IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`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. IPR2014-00103
`Patent Number 6,369,416
`
`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-1019
`
`(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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`“the at least on[e] contact” (Claim 1) .............................................................. 8(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`“second distance between the top edge of the at least one contact
`and the at least one contact [sic]” (Claim 4) .................................................. 8(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3) Petitioner’s Arguments Exploit a Clear Error on the Face of Claim 4 ................. 9(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail on Its
`Contention that the IEEE 1994 Article Discloses the Contact Disposed
`Within the Insulating Layer Limitation of Claims 1, 2, and 4 (Ground 4) ......... 12(cid:3)
`There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail on Its
`Contention that Pu, Chung, Morozumi, or the IEEE 1997 Article, Alone
`or in Any Combination with Any Alleged “Admitted Prior Art,” Discloses
`the Angle Limitations of Claims 1-4 (Grounds 1-3 and 5) ................................... 15(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Petitioner has Not Shown that Morozumi Discloses, Alone or in
`Combination with Any Alleged “Admitted Prior Art,” the Angle
`Limitation in Claims 1-4 (Ground 3) ............................................................ 16(cid:3)
`Petitioner has Not Shown that Pu Discloses, Alone or in
`Combination with Any Alleged “Admitted Prior Art,” the Angle
`Limitation in Claims 1-4 (Ground 1) ............................................................ 19(cid:3)
`Petitioner has Not Shown that Chung Discloses, Alone or in
`Combination with Any Alleged “Admitted Prior Art,” the Angle
`Limitation in Claims 1-4 (Ground 2) ............................................................ 20(cid:3)
`Petitioner has Not Shown that the IEEE 1997 Article Discloses the
`Angle Limitation in Claims 1-4 (Ground 5) ................................................ 21(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail on Its
`Contention that the IEEE 1997 Article Discloses All of the Elements of
`Claims 1-4 in the Required Arrangement (Ground 5) ........................................... 24(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 25(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`99 USPQ2d 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 8, 12
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 17
`
`Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.,
`405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Wright,
`569 F.2d 1124 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co. Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136,1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 17
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................................ 1, 5, 6, 25
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................................ 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ....................................................................................................................1, 7
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48694 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................................5
`
`Cardiocom, LLC v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., IPR2013-00439............................ 18
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Spansion LLC submits this
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`Preliminary Response to the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,369,416 (“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. 6,369,416 (“the ’416 patent”), relates to
`
`a semiconductor device with contacts having a sloped profile. The sloped profile
`
`permits greater density of structures by avoiding charge gain or loss between the
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`contact and adjacent structures. See, e.g., MX416-1001 at 2:33-39, 4:50-67.
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`In the process of trying to increase the density of memory cells on a device,
`
`engineers have been looking to solve the problems created by placing the components
`
`of the device closer to one another. See, e.g., id. at 1:35-2:19. The four inventors on
`
`the ’416 Patent (Angela Hui, Tuan Pham, Mark Ramsbey, and Yu Sun) were among
`
`those engineers trying to meet that long-felt need – and they succeeded.
`
`As shown in the figure below, a memory cell can be composed of source and
`
`drain regions (shown in orange) separated by a substrate (blue) and a gate stack (green)
`
`– which includes at least one gate in a stacked structure. MX416-1001 at 1:12-31.
`
`The memory cell works by storing charge (or not storing charge) in a charge storage
`
`layer of the gate stack such that the memory cell can indicate either a “0” or a “1.” A
`
`contact (light blue) leading to either the source or the drain of the device can be
`
`electrically connected to the source and/or the drain, for example, and an insulating
`
`layer (pink) substantially surrounds the gate stacks – insulating them from the contact.
`
`See MX416-1001 at 1:26-34.2
`
`2 All color on the patent figures and emphasis in quotations herein has been added,
`unless otherwise stated.
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`As the memory cells in an integrated circuit are placed closer to one another,
`
`the contacts also move closer to the gate stacks, such that charge may be inadvertently
`
`transferred from the contact to the memory cell or vice-versa. See, id. at 1:64-2:15.
`
`Indeed, the ’416 Patent explains this problem while describing Figure 1 (above):
`
`The small spacing between the conventional contact 52 [shown above in
`light blue] and the gate stack [green] of a particular cell, such as the cell
`20, causes unanticipated charge gain and charge loss from the cell 20.
