IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________
`
`MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., MACRONIX ASIA LIMITED,
`MACRONIX (HONG KONG) CO., LTD. and MACRONIX AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SPANSION LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00106
`Patent Number 6,900,124
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`MACRONIX
`IPR2014-00898
`MX027II-1018
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3)
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................................... 4(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Petitioner Improperly Relies on Unstated Definitions not Provided
`to the Board ........................................................................................................ 6(cid:3)
`“depth of focus” (Claim 1) ............................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`“stacked gate layer[s]” (Claims 1-3 and 5-8) ................................................ 12(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)
`“overlay margin” (Claim 1) ............................................................................. 14(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3) Petitioner Fails to Meet Its Burden to Prove that Two of its Exhibits are
`Prior Art Publications (Grounds 3, 4 and 5) ........................................................... 15(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Petitioner Fails to Meet Its Burden to Prove Exhibit 1005 (“Kim”)
`is a Prior Art Publication (Grounds 3 and 5) .............................................. 15(cid:3)
`Petitioner Fails to Meet Its Burden to Prove Exhibit 1006
`(“Toshiba”) is a Prior Art Publication (Grounds 4 and 5) ........................ 17(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail on Its
`Contention that Goda, Alone or in Any Proposed Combination,
`Discloses the Depth of Focus Limitations of Claims 1-5 (All Grounds) ........... 19(cid:3)
`There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail on Its
`Contention that Goda, Alone or in Any Proposed Combination,
`Discloses the Elliptical Shape Limitations of Claims 1-10 (All Grounds) .......... 32(cid:3)
`Petitioner’s Further Unsupported and Unarticulated Arguments Cannot
`Demonstrate a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing ............................................. 40(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 43(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`
`
`i
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 35
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Wright,
`569 F.2d 1124 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................................ 35
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co. Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136,1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 35
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................ 15, 17, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b).................................................................................................................... 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ..................................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 40, 43
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................................. 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .......................................................................................................... 27, 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................................................................... 5, 6, 8, 15, 32, 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`ii
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................................. 3
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48694 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Cardiocom, LLC v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., IPR2013-00439............................ 28
`
`In re Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-893, filed ......................................................................................... 7, 14
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003 ...................... 16, 39, 42
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041 .......................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`In re Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`893, filed August 1, 2013, before the U.S. International Trade
`Commission (Joint Claim Construction Statement)
`Excerpt from Chris Mack, Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography: The
`Science of Microfabrication (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., London 2007)
`Chris A. Mack, Lithography: If you want to improve CD control, you must
`identify sources of focus and dose errors, MICRO: The Hot Button,
`http://micromagazine.fabtech.org/archive/06/06/hotbutton.html (last
`visited February 14, 2014)
`Chris A. Mack, Optical Proximity Effects, Microlithography World, Spring
`1996
`Chris A. Mack, Optical Proximity Effects Part 2, Microlithography World,
`Summer 1996
`Teardowns, TechInsights, http://www.techinsights.com/ip-teardowns/
`(last visited Feb. 14, 2014)
`
`iv
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Spansion LLC submits this
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`Preliminary Response to the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,900,124 (“Pet.”, Paper 1).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`On its face, Petitioner’s1 submission fails to provide the Board with the basic
`
`evidence required to institute any inter partes review. If the Board nonetheless
`
`institutes trial on any of the challenged claims, Patent Owner will address in detail in
`
`its § 42.120 Response the numerous substantive errors and shortcomings that underlie
`
`each of Petitioner’s arguments and its purported evidence. In this paper, however,
`
`Patent Owner addresses only the meaning of certain of the challenged claims’
`
`pertinent terms, and some fundamental shortcomings of the Petition under Rule
`
`42.107: in particular, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate, as to any of the challenged
`
`claims, a reasonable likelihood of success on any asserted ground of invalidity.
`
`Because of this clear threshold failure, the Petition should be denied and no inter partes
`
`review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124 (“the ‘124 patent”), relates to
`
`fabrication of contacts, which are conductors that create electrical connections,
`
`between layers in an integrated circuit, and in particular in flash memory devices.
`
`1 Macronix International Co., Ltd., Macronix Asia Limited, Macronix (Hong Kong)
`
`Co., Ltd., and Macronix America, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “Petitioner.”
