Notice of Intent to Issue
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Control-No.
`
`90/011,607
`
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6057221
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`ANDREW J. FISCHER
`•• The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address ••
`1. [gj Prosecution on the merits is (or remains) closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding. This proceeding is
`subject to reopening at the initiative of the Office or upon petition. Cf. 37 CFR 1.313(a). A Certificate will be
`issued in view of
`(a) [gj Patent owner's communication(s) filed: 26 March 2012.
`(b) 0 Patent owner's late response filed: __ .
`(c) 0 Patent owner's failure to file an appropriate resP,onse to the Office action mailed: __ .
`(d) 0 Patent owner's failure to timely file an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31).
`(e) 0 Other: __
`Status of Ex Parte Reexamination:
`(f) Change in the Specification: 0 Yes [gj No
`0 Yes [gj No
`(g) Change in the Drawing(s):
`(h) Status of the Claim(s):
`(1) Patent claim(s) confirmed: 4.14 and 18.
`(2) Patent claim(s) amended (including dependent on amended claim(s)): 3.6-8. 13. 15.17 and 21
`(3) Patent claim(s) canceled: 1. 2. 5. 9-12. 16. 19 and 20.
`(4) Newly presented claim(s) patentable: 22-30.
`(5) Newly presented canceled claims: __ .
`(6) Patent claim(s) 0 previously 0 currently disclaimed:
`.
`(7) Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination: __ .
`
`- -
`
`2. [gj Note the attached statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation. Any comments considered
`necessary by patent owner regarding reasons for patentability and/or confirmation must be submitted promptly
`to avoid processing delays. Such submission(s) should be labeled: "Comments On Statement of Reasons for
`Patentability and/or Confirmation."
`3. 0 Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCES CITED (PT0-892).
`4. 0 Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/08 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`5. 0 The drawing correction request filed on __ is: 0 approved
`0 disapproved.
`6. 0 Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(aHd) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some*
`c)O None
`of the certified copies have
`0 been received.
`0 not been received.
`0 been filed in Application No. __ .
`0 been filed in reexamination Control No.
`.
`0 been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No. __ .
`*Certified copies not received: __ .
`7. 0 Note attached Examiner's Amendment.
`8. 0 Note attached Interview Summary (PT0-474).
`9. 0 Other: __ .
`
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-469 (Rev. 05-10)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Part of Paper No 20120628
`
`IPR2015-01087 - Ex. 1017
`Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Petitioners
`1
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Action
`
`Preliminary Matters
`
`The Declaration and affidavits filed with the Response on 03/26/2012 on behalf
`
`of the Patent Owner and others have been instrumental in a greater understanding of
`
`the intricacies of this case. As such, as noted hereinbelow, this Notice of Reexam
`
`Confirmation, (NIRC) is prepared. This Declaration and supporting documents/exhibits
`
`are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`At present, there are a total of 20 claims in the instant application: Independent
`
`Claim 3 with dependent Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30; independent
`
`Claim 14 with dependent Claims 15 and 29; independent Claim 17 with dependent
`
`Claim 18; and independent Claim 26 with dependent Claims 27 and 28. Claims 1, 2, 5,
`
`9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19 and 20 have been proposed to be canceled.
`
`Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or Confirmation
`
`This Action is taken up in response to a Request for Reconsideration including
`
`amendments, arguments, a declaration and supporting documents filed on 03/26/2012.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`In view of the Patent Owner's explanation of the term "via" as used in Claim 23
`
`on pages 3 and 4 of the Response, the rejection of this claim as indefinite has been
`
`overcome. Therefore, the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 112, second paragraph,
`
`is withdrawn.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC§ 102
`
`The 35 USC 1 02(b) rejection of Claim 11 based upon Nishimura has been
`
`overcome with the amendment proposing cancellation of this claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
`
`Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 23, 25, 26 and 28 were rejected under 35 USC 1 03(a) as
`
`unpatentable over Koyou in view of Wada of record. It is agreed that Koyou discloses a
`
`vertical fuse, while Wada discloses a horizontal fuse. Therefore, as noted in
`
`paragraphs 34-38 of the Bernstein Declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not combine the features from Wada with the fuse of Koyou, since inter alia, fuse
`
`dimensions in horizontal fuse structures are necessarily constant (Wada) while in
`
`vertical fuse structures (Koyou) they are not. Thus, the combination of Koyou with
`
`Wada to render obvious such a feature for a "cut-link pad" having a width "at least ten
`
`percent greater than the width of each of first and second electrically-conductive lines"
`
`as recited in Claim 3 is problematical as stated in paragraphs 36-37 of the Bernstein
`
`Declaration and evidenced by the Lattice Analysis and Samsung Analysis design rules.
