throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01201
`
`Patent 5,591,678
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF EUGENE A. FITZGERALD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Raytheon2019-0001
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Qualifications and Compensation ................................................................ 1
`
`III. Materials Considered ................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 5
`
`V. My Understanding of Patent Law ................................................................ 6
`A.
`Burden of Proof ................................................................................. 7
`B.
`Anticipation ....................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 7
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Etching” .................................................................................... 9
`
`“Etchable Layer” and “Etch-Stop Layer” ...................................10
`
`“Etching Away the Etchable Layer of the First Substrate
`Down to the Etch-Stop Layer” ..................................................11
`
`VI. Relevant Time Frame ..................................................................................12
`
`VII. Technical Background ................................................................................13
`A.
`Integrated Circuit Manufacturing ......................................................13
`
`1. Moore’s Law .............................................................................13
`
`2. Advanced Packaging .................................................................16
`
`3. Microelectronic Processes .........................................................18
`
`4. Material Removal Processes ......................................................19
`
`VIII. Predictability in the Art ...............................................................................31
`
`
`
`i
`
`Raytheon2019-0002
`
`

`
`
`
`IX. The ’678 Patent ...........................................................................................34
`
`X.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’678 Patent ........................................................34
`
`XI. The ’678 Patent Requires Etching to Remove a Portion of its
`Substrate, and Does Not Disclose CMP for This Purpose ...........................35
`
`XII. CMP is Not Etching, Does Not Include Etching and Therefore, CMP
`is Not “Similar” to Etching .........................................................................38
`A.
`CMP and Etching Have Different Selectivity ....................................40
`B.
`CMP and Etching Result in Different Roughness of Substrates ........43
`C.
`CMP and Etching Result in Different Degrees of
`Contamination ..................................................................................45
`CMP and Etching Speeds Are Different ............................................46
`CMP and Etching Involve Different Uniformity of Removal
`Across the Wafer ..............................................................................48
`
`D.
`E.
`
`XIII. Prior Art Analysis .......................................................................................49
`A.
`Bertin Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 11
`(Ground 1) ........................................................................................50
`
`B.
`
`1. Bertin is Not Prior Art ...............................................................50
`The Combination of Bertin and Morimoto Would Not Render
`Claims 5 and 12-13 Obvious (Ground 2) ..........................................51
`
`1. Bertin is Not Prior Art ...............................................................51
`
`2. Morimoto Does Not Disclose Etching .......................................51
`
`3. Morimoto Does Not Disclose an Etch-Stop Layer .....................53
`
`C.
`
`4. Claim-by-Claim Analysis (Claims 5, 12 and 13)........................59
`The Combination of Morimoto With Any of the So-Called
`“CMP / Etching References” Would Not Render Claims 1-2, 4-
`5, 10, 13-14, and 16-17 Obvious (Ground 4) .....................................61
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Raytheon2019-0003
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Several of the So-Called “CMP / Etching References” are
`Not Prior Art .............................................................................61
`
`2. The “CMP / Etching References” Would Not be Combined
`With Morimoto .........................................................................62
`
`3. Claim Analysis ..........................................................................78
`D. Morimoto With Any of the “CMP / Etching References” in
`Combination With Oldham Would Not Render Claims 8 and 18
`Obvious (Ground 5) ..........................................................................81
`E. Morimoto With Any of the “CMP / Etching References” in
`Combination With Bertin Would Not Render Claims 3 and 15
`Obvious (Ground 6) ..........................................................................83
`
`1. Bertin is Not Prior Art ...............................................................83
`
`XIV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................83
`
`
`Appendix 1 – Curriculum Vitae
`
`Appendix 2 – List of Documents Considered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Raytheon2019-0004
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally, and I have firsthand
`
`knowledge of them.
`
`2.
`
`I make this Declaration in support of the Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 (“the ’678
`
`Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of the Patent
`
`Owner, Raytheon Company.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions on the materials I have reviewed in this case related to the ’678 Patent,
`
`including the references cited in Petitioner’s grounds of rejection set forth in
`
`Petition No. IPR2015-01201 for Inter Partes Review of the ’678 Patent
`
`(“Petition”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding the same subject
`
`matter at the time of the inventions disclosed in the ’678 Patent.
`
`II. Qualifications and Compensation
`5.
`I am over the age of eighteen and I am a citizen of the United States.
`
`6.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. My curriculum vitae, including my
`
`qualifications, a list of the publications that I have authored during my technical
`
`
`
`1
`
`Raytheon2019-0005
`
`

