
`did not provide an explicit definition for the term “inside surface.” See XLNX
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`2001, p. 121. The Board’s construction of the term “inside surface” should
`
`therefore hold.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation of “Enside Surface” Does Not
`Affect the Unpatentability of Claims 1-13
`
`Patent Owner further argues that extrinsic evidence supports its
`
`interpretation of the term “inside” as meaning “within.” See Paper 17, p. 9. Patent
`
`Owner posits that “[s]ince the role of the integrated circuit package is to
`
`encapsulate at least the integrated 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.” 1d, p. 9, emphasis in original.
`
`Again, Patent Owner’s interpretation cuts against the Board’s construction.
`
`Petitioner agrees with the Board’s finding that “[g]iven their reasonable broadest
`
`interpretation, the claims do not require the integrated circuit package to
`
`completely surround the integrated circuit die and landing pads as Patent Owner
`
`contends.” Paper 13, p. 11. However, even with Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretation, the prior art still discloses the limitations of claims 1-13, as
`
`described below.
`
`V.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 Remain Obvious Based on
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 and Siniaguine
`
`Patent Owner argues that Chakravorty ‘3 62 and Siniaguine do not disclose
`
`“an interposing structure disposed in the integrated circuit package.” See Paper 17,
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`pp. 9-12. Patent Owner posits that “Fig. 3 of Chakravorty ‘3 62 shows that
`
`interposer 310 is not inside primary substrate 320. To the contrary, interposer 310
`
`is plainly illustrated as outside primary substrate 320.” Paper 17, p. 10, emphasis in
`
`original. Because this is in contradiction to Patent Owner’s statements made during
`
`prosecution of the ‘960 patent, Petitioner disagrees and maintains that claims 1-5,
`
`7-11, and 13 remain obvious based on Chakravorty ‘362 and Siniaguine.
`
`A.
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 Discloses “an Interposing Structure Disposed
`Iréside the Integrated Circuit Package”
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner “make[s] the confusing assertion that
`
`
`interposer 310 is both between primary substrate 320 and die 300 and—
`
`
`incongruously—inside primary substrate 320.” Paper 17, p. 10, emphasis in
`
`original. This is not the case.
`
`Primary substrate 320 in FIG. 3 of Chakravorty ‘362 is part of a C4
`
`integrated circuit package. See IVM 1011, fi 23. The C4 integrated circuit package
`
`applies an underfill material to fill in the areas between IC die 300 and interposer
`
`310 and the areas between interposer 310 and primary substrate 320. See id. In
`
`other words, the underfill is an encapsulant for the C4 integrated circuit package of
`
`FIG. 3. See id. Chakravorty ‘362 thus discloses “an interposer structure disposed
`
`inside the integrated circuit package” since the underfill encapsulates interposer
`
`3 10. See id.
`
`The C4 integrated circuit package of Chakravorty ‘362 also satisfies Patent
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretation of the term “inside.” See Paper 17, p. 9. This is
`
`because, since the underfill encapsulates interposer 310 in the C4 integrated circuit
`
`package, interposer 310 is “inside” or “within” the integrated circuit package.
`
`B.
`
`Siniaguine Discloses “an Interposirig Structure Disposed Inside
`the Integrated Circuit Package”
`
`As to the “interposing structure disposed inside the integrated circuit
`
`package” limitation, Dr. Neikirk opines that Siniaguine does not provide a relevant
`
`teaching. See XLNX 2007, fi 35. Dr. Neikirk is wrong.
`
`Interposer 320 in FIG. 12 of Siniaguine is part of a BGA integrated circuit
`
`package. See IVM 1011, fl 26. In the BGA integrated circuit package, “[u]nderfill
`
`830 fills the area between the circuits 310, 320 and the area between interposer 320
`
`and substrate 330.” IVM 1004, 7:64-66. In other words, underfill 830 is an
`
`encapsulant fOr the BGA integrated circuit package. See IVM 1011, T11: 25-26.
