UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2014-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................... 2
`III. RELATED IPR PETITION ................................................................................................... 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE INVENTION CLAIMED IN THE ‘084 PATENT .......................... 3
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 8
`
`  
`
`A. The Board Should Construe Claims of the ‘084 Patent According to the Legal
`Principles Used by the District Courts .......................................................................... 8
`
`B. Petitioner Failed to Provide its Construction of Several Key Claim Terms ................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Patterning ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`First pattern .................................................................................................... 10
`
`First patterned layer ....................................................................................... 11
`
`4. Over................................................................................................................. 11
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Second pattern ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Second patterned layer ................................................................................... 15
`
`C. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction in Response to the Construction Proposed by
`Petitioner ..................................................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Imaging layer, single patterned layer, disposable post, PRIST ...................... 16
`
`Stabilizing ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`A second feature distinct from the first feature ............................................... 17
`3.
`VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘084 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`A. Challenge #1: there is no reasonable likelihood that Jinbo could anticipate claims 1-8,
`12, 15, and 16 of the ‘084 Patent ................................................................................ 22
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`1. According to Jinbo, both imaging layers are patterned using the same mask,
`whereas claims 1 and 15 require that each imaging layer is patterned in
`accordance with its own pattern ...................................................................... 23
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Jinbo does not disclose the second patterned layer having a second feature
`distinct from the first feature of the first patterned layer ................................ 25
`
`Jinbo cannot anticipate dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 16 at least because
`Jinbo does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 15 .................................. 27
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claim 9 cannot be found obvious based on Jinbo in view of McColgin
`because Jinbo does not disclose several material limitations of claim 1 from which
`claim 9 depends........................................................................................................... 28
`
`C. Challenge #3: Claims 10 and 11 cannot be found obvious based on Jinbo in view of
`Matthews because Jinbo does not disclose several material limitations of claim 1 from
`which claims 10 and 11 depend .................................................................................. 28
`
`D. Challenge #4: Claims 13 and 14 cannot be found obvious based on Jinbo in view of
`Cooper because Jinbo does not disclose several material limitations of claim 1 from
`which claims 13 and 14 depend .................................................................................. 28
`
`E. Challenge #5: There is no reasonable likelihood that Hsue could anticipate claims 1-
`7, 10, 12, 15, and 16 of the ‘084 Patent ...................................................................... 29
`
`1. Hsue does not disclose “forming a second imaging layer over the first
`patterned layer” ............................................................................................... 31
`
`2. Hsue does not disclose that the first and the second patterned layers are
`formed in accordance with (2) two separate patterns ..................................... 33
`
`3. Hsue does not disclose the second patterned layer having a second feature
`distinct from the first feature of the first patterned layer ................................ 37
`
`4. Hsue cannot anticipate dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12, and 16 at least because
`Hsue does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 15 ................................... 37
`
`F. Challenge #6: Claim 8 cannot be found obvious based on Hsue in view of Jinbo
`because Hsue does not disclose all limitations of claim 1 .......................................... 37
`
`G. Challenge #7: Claim 9 cannot be found obvious based on Hsue in view of McColgin
`because Hsue does not disclose all limitations of claim 1 .......................................... 38
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`H. Challenge #8: Claims 10 and 11 cannot be found obvious based on Hsue in view of
`Matthews because Hsue does not disclose all limitations of claim 1 ......................... 38
`
`  
`
`I.
`
`Challenge #9: Claims 13 and 14 cannot be found obvious based on Hsue in view of
`Cooper because Hsue does not disclose all limitations of claim 1 ............................. 38
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 39
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Becton, Dickenson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`
`616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................... 12
` 
`Breville Pty Ltd. v. Storebound LLC,
`
`2013 WL 3153383 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................ 37
` 
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co.,
`
`224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................... 12
` 
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................... 12
` 
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`
`363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................... 12
` 
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`
`694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 8
` 
`In re Robertson,
`
`7169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................. 32
`
`Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed.Cir. 2004)...................................................................................... 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................... 9, 18, 20, 26
`
`Subotincic v. 1274274 Ontario Inc.,
`
`2012 WL 3112005 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................. 36
` 
`Decisions of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., LTD.,
`
`IPR2013-00065, Decision at pg. 10 (Apr. 30, 2013) .......................................................... 8
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G. Hagenbuch,
`
`IPR2013-00483, Order at pg. 2 (Apr. 16, 2014) ................................................................. 9
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a)...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.84(p)(4) .................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`DSS-2001
`
`Pan, U.S. Patent No. 5,533,634
`
`DSS-2002 Brand, U.S. Patent No. 5,853,959
`
`DSS-2003 Hudek, U.S. Patent No. 7,241,542
`
`DSS-2004 Apex Translations Inc., Translation Certification, Statement concerning certain
`characteristic of the Japanese language, executed 10/07/2014
`
`vi
`
`  
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a), the patent owner, DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`
`(“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following Preliminary Response in response to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,652,084 (“the ‘084 Patent”) (Samsung-1001).