`Because the conventional contact 52 is typically separated from the edge
`of the gate stack 21 by such a small distance, the portion of the
`insulating layer 54 [pink] between the conventional contact 52 and the
`gate stack 21 is very thin. The combination of the spacer 28 [white] and
`the insulating layer 54 may not provide sufficient insulation to prevent
`the gate stack 32 from being electrically coupled to the conventional
`contact 52 through the spacer 28 and insulating layer 54. For example,
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`charge on the conventional contact 52 may travel to the gate stack 21
`when a user does not desire the floating gate 22 to store charge. Similarly,
`a charge stored on the floating gate 22 may travel to the conventional
`contact 52. Thus, a charge intentionally stored on the floating gate 22
`may bleed away. Consequently, the cell 20 is subject to unanticipated
`charge gain and charge loss. As a result, the cell 20 may not function as
`desired.
`Id. at 1:64-2:15.
`
`The inventors of the ’416 Patent developed a solution to the problem, whereby
`
`a profile of a side of the contact (light blue) between the gate stack (green) and the
`
`contact would form an angle relative to the surface of the substrate (dark blue) of less
`
`than eighty-eight degrees, as shown in Figure 2 below. Id. at FIG. 2, claim 1.)
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`By decreasing the angle of the profile of the side of the contact between the
`
`contact and the gate stack relative to the surface of the substrate, the inventors
`
`managed to increase the distance (and thus the insulation) between the contact and
`
`the memory cell, such that the risk of charge gain or loss by the memory cell was
`
`decreased – as shown by an illustrative comparison of Figure 1 (prior art) and Figure 2
`
`of the ’416 Patent.3 Id. at 2:33-39.
`
`
`
`The Petition’s arguments, however, effectively ignore these key aspects of
`
`the ’416 patent, as detailed below. 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
`
`3 Because the figures are not to scale, the comparison is only illustrative.
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`arguments and evidence that it cannot meet that burden for any asserted ground. The
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`Petition must be denied, and no inter partes review should be instituted.
`
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate: (1) that the IEEE 1994 Article discloses
`
`the contact disposed within the insulating layer limitation; (2) that any of Pu, Chung,
`
`Morozumi, or the IEEE 1997 Article discloses—alone or in proposed combination
`
`with any of its catch-all assertions of alleged “Admitted Prior Art”—the angle
`
`limitations; or (3) that the IEEE 1997 Article discloses all of the contact, plurality of
`
`gate stacks, and insulating layer elements together in the required arrangement. Each
`
`of these limitations is found in all of the challenged claims of the ’416 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.
`
`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
`
`in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.”4 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Pet. at
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`6. 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
`
`art5 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 Response6 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.
`
`4 Petitioner further acknowledges that a different standard is applicable to other
`
`proceedings. Pet. at 6-7.
`
`5 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 processing experience
`
`related to memory device fabrication.
`
`6 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).
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“the at least on[e] contact” (Claim 1)
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`The limitation “the at least on[e] contact” appears in Claim 1 of the ‘146 patent.
`
`Patent Owner, as well as Petitioner (Pet. at 15), recognizes that the term “at least on
`
`contact” is a typographical error and should be understood to mean “at least one
`
`contact.” Indeed, a review of the prosecution history confirms that the term should
`
`be so understood. Claim 1 was numbered Claim 8 during prosecution and was
`
`included in the original application filed on September 23, 1999. MX416-1002 at 19.
`
`At that point, the Claim contained the correct language. Id. The typographical error
`
`was introduced when the Claim was amended in a Reply to Office Action dated
`
`August 23, 2001. Id. at 43. Indeed, the Examiner also clearly understood the term to
`
`be “the at least one contact,” as he used that language in his “Reasons for Allowance,”
`
`mailed on October 22, 2001. Id. at 53-54. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
`
`missing letter “e” in “the at least on[e] contact” was inadvertently omitted when Claim
`
`8 was amended (now issued Claim 1) and the term should be read and would be
`
`understood as it originally appeared—i.e., as “the at least one contact.” See CBT Flint
`
`Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting judicial
`
`authority for correcting obvious prosecution errors in issued claims).
`
`B.