`
`Siniaguine thus discloses “an interposer structure disposed inside the integrated
`
`circuit package” since underfill 830 encapsulates interposer 320. See id.
`
`The BGA integrated circuit package of Siniaguine also satisfies Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretation of the term “inside.” See Paper 17, p. 9. This is
`
`because, since underfill 830 encapsulates interposer 320 in the BGA integrated
`
`circuit package, interposer 320 is “inside” or “within” the integrated circuit
`
`package.
`
`VI. Ground 7: Claims 6 arid 12 Remain Obvious Based on Chakravorty
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`‘362, Siniaguine and Patel
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 6 and 12 remain
`
`obvious based on Chakravorty ‘362, Siniaguine and Patel. See IVM 1011, f| 39.
`
`VII. Ground 8: Claims 1-5, 7-1,1 and 13 Remain GEVious Based on
`
`Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ‘362
`
`For the reasons below, Petitioner maintains that claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13
`
`remain obvious based on Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ‘362.
`
`A.
`
`Siniaguine Discloses “an Array of Landing Pads Disposed on an
`Inside Surface of the Integrated Circuit Package”
`
`Patent Owner argues that Siniaguine does not disclose “an array of landing
`
`pads disposed on an inside surface of the integrated surface in a second pattern.”
`
`See Paper 17, p. 13. Dr. Neikirk posits that “Siniaguine teaches a set of pads 388
`
`on an upper surface of wiring substrate 330, which is not an ‘inside surface’ as
`
`recited in the claims.” XLNX 2007, ‘i[ 39, emphasis in original. Dr. Neikirk is
`
`wrong.
`
`Even with Patent Owner’s alternate interpretation of “inside surface,”
`
`Siniaguine satisfies the “array of landing pads disposed on an inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package” limitation. Again, the BGA integrated circuit package
`
`in FIG. 4 of Siniaguine includes an underfill to encapsulate the areas between IC
`
`310 and interposer 320 and the areas between interposer 320 and wiring substrate
`
`330. See IVM 1011, W 25-26. Since pads 388 are “within” the BGA integrated
`
`circuit package of Siniaguine, pads 388 are also “disposed on an inside surface of
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`the integrated circuit package.” See id.
`
`B. Ma Discloses First and Second “Substantially Identical Patterns”
`
`Patent Owner argues that Ma does not disclose “wherein the first pattern and
`
`the second pattern are substantially identical patterns.” Paper 17, p. 13. Patent
`
`Owner posits that (1) Petitioner did not provide evidence for the combination of
`
`Siniaguine and Ma and (2) the combination of Siniaguine and Ma is improper. See
`
`id. , pp. 13-15. Petitioner disagrees.
`
`First, Petitioner’s technical expert provided evidence in support of the
`
`combination of Siniaguine and Ma. See IVM 1002, ‘J 89. This is one reason a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the first pattern of micro-bumps
`
`disposed on IC 310 in FIG. 4 of Siniaguine to have a substantially identical pattern
`
`as the second pattern of pads 388 based on the teachings of Ma. See IVM 1011, ’fl
`
`27.
`
`Second, the combination of Siniaguine of Ma is proper. This is because an
`
`example of “substantially identical patterns” refers to an arrangement Where the
`
`number of micro-bumps equals the number of landing pads in a substantially
`
`identical pattern. See IVM 1011, fi 30. Patent Owner’s technical expert agrees with
`
`this interpretation. Dr. Neikirk states that “[i]f the two patterns were to made to be
`
`substantially identical, then there would be a substantially identical number of
`
`solder balls and pads.” XLNX 2007, 11 44. The pattern of solder balls 228 in FIG.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`18 of Ma (e.g., 1 x N array, where N is an integer greater than 1) and the pattern of
`
`pads 388 in FIG. 4 of Siniaguine (e.g., 1 x N array, where N is an integer greater
`
`than 1) are thus substantially identical patterns. See IVM 1011, 11 30.