`
`The ‘084 Patent, entitled “Method for Reduced Pitch Lithography,” issued on July 29,
`
`1997, has a priority date of December 22, 1994, and has expired on December 22, 2014. The ‘084
`
`Patent contains sixteen (16) claims, of which claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent. Petitioner
`
`challenges validity of all claims. Petitioner advances the following invalidity challenges:
`
`(1) anticipation of claims 1-8, 12, 15- 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. HEI 4[1992]-71222 (“Jinbo”) (SAMSUNG-1005);
`
`(2) obviousness of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Jinbo in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,931,351 (“McColgin”) (SAMSUNG-1007);
`
`(3) obviousness of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Jinbo in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,548,688 (“Matthews”) (SAMSUNG-1008); and
`
`(4) obviousness of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Jinbo in view of
`
`Brownell and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,158,910 (“Cooper”) (SAMSUNG-
`
`1009).
`
`(5) anticipation of claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) based on U.S.
`
`Patent No. (“Hsue”) (Samsung-1006).
`
`(6) obviousness of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Hsue in view of Jinbo.
`
`(7) obviousness of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Hsue in view of McColgin.
`
`(8) obviousness of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Hsue in view of Matthews.
`1
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`(9) obviousness of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Hsue in view of
`
`Cooper.
`
`To institute an IPR review, Petitioner must satisfy its burden of establishing that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the ‘084 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner failed to meet its burden, and therefore, the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“the Board”) should deny the Petition in its entirety and decline to institute an IPR
`
`proceeding against the ‘084 Patent.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to deny the Petition for IPR of claims 1-16
`
`
`
`of the ‘084 Patent because Petitioner has failed to prove that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 based on the nine challenges
`
`Petitioner advanced.
`
`III. RELATED IPR PETITION
`
`
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“TSMC”) filed a petition seeking
`
`institution of an IPR proceeding of the ‘084 Patent in case IPR2014-01030. As of the date of this
`
`Response, the Board has not reached a decision on whether to institute an IPR in that case. The
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`Board’s decision in IPR2014-01030 may be pertinent to several invalidity challenges advanced by
`
`  
`
`Petitioner in the present case.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE INVENTION CLAIMED IN THE ‘084 PATENT
`
`In its summary of the ‘084 Patent, Petitioner omitted several material elements of the
`
`claimed invention. The following overview provides a brief description of the photolithography
`
`method disclosed and claimed in the ‘084 Patent, focusing on the elements the Petitioner failed to
`
`discuss.
`
`The ‘084 Patent discloses several photolithography methods that enable formation of
`
`distinct features of a patterned photoresist layer closer to one another than is possible through
`
`conventional lithography methods, which are limited by resolution constraints of the lithography
`
`equipment. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) found that the original
`
`patent application disclosed and claimed two “distinct and patentably different” inventions
`
`requiring Applicant to make an election. See Samsung-1002 at p.76. Applicant elected to pursue
`
`the invention that involves formation and patterning of two separate imaging layers. This
`
`embodiment is primarily described in the ‘084 Patent at 1:6-56, 2:7-22, 3:1-7:47, and 12:20-63
`
`and illustrated in FIGS. 1-5, although other portions of the specification may also be relevant to
`
`some features of the claimed invention. The following overview is focused exclusively on this
`
`embodiment.