`
`This along with other salient points asserted on pages 6-1 0 of the Response effectively
`
`3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page4
`
`overcome the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 103 based upon Koyou in view of
`
`Wad a.
`
`Moreover, it is agreed that the phrase, "cut-link pad having substantially less
`
`thermal resistance per unit length than each of the first and second lines" (Claims 3 and
`
`26) is no longer met by the combination of Koyou and Wada for at least the reason
`
`expressed Section B of the Response (incorporated herein by reference), and in
`
`paragraphs 20-27 and 40 of the Bernstein Declaration and Exhibit D.
`
`Therefore, based on the above reasons, the rejections of independent Claims 3
`
`and 26 along with dependent Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30 as
`
`unpatentable over Koyou in view of Wada are withdrawn. These claims are deemed
`
`patentable over the combination of Koyou and Wada.
`
`Similarly, the rejections under 35 USC 103(a) of Claims 17 and 18 based upon
`
`the combination of Koyou, and Wada, and further in view of Lou are no longer valid.
`
`That is, Lou was cited to show the passivative layer feature in the fuse structure of the
`
`Koyou/Wada combination. Since the combination of the Koyou and Wada has been
`
`overcome as noted above, Lou is no longer relevant. Thus, the above rejection of these
`
`claims is withdrawn, and Claims 17 and 18 are therefore, patentable.
`
`Claims 14, 15 and 29 were held rejected as unpatentable overWada in view of
`
`Lou. In addition to the already determined patentable feature of the "cut-link pad having
`
`substantially less thermal resistance per unit length than each of the first and second
`
`lines" (Claim 14), Lou was cited to disclose that a passivative layer covering the
`
`substrate is harder than the substrate as recited. However, it is agreed that paragraphs
`
`4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`73-78 of the Bernstein Declaration along with Exhibits Land M clearly point out that this
`
`is not a "well known" feature as the rejection of 01/26/2012 maintained. That as pointed
`
`out in the Bernstein Declaration, covering the fuse with a passivative layer harder than
`
`the substrate teaches away from such a feature since it makes it more difficult to sever
`
`the fuse (Declaration, para. 77).
`
`Moreover as pointed out on page 32 of the Response for the reasons stated
`
`therein, Lou fails to require a "passivative layer that is harder than the substrate" as
`
`recited in Claim 14. As such, the rejection of Claim 14 as unpatentable over Wada in
`
`view of Lou is withdrawn, and Claim 14 along with dependent Claims 15 and 29 are now
`
`deemed patentable.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Claim 3 along with dependent Claims 4, 6-8, 13, 21-25 and 30; Claim 14 along
`
`with dependent Claims 15 and 29; Claim 17 along with dependent Claim 18; and Claim
`
`26 along with dependent Claims 27 and 28 are confirmed as patentable.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by PATENT OWNER regarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by
`
`the patent owner should be labeled: "Comments on Statement of Reasons for
`
`Patentability and/or Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexamination file.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,607
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Correspondence
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be
`directed:
`
`By Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand: Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via
`the electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`https://sportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf.html. EFS-Web offers the
`benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that needs to act on the
`correspondence. Also, EFS- Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e., electronically
`uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which offers
`parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft
`scanning" process is complete.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to John S.
`Heyman at telephone number 571-272-5730.
`
`/John S. Heyman/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/My Trang Nu Ton/
`Primary Examiner, CRU 3992
`
`ANDREW J. FISCHER~ -1,
`
`Supervisory Patent Reexamination SpeciaKst
`CRU •• Art Unit 3992
`
`6
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES pATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/011,607
`
`03/30/2011
`
`6057221
`
`MIT-7581L-RXI
`
`3214
`
`36872
`7590
`071ll/20I2
`THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C.
`215 W FALLBROOK AVE SUITE 203
`FRESNO, CA 93711
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 07/11/2012
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PT0-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`7
`
`