`
`Cutting against the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification, Patent Owner appears to argue that “substantially identical patterns”
`
`refer to an arrangement with the number solder balls equaling the number of pads,
`
`as well as the spacing between solder balls equaling the spacing between pads. See
`
`Paper 17, pp. 14-15. Dr. Neikirk supports this narrow interpretation with an
`
`illustration combining wiring substrate 330 in FIG. 4 of Siniaguine with FIG. 18 of
`
`Ma. See XLNX 2007, TI 47. Dr. Neikirk opines that “Ma shows that small solder
`
`balls 228 are regularly spaced apart, while Siniaguine shows that pads 388 are
`
`irregularly spaced apart.” Id., ll 47. Dr. Neikirk impermissibly relies on the figures
`
`of Ma and Siniaguine to support its arguments. See IVM 1011, W 28-31.
`
`The dimensions of solder balls 228 and pads 388 are not disclosed in Ma and
`
`Siniaguine, respectively. See id. Indeed, Dr. Neikirk admits that FIG. 4 of
`
`Siniaguine and FIG. 18 of Ma are illustrative examples. See IVM 1013, p. 69, ll. 8-
`
`11. Since Ma and Siniaguine do not disclose that its drawings are to scale and are
`
`silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurements of the drawing features
`
`are of little value. See Hockerson—Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int ’1, 222 F.3d
`
`951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Little or no weight should therefore be given to Patent
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`Owner’s argument supporting their interpretation of “substantially identical
`
`patterns.”
`
`C.
`
`Combination of Siniaguine, Ma, and Chakravorty ‘362 is Proper
`
`Patent Owner argues that “the proposed combination of Siniaguine, Ma, and
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 is improper because it would render Siniaguine inoperable for its
`
`intended purpose.” Paper 17, p. 16. Dr. Neikirk opines that “[i]f the two patterns
`
`were made to be substantially identical, then there would be a substantially
`
`identical number of solder balls and pads, and therefore, no distribution of a clock
`
`signal. Since the purpose of Siniaguine’s interposer is to distribute a clock signal,
`
`such a modification would render the interposer inoperable for its intended
`
`purpose.” XLNX 2007, fi 44. Dr. Neikirk is wrong.
`
`It is within the scope of Siniaguine for an equal number of inputs into and
`
`outputs from the interposer to provide a clock distribution network. See IVM 1011,
`
`T11 32-38. For example, in reference to FIGS. 2 and 4 of Siniaguine, portions of the
`
`clock distribution network in FIG. 2 can be implemented in interposer 320 and
`
`circuit 310 of FIG. 4 such that the number of micro-bumps between circuit 310 and
`
`interposer 320 is equal to the number of pads 388. See id Interposer 320 can
`
`include a clock terminal 120 and a buffer 160.1. See id. The remainder of the clock
`
`distribution network—eg, buffers 160.2, lines 150 and clock terminals l30—can
`
`be implemented in circuit 310. See id. The result of this structure is a single clock
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`input into interposer 320 (via clock terminal 120) and a single clock output from
`
`interposer 320 (via buffer 160.1), thus providing a clock distribution network with
`
`an equal number of micro—bumps and pads. See id.
`
`Dr. Neikirk is incorrect in his assumption that the number of inputs cannot
`
`be equal to the number of outputs for the interposer of Siniaguine to distribute
`
`clock signals. Indeed, Dr. Neikirk admits that “in the universe of all possibilities,”
`
`the number of inputs can equal the number of outputs in the interposer of
`
`Siniaguine. IVM 1013, p. 75, ll. 21-22.Siniaguine can therefore be modified based
`
`on the teachings of Chakravorty ‘362 and Ma to have “substantially identical
`
`patterns”—as discussed above—while maintaining its intended purpose of
`
`distributing clock signals.