`
`A. Summary of the ‘084 Patent
`
`Several limitations of claim 1 are schematically illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1, which
`
`is reproduced below.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`
`
`In step 100, a first imaging layer 220 is formed over a semiconductor wafer 200. In step
`
`110, the invention requires that the first imaging layer 220 is patterned in accordance with a first
`
`pattern. The specification discloses that this step involves exposing imaging layer 220 to radiation
`
`through “a first mask having opaque feature 222 and clear features 221 and 223 as illustrated in
`
`FIG. 2.” See SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent at 3:57-59. Accordingly, the three features (221, 222,
`
`and 223) of the first mask make up the first pattern. The step of patterning the first imaging layer
`
`in accordance with the first pattern is illustrated in FIG. 2 reproduced below.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`After exposure to radiation, first imaging layer 220 is developed to form a first patterned
`
`layer 232. As shown in FIG. 3, the first feature of first patterned layer 232 corresponds to feature
`
`222 of the first pattern of the first mask.
`
`
`
`
`
`First patterned layer 232 is then stabilized in step 120 to withstand subsequent lithographic
`
`processing steps.
`
`In step 130, a second imaging layer 240 is formed over first patterned layer 232.
`
`Independent claims 1, 13, and 15 require that the second patterned layer 240 is patterned in
`
`accordance with a second pattern. The ‘084 patent discloses that in step 140, second imaging layer
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`240 is “exposed to radiation through a second mask having opaque features 242 and 244 and clear
`
`  
`
`features 241, 243, and 245 as illustrated in FIG. 4.” See SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent at 6:20-23
`
`(emphasis added). Accordingly, the five features (241, 242, 243, 244, and 245) of the second mask
`
`make up the second pattern. The step of patterning the second imaging layer in accordance with
`
`the second pattern is illustrated in FIG. 4 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Second imaging layer 240 is subsequently developed yielding a final single pattern
`
`comprising features 251, 232, and 253 of the first and the second patterned layers. The final pattern
`
`is depicted in FIG. 5, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`B. Petition Omits Disclosure of the ‘084 Patent Related to the Second Pattern
`
`An important point of the above overview is that the ‘084 patent discloses a lithography
`
`method that uses two different masks—each having its own pattern—to form the first and second
`
`patterned layers. This process leads to each layer having its own distinct features corresponding
`
`to the differences in the geometric shapes of the first and second patterns. The first and second
`
`patterns may be patterned onto the first and second imaging layers using the first and second masks
`
`or other suitable lithographic techniques. See SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent at 12:21-26.
`
`The ‘084 Patent consistently differentiates the second pattern from the first pattern as
`
`evidenced by the following: in the specification, features of the first pattern are referenced as 221-
`
`225, while features of the second pattern are referenced as 241-242; in the drawings the first and
`
`second masks are visibly different; and in the claims, the ordinal numbers—i.e. first and second—
`
`are used to differentiate the first and the second patterns. The illustrative drawings of the first and
`
`second masks are reproduced below for comparison—the two patterns have visibly distinct
`
`features referenced by different element numbers.
`
`First pattern
`
`Second pattern
`
`The first pattern is
`distinct from the second
`pattern
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent, FIGS. 2 and 4, annotated
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`The Petition lacks a single mention of the fact that the ‘084 Patent discloses using a first
`
`  
`
`mask to pattern first imaging layer in accordance with the first pattern, but using a second mask to
`
`pattern the second imaging layer in accordance with the second pattern. Petitioner merely states
`
`that “a second resist (second imaging layer 240) is formed over the patterned layer (232) and
`
`exposed in a lithographic process.” Petitioner, thereby, completely ignores that the ‘084 Patent
`
`teaches using a second mask having a second pattern to accomplish this step of the lithographic
`
`process. See Petition at pg. 5.