`
`“second distance between the top edge of the at least one contact
`and the at least one contact [sic]” (Claim 4)
`
`As discussed, infra, the term “second distance between the top edge of the at
`
`least one contact and the at least one contact [sic]” recited in Claim 4 should be
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`construed for purposes of this proceeding as “distance between the top edge of the at
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`least one contact and the nearest gate of the plurality of gates.” As is apparent from
`
`the face of the patent and its prosecution history, Claim 4 requires a comparison of a
`
`“first distance” between the “bottom [edge]” of a contact and “a nearest gate” versus
`
`a “second distance” between the “top edge” of the contact and the “nearest gate.”
`
`That is, “second distance” is not the distance between the contact and itself—as
`
`Petitioner nonsensical “literal reading” of the claim would require (Pet. at 18)—but
`
`between the contact and the “nearest gate.” See discussion, infra; see also MX416-1001
`
`4:33-38.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Arguments Exploit a Clear Error on the Face of Claim 4
`
`Petitioner attempts to take advantage of what is a clear error in the language of
`
`Claim 4. See Pet. at 18. As is apparent from the language of Claim 4 itself, Claim 4
`
`contains an obvious error where it repeats the same limitation “the at least one
`
`contact” twice:
`
`4. The semiconductor device of claim 2 wherein the at least one contact
`includes a bottom edge and a top edge and wherein a first distance
`between the bottom of the at least one contact and a nearest gate of the
`plurality of gates is greater than a second distance between the top edge
`of the at least one contact and the at least one contact.
`
`MX416-1001 at 6:39-44. The second “the at least one contact” portion clearly refers
`
`to, and should instead recite, “the nearest gate of the plurality of gates,” as recited
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`earlier in the sentence:
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`4. The semiconductor device of claim 2 wherein the at least one contact
`includes a bottom edge and a top edge and wherein a first distance
`between the bottom of the at least one contact and a nearest gate of
`the plurality of gates is greater than a second distance between the top
`edge of the at least one contact and the at least one contact [nearest
`gate of the plurality of gates].
`
`This obvious error in Claim 4 is also underscored by the prosecution history of
`
`the ’416 Patent. Prior to making an election of product vs. product-by-process claims,
`
`the parallel process claim (formerly Claim 7) contains nearly identical claim language
`
`as issued Claim 4, but correctly recites “the nearest gate of the plurality of gates”:
`
`7. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one contact includes a
`bottom edge and a top edge, and wherein a first distance between the
`bottom of the at least one contact and a nearest gate of the plurality of
`gates is larger than a second distance between the top edge and the
`nearest gate of the plurality of gates.
`
`MX416-1002 at 18.
`
`
`
`Finally, the text of the specification of the ’416 Patent confirms that the
`
`claimed invention relates to a “sloped profile” where the distance between the base of
`
`the contact and the nearest gate stack is greater relative to the top of the contact:
`
`Thus, the top edge of the contact hole 150 may be a smaller horizontal
`distance from the closest edge of the nearest gate stack 121 than the
`bottom edge of the contact hole 150. Similarly, the top edge of the contact 152
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`may be a smaller horizontal distance from the closest edge of the nearest gate
`stack 121 than the base of the contact 152.
`
`MX416-1001 4:33-38.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “literal reading” of this claim as requiring the “second distance” to
`
`be the distance between the contact and itself is nonsensical—and consciously so.
`
`Pet. at 18. In an obvious attempt to take advantage of what is an obvious error in the
`
`language of Claim 4, Petitioner—relying on its witness, Dr. Chris Mack, no less—
`
`takes what any person of skill would recognize as a clear mistake, to urge instead that
`
`the term should render the recited “distance” a nullity “[b]y definition.” Id. (offering
`
`the unremarkable proposition that “the distance between an object…and itself…is
`
`zero” to argue that the alleged AAPA discloses Claim 4 because the “bottom of the
`
`contact and the nearest gate stack” in the alleged AAPA is “greater than zero.”);
`
`MX625-1009 at ¶ 46. Apparently recognizing that this nonsensical interpretation
`
`could not reasonably be adopted, Petitioner implicitly concedes that Claim 4 could
`
`instead be read to require “the bottom of the contact to be a greater distance from the
`
`gate stacks than the distance of the top edge of the contact to the gate.” See Pet. at
`
`25, 30, 38 (arguing additional references allegedly render Claim 4 obvious under this
`
`reading).