`
`
`
`career, and a list of the cases in which, during the previous four years, I have
`
`testified as an expert at trial or by deposition, is attached to this declaration as
`
`Appendix 1.
`
`7.
`
`I received a B.S.
`
`in Materials Science and Engineering from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1985, a M.S. in Materials Science and
`
`Engineering from Cornell University in 1987 and a Ph.D. in Materials Science and
`
`Engineering from Cornell University in 1989.
`
`8.
`
`From 1988 to 1994, I worked as a research scientist at AT&T Bell
`
`Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., in the Materials Science and Engineering
`
`Department. While at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I conducted fundamental research
`
`in semiconductor materials and devices.
`
`9.
`
`From 1994 to 2000, I was an Associate Professor at MIT. From 2000 to the
`
`present, I have been a Professor of Materials Science at MIT, in the Materials
`
`Science and Engineering Department. I am currently the Merton C. Flemings-
`
`Singapore-MIT-Alliance Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and
`
`currently the Lead Principal Investigator of MIT SMART LEES (Singapore-MIT
`
`Alliance for Research and Technology, MIT’s Research Center in Singapore, Low
`
`Energy Electronics Systems), where I manage the fifty-million-dollar research
`
`program.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Raytheon2019-0006
`
`

`
`
`
`10. My specialization is electronic materials, devices, and circuits, and I have
`
`operated as a researcher, scientist, and entrepreneur in this area since the mid-
`
`1980s. I researched and innovated in the areas related to the critical aspects of the
`
`claimed inventions in question, such as semiconductor manufacturing and
`
`processing techniques, including use of various etching methods as well as use of
`
`chemo-mechanical polishing (CMP). The vast majority of my own inventions
`
`involve such processing of materials and electronic devices, including the novel
`
`use of CMP (as only a portion of examples, United States Patent Nos. 6,171,936;
`
`6,291,321; and 7,081,410).
`
`11.
`
`I have received numerous honors and awards for my work. For example, I
`
`was a co-recipient of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”)
`
`2011 Andrew S. Grove Award for outstanding contributions to solid state devices
`
`and technology including “seminal contributions to the demonstration of Si/Ge
`
`lattice mismatch strain engineering for enhanced carrier transport properties in
`
`MOSFET devices,” the IEEE 2004 EDS George Smith Award for Best Paper for a
`
`paper I co-authored entitled “Fully Depleted Strained-SOI n- and p- MOSFETs on
`
`Bonded SGOI Substrates and Study of the SiGe/BOX Interface,” and the TMS
`
`1994 Robert Lansing Hardy Medal Award for exceptional promise of a successful
`
`career in the field of metallurgy and materials science.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Raytheon2019-0007
`
`