`
`This element is critical because each independent claim of the ‘084 Patent require the steps
`
`of “patterning the first imaging layer in accordance with a first pattern to form a first patterned
`
`layer” and “patterning the second imaging layer in accordance with a second pattern to form a
`
`second patterned layer.” See Samsung-1001, ‘084 Patent claims 1, 13, and 15. This disclosure of
`
`the ‘084 Patent, which was omitted in the Petition, is crucial for accurate claim interpretation and
`
`understanding of the claimed invention.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
` 
`
`A. The Board Should Construe Claims of the ‘084 Patent According to the
`Legal Principles Used by the District Courts
`The Board generally interprets the claims of an unexpired patent according to the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). It is well established,
`
`however, that application of BRI standard hinges on a patent owner’s ability to amend the
`
`challenged claims. When a patent owner does not have an opportunity to make amendments, the
`
`Board’s review of the claims mirrors that of a district court. See Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor
`
`Energy Laboratory Co., LTD., IPR2013-00065, Decision at pg. 10 (Apr. 30, 2013) (citing In re
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The ‘084 Patent has expired on December 22,
`
`  
`
`2014 and, therefore, the Board should interpret its claims according to the principles set forth in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G. Hagenbuch, IPR2013-00483, Order at
`
`pg. 2 (Apr. 16, 2014) (applying the district court standard of claim construction to a patent that
`
`expired 11 days after the Board instituted the IPR proceeding).
`
`Under Phillips v. AWH Corp., claim terms are “generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The claims are foremost interpreted in light of
`
`the specification. See id. at 1315. The Board should also consider the extrinsic evidence when that
`
`evidence “can help educate the [Board] regarding the field of the invention and can help the
`
`[Board] determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to
`
`mean.” See id. at 1315, 1319. Non-testimonial evidence may be especially helpful to ascertaining
`
`a meaning of a claim term. See id. at 1318. Furthermore, “the presence of a dependent claim that
`
`adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present
`
`in the independent claim.” Id. at 1315 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`
`910 (Fed.Cir. 2004)). Finally, in case of ambiguity, claim terms should be construed according to
`
`a meaning that preserves validity of the claims. See id. at 1327.
`
`B. Petitioner Failed to Provide its Construction of Several Key Claim
`Terms
`Petitioner provided its proposed construction for only six claim terms, thereby leaving a
`
`number of material limitations of the claimed invention unaddressed. Claim construction provided
`
`below is believed to satisfy both the BRI standard and the standard applied by the Board in IPR
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`proceedings of expired patents. The following terms of art are construed according to a meaning
`
`  
`
`that would be given to these terms by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). Since
`
`Petitioner did not define the ordinary level of skill in the art, Patent Owner proposes that a POSITA
`
`is someone who has a B.S. degree in engineering or a similar field and several years of experience
`
`using photolithography methods for semiconductor fabrication.
`
`1. Patterning
`
`Patterning step is a two-stage process: (1) an imaging layer is exposed to radiation in
`
`accordance with a specific geometric pattern, and (2) the imaging layer is developed so that
`
`portions of the imaging layer laying outside of the geometric pattern are dissolved in the developer,
`
`thereby forming a patterned layer having a shape corresponding to the geometric pattern. See, e.g.,
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent at 3:65-4:12. The invention requires two patterning steps: one to
`
`form a first patterned layer and another one to form a second patterned layer. See id. at FIG. 1
`
`(steps 110 and 140).
`
`2. First pattern
`
`The term “first pattern” refers to a first geometric pattern according with which the first
`
`imaging layer is selectively irradiated. The specification of the ‘084 Patent discloses that the first
`
`pattern may be embodied in a first mask. See id. at 3:57-59. In alternative embodiments, selective
`
`irradiation in accordance with the first pattern may be accomplished through a direct-write
`
`exposure technique or other suitable lithography techniques. See id. at 12:20-27. The first pattern
`
`may be “any suitable pattern of opaque and clear features that may depend, for example, on the
`
`desired pattern to be formed in [first] imaging layer 220.” See id. at 3:59-62.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`3. First patterned layer
`The term “first patterned layer” refers to a layer containing the pattern defined by the
`
`portion of the first imaging layer that remains intact after the patterning step. See id. at 4:9-12.
`
`The first patterned layer mirrors the first pattern in accordance with which the first imaging layer
`
`was exposed to radiation and subsequently developed.
`
`4. Over
`
`The term “over” as used in the limitation “forming a second imaging layer over the first
`
`patterned layer” means that the second imaging layer covers the first patterned layer by being
`
`formed on top of the features of the first patterned layer and underlying dielectric layer or substrate.
`
`The proposed construction of the term over is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and
`
`specification of the ‘084 Patent as illustrated in FIG. 4 reproduced and annotated below:
`
`The second imaging layer is formed
`on top of the first patterned layer 232
`and exposed underlying layer 210.