`
`
`
`Thus, the ’416 Patent itself and its file history make clear—and even Petitioner
`
`backhandedly acknowledges (Pet. at 25, 30, 38)—that Claim 4 should be read and
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`would be understood to require the “second distance” to be “between the top edge of
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`the at least one contact and the nearest gate of the plurality of gates.” See, e.g., Hoffer v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding court had authority to correct
`
`error in the dependence of a claim that was apparent on the face of the printed patent
`
`and its correct antecedent claim was apparent from the prosecution history); CBT
`
`Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting judicial
`
`authority for correcting obvious prosecution errors in issued claims). Patent Owner
`
`seeks to have this error appropriately addressed.
`
`IV. There is No Reasonable Likelihood Petitioner Would Prevail
`on Its Contention that the IEEE 1994 Article Discloses the Contact
`Disposed Within the Insulating Layer Limitation of Claims 1, 2, and 4
`(Ground 4)
`
`While Petitioner puts forward the IEEE 1994 Article (MX416-1007) as
`
`supposedly disclosing each element of Claims 1, 2, and 47 of the ’416 patent (Ground
`
`4), the IEEE 1994 Article’s shortcomings are apparent even on the limited record
`
`available at this preliminary stage—and are fatal to every one of Petitioner’s
`
`arguments regarding Claims 1, 2, and 4.
`
`For the proposition that the IEEE 1994 Article discloses “at least one contact
`
`disposed within the insulating layer,” as required by Claim 1, Petitioner cites, in its
`
`claim chart (Pet. at 45) only to Fig. 7 and a quote from p. 83 (“Such an accuracy in
`
`7 Petitioner has not asserted the IEEE 1994 Article against Claim 3. Pet. at 6.
`
`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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`printing the contact resulted in excellent contact step coverage (>30%), as illustrated
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`in Figure 7.”). And in his accompanying declaration Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Chris
`
`Mack, cites only to the same portion of the IEEE 1994 Article, stating that it discloses
`
`“a conventional contact technology.” MX416-1009 at ¶ 104. However, even
`
`assuming that the IEEE 1994 Article discloses a “conventional contact technology,”
`
`Dr. Mack provides no explanation as to how that means that the IEEE 1994 Article
`
`discloses “a contact disposed within the insulating layer.” Instead, it can clearly be
`
`seen from Dr. Mack’s own drawing (reproduced here from MX416-1009 p. 39) that the
`
`contact is layered over the insulating layer, not disposed within it, as required by
`
`Claim 1:
`
`As they admit, the section of the IEEE 1994 Article being relied on by
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Mack deals with old, conventional technology. Pet. at 41; MX416-
`
`
`
`13
`
`(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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`1009 at ¶ 104. In this conventional system, a layer of metal is layered on top of the
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`insulating layer, forming a contact. MX416-1007 at Fig. 7. Indeed, even the IEEE
`
`1994 Article itself calls out the distinction, discussing “conventional contact
`
`technology” (including the portion relied on by Petitioner) separately from the newer
`
`“contact plug technology.” See, e.g., Id. at p. 80; Figs. 1(b) and 7.
`
`
`
` As to the conventional contact technology the Petitioner and Dr. Mack argue
`
`to the Board, the IEEE 1994 Article states that “the conventional contact
`
`interconnect technology is not suitable for the fabrication of integrated circuit devices
`
`having sub-micron dimensions.” Id. at p. 79. Instead, for devices with sub-micron
`
`dimensions, the IEEE 1994 Article points to the use of the newer contact technology:
`
`“it is essential to develop a suitable contact interconnect metallization structure which
`
`can fill deep sub-micron contacts with a near vertical profile.” Id.
`
`Thus, Petitioner and Dr. Mack are citing to sections of the IEEE 1994 Article
`
`discussing old technology that the IEEE 1994 Article itself states is not suitable for
`
`14
`
`(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:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00103
`U.S. Patent No. 6,369,416
`
`the fabrication of circuit devices having sub-micron dimensions: one of the very
`
` Attorney Docket No.
` 110900-0004-651
`
`
`
`
`issues addressed by the ’416 patent. See, e.g., MX416-1001 at 4:27-33. Furthermore,
`
`the relevant portions of the IEEE 1994 Article actually teach that a verti