`
`1
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`MX124-1001 (’124 patent) at Abstract (“A method of forming a contact in a flash
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`memory device is disclosed.”). As the ‘124 patent explains, in the prior art, as the
`
`components (such as gates and other devices) to be included became more densely
`
`packed, “depth of focus” considerations placed limits on the size reduction that was
`
`attainable for contacts. See, e.g., id. at 2:21-25 (“[a]s the Vss contact 12 is reduced in
`
`size, DOF margin becomes an issue in patterning the Vss contact. In present
`
`integrated circuit fabrication, DOF is becoming so small that it is a concern as to
`
`whether optical wafer steppers are capable of maintaining the image in focus.”). See
`
`also Section II.B, infra (defining “depth of focus”). As the size of contact holes is
`
`reduced, optical effects can prevent the lithography process used in manufacturing
`
`from focusing enough light on the photoresist to adequately expose the full depth and
`
`proper shape for the contact in the formation process. MX124-1001 at 2:10-36. Thus,
`
`there was a need to maintain proper depth of focus for patterning contact holes while
`
`the features on the wafer got more densely packed. Id.
`
`The ’124 patent addressed this problem, describing how to significantly
`
`overcome “depth of focus” constraints while still allowing features on the wafer to be
`
`more densely packed. See, e.g., id. at 1:5-9 (“Technical Field”) (“The present invention
`
`relates . . . more particularly, to a method of improving the depth of focus and overlay
`
`margin within the stacked gate layer of a flash memory device”), Abstract (“The
`
`method increases the depth of focus margin and the overlay margin”), 4:55–67:
`
`2
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`The elliptical Vss contact 52, . . . only is reduced along the minor axis 60.
`The major axis 58 is not affected by the reduction in separation between
`stacked gate layers 54, 56. Therefore, the elliptical Vss contact 52 formed
`between stacked gate layers 54, 56 can occupy a larger area than a
`circular Vss contact formed between the same stacked gate layers.
`Moreover, the elliptical Vss contact can be dimensioned along its major
`axis 58 so as to maintain feature size above a threshold value, and thus
`minimize DOF issues. For example, the length of the major axis 58 can
`be increased as the length of the minor axis 60 is decreased, thereby
`maintaining the contact area above a threshold value.
`
`Instead of using a circular contact hole as was done in the prior art, the successful
`
`invention claimed in the ‘124 patent provides for an elliptical contact hole proportioned
`
`to avoid DOF issues: specifically, contact holes that have a reduced dimension in one
`
`direction (along the minor axis), while maintaining a major axis that is large enough to
`
`avoid DOF issues and ensure that sufficient light energy is focused in the full depth of
`
`the photoresist. See, e.g., id. at 4:55-5:12, Claim 1.
`
`The Petition, however, ignores these key aspects of the ‘124 patent. To justify
`
`institution of an inter partes review, Petitioner’s papers must make a prima facie showing
`
`that, as a factual and legal matter for each asserted ground, it has a reasonable
`
`likelihood of proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108(c); 35 U.S.C. § 314; 77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48694 (Aug. 14, 2012). But it is
`
`apparent even from Petitioner’s own arguments and evidence that it cannot meet that
`
`3
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`burden for any asserted ground. Its Petition must be denied, and no inter partes review
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`should be instituted.
`
`As detailed below, Petitioner has as an initial matter cited two documents that it
`
`has not even shown to be prior art publications. Thus, Petitioner cannot meet its
`
`threshold burden with respect to any combination relying on those documents.
`
`Even if this basic evidentiary failing were set aside, Petitioner’s primary prior
`
`art Goda reference, asserted to support every asserted ground of invalidity, fails to
`
`disclose—alone or in combination—the depth of focus limitations found in Claims 1
`
`through 5 of the ‘124 patent, as well as the elliptical shape limitations found in every
`
`claim of the patent. Petitioner’s submission thus cannot demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood (or any likelihood) of success with respect to any of Petitioner’s asserted
`
`grounds, or with respect to any claim. Further, Petitioner’s generalized arguments of
`
`obviousness are improper (as well as redundant), and cannot support the showing
`
`Petitioner was required to make in order to institute trial.
`
`The very purpose of the § 314 threshold is to avoid the empty, wasteful
`
`exercise Petitioner asks this Board to commence: because the Petition on its face fails
`
`to show a reasonable likelihood of success as to any asserted ground, Petitioner’s
`
`request for a trial should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner concedes, as it must, that for purposes of inter partes review “[a] claim
`
`4
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.”2 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Pet. at
`
`4. While claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,”
`
`which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question at the time of the invention,” see, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the construction must also be consistent with the
`
`specification, and the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`
`603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). While reserving further discussion of claim
`
`construction as may be appropriate for its § 42.120 Patent Owner Response3 if any
`
`trial is instituted, Patent Owner notes here as a preliminary matter some of
`
`Petitioner’s more egregious violations of these basic principles of claim construction,
`
`as well as Petitioner’s complete failure to provide any definition, as required by Rule
`
`42.104(b), of terms that Petitioner (in its invalidity arguments) accords a particular
`
`meaning clearly different from the “plain meaning” it tells the Board should be
`
`applied (Pet. at 5).