`
`VIII. Ground 9: Claims 6 and 12 Remain (ibvious Based on Siniaguine, Ma,
`Chakravorty ‘362, and Patel
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 6 and 12 remain
`
`obvious based on Siniaguine, Ma, Chakravorty ‘362 and Patel. See IVM 1011, 1]
`
`39.
`
`IX. Dr. Neikirk’s Testimony Should Be Given Little to No Weight
`
`The ‘960 patent relates to interposer design. See IVM 1001, 125-9. Dr.
`
`Neikirk has little to no experience in this technology space.
`
`In his extensive 45-page CV, there is no mention of interposers—including
`
`in the titles of his 15 patents, 88 publications, 163 refereed conference proceedings,
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`24 published abstracts and other presentations, lectures and technical consulting
`
`experiences. See XLNX 2010. Indeed, in his 29 years of technical experience, Dr.
`
`Neikirk points to a single publication in his CV that may be relevant to interposers.
`
`See IVM 1013, p. 15, In. 17-p. 16, In. 6. Further, even when asked about his
`
`technical experience by Patent Owner’s counsel, Dr. Neikirk explains that his
`
`experience with DARPA involved the electromagnetic modeling of multichip
`
`modules—not the design of interposers. See id., p. 83, In. 6-p. 84, ln.22.
`
`Dr. Neikirk’s testimony should therefore be given little to no weight.
`
`X.
`
`€onclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 1-13 of the ‘960
`
`patent should be canceled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: August 27,.20.13_ Byw-
`
`Michael D. Specht, Lead Counsel (Reg. No. 54,463)
`Robert Greene Sterne, Backup Counsel
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1 100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Intellectual Ventures iManagement, LEC
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Inteilectual
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`, Vemures
`Management,
`LLC
`
`
`1001
`US. Patent No. 7,566,960 to Conn
`
`Declaration of Morgan T. Johnson in Support of Petition for
`1002
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 7,566,960
`
`
`1003
`US. Patent No. 6,61 1,419 to Chakravorty
`
`
`1004
`US. Patent No. 6,730,540 to Siniaguine
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,891,258 to Alexander et al.
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1057
`
`US. Patent No. 6,469,908 to Patel et a1.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,680,218 to Chung et a1.
`US. Patent No. 6,970,362 to Chakravorty
`
`
`1008
`
`US. Patent No. 6,423,570 to Ma et a1.
`
`
`
`1009
`US. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0053728 to Isaak et a1.
`
`1010
`Curriculum Vitae of Morgan T. Johnson
`
`
`1011
`
`Declaration of Morgan T. Johnson in Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner Response to Petition
`
`
`Declaration of Morgan T. Johnson in Support of Petitioner’s
`1012
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Second Substitute Motion to
`Amend
`
`
`1013
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Dean Neikirk
`
`
`Lau et a1., Chip Scale Package: Design, Materials, Process,
`Reliability, and Applications, 19, McGraw—Hill, 1999.
`1014
`
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary, 484, Houghton Mifflin
`Company, 1985 (1982).
`1015
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`US. Patent No. 6,891,258 to Alexander et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,319,829 to Pasco et al.
`
`
`1018
`US. Patent No. 6,002,168 to Bellaar et al.
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office Assignment Record for US.
`
`1019
`
`1020 1 Updated Curriculum Vitae of Morgan T. Johnson
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2012-00018
`
`Patent 7,566,960
`
`I hereby certify that on this 27th day of August 2013, a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION was served upon the following counsel for Patent Owner, Xilinx Inc.:
`
`David L. McCombs, Lead Counsel
`ATTN: IP DOCKETING
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`david.mccombs@haynesboone.com
`
`Thomas B. King
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`18100 Von Karman, Suite 750
`
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`
`thomas.king@haynesbo_one.com
`
`W‘vw
`
`Michael D. Specht, Lead Counsel (Reg. No. 54,463)
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1 100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Intellectual Ventures Blanagement LLC
`
`