`
`
`
`Samsung-1001, ‘084 Patent, FIG. 4, annotated
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`5. Second pattern
`
`  
`
`The term “second pattern” refers to a second geometric pattern—separate from the first
`
`pattern—in accordance with which, the second imaging layer is selectively irradiated.
`
`It is well-established that “where a claim provides for two separate elements, . . . these two
`
`elements logically cannot be one and the same.” Becton, Dickenson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare
`
`Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96
`
`F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear
`
`implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented
`
`invention.” Becton, Dickenson and Co., 616 F.3d at 1254 (citing Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d
`
`1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). "In the absence of any
`
`evidence to the contrary, [the Board] must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims
`
`connotes different meanings." CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d
`
`1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the claim terms “a first pattern” and “a second pattern”
`
`must be interpreted as two separate individual elements.
`
`a. Different Reference Characters Point to Different Patterns
`
`The ‘084 Patent discloses that the second pattern and the first pattern are different from
`
`one another—the first pattern comprises “opaque feature 222 and clear features 221 and 223,”
`
`while the second pattern comprises “opaque features 242 and 244 and clear features 241, 243, and
`
`245.” See id. at 3:58-59, 6:21-22. The Federal Regulations require that “[t]he same part of an
`
`invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same
`
`reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`parts.” See 37 C.F.R. §1.84(p)(4). This requirement further emphasizes that the first and second
`
`  
`
`patterns must be construed as two separate elements because their features are designated by
`
`different reference characters.
`
`b. First and Second Patterns are Embodied in Different Masks
`The specification of the ‘084 Patent discloses that the second pattern is embodied in a
`
`second mask, while the first pattern is embodied in the first mask. See id. at 3:57-59, 6:26-31.1 The
`
`second pattern may be “any suitable pattern of opaque and clear features that may depend, for
`
`example, on the desired pattern to be formed in [second] imaging layer 240.” See id. at 6:23-25
`
`(emphasis added). Consequentially, since the first and second patterns are embodied in two
`
`different masks, and since the second pattern may be any desired pattern, the claimed method
`
`requires that the first and second imaging layers are patterned in accordance with two separate
`
`patterns. The fact that the second pattern and the first pattern are different from one another is
`
`evident in the cross-sectional views, each of which is reproduced below.
`
`First patterned layer
`
`Second patterned layer
`
`
`
`Two different masks with two different
`patterns are used to pattern the first
`imaging and the second imaging layers.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, ‘084 Patent, FIGS. 2 and 4, annotated
`
`                                                            
`1 It should be noted that in alternative embodiments, selective irradiation of the second imaging
`layer in accordance with the second pattern may be accomplished using a direct-write exposure
`technique or other suitable lithography techniques. See Samsung-1001, ‘084 Patent at 12:20-27.
`13
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`  
`
`c. Proposed Construction is Consistent with Understanding of POSITA
`
`To accurately discern individual features of a pattern, a cross-section view may be
`
`insufficient and a top view of that pattern may be necessary. Because the ‘084 Patent does not
`
`provide top views of two exemplary lithography patterns in accordance with which the two
`
`imaging layers are patterned, it may be useful for the Board to review some examples of top views
`
`of lithography patterns from other patents in the same field. The examples below are provided with
`
`a purpose of helping the Board to determine how a POSITA would understand the terms “in
`
`accordance with a first pattern” and “in accordance with a second pattern.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,634 (“Pan”) (DSS-2001), which was filed the same year as the ‘084
`
`Patent, illustrates a top view of the mask having a checkerboard pattern (FIG. 1) and also illustrates
`
`a cross-sectional view the same mask (FIG. 2), in which the geometric shape of the pattern can no
`
`longer be discerned.
`
`
`
`14
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`IPR2014-01493
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`U.S. Patent 5,853,959 (“Brand”) (DSS-2002), which was filed within two years of the
`
`  
`
`priority date of the ‘084 Patent, also provides top views of three different masks, all having unique
`
`patterns referenced by different reference characters: 74, 80, and 82.
`
`Fig. 4A
`
`
`
`Fig. 4B
`
`Fig. 4C
`
`
`
`As evident from the drawings of Pan and Brand, geometric shapes of lithographic patterns
`
`can vary greatly from one another. Accordingly, a P