`
`2 Petitioner further acknowledges that a different standard is applicable to other
`
`proceedings. Pet at 4.
`
`3 Patent Owner notes that, unlike this preliminary response, Patent Owner’s § 42.120
`
`response may present supporting expert testimony. Cf., e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c).
`
`5
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Relies on Unstated Definitions not Provided
`to the Board
`
`In violation of Rule 42.104’s requirement that “the petition must set forth . . .
`
`(b) . . . (3) How the challenged claim is to be construed [and] (4) How the construed
`
`claim is unpatentable.”4 Petitioner has failed to define certain key terms applied in its
`
`invalidity arguments, arguing instead an unstated definition of those terms without
`
`providing any explanation. For example, Petitioner fails to construe “an elliptical
`
`shape,” which appears in both independent claims (Claims 1 and 6) of the ‘124 patent.
`
`Instead (and as discussed in more detail below), Petitioner simply asserts that the prior
`
`art discloses ellipses (see, e.g., n.19, infra)—but to do so Petitioner is necessarily applying
`
`some unstated and unspecified definition of “an elliptical shape,” because the cited
`
`references clearly do not show ellipses, describing instead such shapes as a “rectangle
`
`with rounded corners” that only “resembles” an ellipse. MX124-1003 at 48:56-57.
`
`Petitioner’s application of such an unstated definition is a violation of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104, but more importantly is an effort to mask Petitioner’s failure to provide any
`
`evidence or explanation of “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” Id.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4).
`
`For example, if Petitioner had wished to urge in this proceeding the definition
`
`4 Unless noted, all emphases are added.
`
`6
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`of “an elliptical shape” that it now asserts in the ITC Proceeding5 (and to which
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and the Commission Staff have agreed for purposes of that
`
`proceeding)—i.e., “a shape close to an ellipse having a major axis and a minor axis where the
`
`major axis is greater than the minor axis”6—Petitioner was obligated to say so, and
`
`then to demonstrate to the Board that the shapes disclosed in its proffered references
`
`would actually have been understood by a person of ordinary skill7 to disclose a shape
`
`“close to an ellipse,” with the required major and minor axes (also undefined by
`
`5 In re Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-893, filed
`
`August 1, 2013, before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC Proceeding”).
`
`6 Patent Owner respectfully submits that Petitioner’s arguments fail on their own
`
`terms, whether or not “an elliptical shape” is defined, but further submits that to the
`
`extent the Board deems it appropriate at this stage to define the term it should be
`
`accorded the meaning set forth above in the agreed construction, which represents
`
`the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. See, e.g., ‘124
`
`patent at 4:34–35 (“[s]uch an elliptical contact has a long or wide portion (the major
`
`axis) and a narrow or thin portion (the minor axis).”).
`
`7 Patent Owner respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`field would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in materials science, electrical
`
`engineering, physics or the equivalent and about two years of process experience
`
`related to memory device fabrication, or the equivalent.
`
`7
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`Petitioner). See id. § 42.104(b)(3), (4) (“How the construed claim is unpatentable”). As
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`discussed below, Petitioner has failed to do so, and its asserted grounds should thus
`
`be rejected. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041 (P.T.A.B.,
`
`slip op. at Paper 16, Feb. 22, 2013) (rejecting Petitioner’s “implicitly proffered
`
`construction”).
`
`B.
`
`“depth of focus” (Claim 1)
`
`The term “depth of focus” is expressly recited in Claim 1, and thus also a
`
`limitation in each of Claims 2-5 of the ’124 patent by virtue of their dependence on
`
`Claim 1. Consistent with the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`this term for purposes of this proceeding is “the range of lens-wafer distances over
`
`which exposed photoresist will generate line widths within specifications and adequate
`
`resist profiles.” Although Petitioner has correctly quoted one passage of the
`
`specification stating that “the range of lens-wafer distances over which line widths are
`
`maintained within specifications and resist profiles are adequate,” Pet. at 5 (quoting
`
`MX124-1001 at 2:15-17), it has omitted, inter alia, additional portions of the
`
`specification pertinent to a proper construction of this term.8
`
`8 See, e.g., MX124-1001 at 2:12-15 (immediately preceding Petitioner’s quotation)
`
`(“The reduction in size of flash memory devices requires high resolution technology
`
`and a sufficient depth of focus (DOF), particularly in the formation of contact
`
`holes.”), 2:17-27 (immediately following Petitioner’s quotation) (“As flash memory
`
`8
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`In lithography, the depth of focus (“DOF”) must be sufficient to ensure that
`
`the shape to be created in the photoresist layer is in focus throughout the entire depth
`
`of the photoresist. See, e.g., MX124-1001 at 1:47-51; 2:15-17. DOF is impacted by the
`
`feature size of the area being exposed in terms of x- and y- coordinates. If the area is
`
`reduced in one direction (e.g., the x-direction), the DOF may no longer be sufficient to
`
`expose the full thickness of the photoresist (i.e., in the z-direction – the lens-wafer
`
`distance). This relationship between changing the size of a feature in one direction
`
`and the impact on DOF is expressed in the plain language of the claim. See, e.g., id. at
`
`7:11–14 (“the contact hole is dimensioned along the major axis so as to maintain
`
`focus of an image of the contact hole as the minor axis is reduced in size towards a
`
`DOF limit”).) Furthermore, the specification emphasizes the importance of three-
`
`dimensional patterning and maintaining focus through the depth dimension of the
`
`photoresist. (Id. at 1:45–51 (“[a]s is known in the art, contacts are among the most
`
`devices are reduced in size, each stacked gate layer 14, 16 of the stacked gate pattern
`
`10 is formed closer to the adjacent stacked gate layers, thus requiring a smaller Vss
`
`contact 12. As the Vss contact 12 is reduced in size, DOF margin becomes an issue in
`
`patterning the Vss contact. In present integrated circuit fabrication, DOF is becoming
`
`so small that it is a concern as to whether optical wafer steppers are capable of
`
`maintaining the image in focus. This problem is evident in forming components
`
`having small feature size, such as contact holes.”). See also additional portions herein.
`
`9
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`difficult features to pattern in semiconductor manufacturing. Not only are they
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`smaller than any other circuit structure (except gates), but their images are intrinsically
`
`3-dimensional, with the same contact having minimum feature size in both x and y
`
`direction and the laws of diffraction reducing the range of focus along the z-direction.”).)
`
`As explained in more detail below, the ‘124 patent requires analysis of three
`
`dimensions of a contact (see, e.g., id. at Fig. 2):
`
`
`
`including attending to two dimensions of a contact hole (116) along its major (58) and
`
`minor (60) axes (see id. at Fig. 4E):
`
`
`
`10
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`for the purpose of maintaining focus of an image of the contact hole along a third
`
`(depth) dimension in forming the contact hole (116):
`
`
`
`Because it more fully accounts for the understanding of depth of focus as described in
`
`the ’124 patent specification as a whole, Patent Owners construction should be
`
`adopted by the Board.
`
`
`
`11
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`C.
`
`“stacked gate layer[s]” (Claims 1-3 and 5-8)
`
`The term “stacked gate layer[s]” is expressly recited in Claims 1-3 and 5-8, and
`
`is thus a limitation in each of the claims of the ’124 patent by virtue of its inclusion in
`
`both independent claims (Claims 1 and 6). Consistent with the specification, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of this term for purposes of this proceeding is
`
`“structure(s) made up of multiple stacked layers that include a gate.” This meaning is
`
`consistent with the claims—such as Claim 1, which recites “forming a plurality of
`
`stacked gate layers on a semiconductor substrate, wherein each stacked gate layer
`
`extends in a predefined direction and is substantially parallel to other stacked gate
`
`layers.” (MX124-1001 at 7:1–4)—and is supported by the remainder of the
`
`specification, which, inter alia, discloses stacked gate layers 54 and 56 in Figure 2:
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. In connection with Figure 2, the specification describes “stacked gate
`
`layers” formed in “a series of rows,” where the “rows are substantially parallel to one
`
`another.” See, e.g., id. at 3:53–56 (“As can be[] seen in FIG. 2, the stacked gate layers
`
`12
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:59)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:44)(cid:44)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,124
`
`54, 56 of the stacked gate pattern 50 form a series of rows, and the rows are
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-654
`
`
`
`
`substantially parallel to one another.”).
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to narrow this term to “at least two conductive (or
`
`polysilicon) gates” is unsupported. The ‘124 patent’s Summary of the Invention states
`
`simply that “[t]he method can include forming a plurality of stacked gate layers on a
`
`semiconductor substrate, wherein each stacked gate layer extends in a predefined
`
`direction and is substantially parallel to other stacked gate layers.” Id. at 2:46–50. The
`
`Summary of the Invention does not mention any particular type of structure for
`
`stacked gate layers, and, to the contrary, makes clear that the exemplary embodiments
`
`in the specification are not limitations. Id. at 2:67-3:4 (“It should be understood,
`
`however, that the detailed description and specific examples, while indicating several
`
`embodiments of the present invention, are given