`
`
`
`12.
`
`I am the founder, co-founder or a founding team member of the following
`
`companies and organizations: AmberWave Systems Corporation (a company
`
`focused on strained silicon semiconductor technology); Contour Semiconductor (a
`
`company focused on a unique semiconductor fabrication process for non-volatile
`
`memory); 4Power LLC (manufacturer of high efficiency, low cost solar cells using
`
`III-V thin films on silicon substrates); Paradigm Research LLC (commercializing
`
`true monolithic III-V/Si CMOS integrated circuits); The Innovation Interface (a
`
`not-for-profit organization that trains future innovators through university-
`
`corporate innovation projects); and The Water Initiative (creating customized
`
`point-of-drinking water solutions and scaling those solutions through micro-
`
`entrepreneurs, developers and government entities).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored more than 200 scientific publications. I am
`
`named as an inventor or co-inventor on over 90 issued patents. Most of these
`
`publications and patents relate to the growth of semiconductor materials. I have
`
`supervised at least 30 doctoral candidates submitting thesis papers relating to
`
`semiconductor materials and device processing.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`work in connection with this matter. The compensation is not dependent in any
`
`
`
`4
`
`Raytheon2019-0008
`
`

`
`
`
`way on the contents of this Declaration, the substance of any further opinions or
`
`testimony that I may provide, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`15.
`I have carefully reviewed the ’678 Patent and its file history. I have also
`
`reviewed the references cited in the Petition (Paper No. 2) and the supporting
`
`declaration of Dr. Blanchard (Ex. 1002). I have also reviewed the parties’ claim
`
`construction positions from the related district court proceedings in Raytheon v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. Nos. 90,
`
`and 116-1) (Ex. 2042) and the Declaration of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman submitted by
`
`Patent Owner as part of that briefing (Dkt. No. 100-2) (attached to Ex. 2037).
`
`16. For convenience, all of the sources that I considered in preparing this
`
`declaration are listed in Appendix 2.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`17.
`I have been informed that my analysis of the interpretation of the claims of
`
`the ’678 Patent must be undertaken from the perspective of a person possessing
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’678 Patent. I have reviewed Dr. Buckman’s
`
`declaration submitted as part of the district court claim construction briefing, as
`
`noted above, and Dr. Buckman opines therein that a person of hypothetical
`
`ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the ’678 Patent would have been
`
`
`
`5
`
`Raytheon2019-0009
`
`

`
`
`
`an individual with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, materials science,
`
`or the like, with advanced classwork or industry experience in fabrication of
`
`microelectronic devices. (Ex. 2037 at ¶14.) I agree with this opinion and hereby
`
`adopt it herein. I possess these qualifications, and I have considered the issues
`
`herein from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed Dr. Blanchard’s proposal as to the level of ordinary
`
`skill, which does not materially differ from Dr. Buckman’s opinion noted above.
`
`(See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 49.) Thus, my opinions and assertions contained herein would
`
`not differ if the Board adopted Dr. Blanchard’s proposal or Dr. Buckman’s.
`
`However, I disagree with Dr. Blanchard’s statement that a PHOSITA “would have
`
`considered CMP and etching to be similar techniques.” (Id. at ¶ 52.) This
`
`statement is incorrect for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`V. My Understanding of Patent Law
`19.
`I am not an attorney but I have had the concept of patentability explained to
`
`me. I understand that a patent claim can be unpatentable under the United States
`
`patent laws for various reasons, including, for example, anticipation or obviousness
`
`in light of the prior art. In arriving at my opinions, I have applied the following
`
`legal standards and analyses regarding patentability.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Raytheon2019-0010
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Burden of Proof
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden to prove a proposition of
`
`20.
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I also understand that this is a
`
`lower standard than the clear and convincing evidence standard that is required to
`
`prove unpatentability in patent litigation before a district court.
`
`B. Anticipation
`I understand that a claim is anticipated by a prior art reference if the prior art
`
`21.
`
`reference discloses every element in the claim. Such a disclosure can be express (it
`
`says or shows it), or it can be inherent (the element must necessarily be there even
`
`if the prior art does not say it or show it). If the claim is anticipated, the claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the first step in an anticipation analysis is to construe the
`
`claim, and the second step is to compare the construed claim to the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable for obviousness even if
`
`it is not anticipated by the prior art. I understand that a patent claim is obvious if
`
`the differences between the claimed intervention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to
`
`
`
`7
`
`Raytheon2019-0011
`
`

`
`
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. If the claim is
`
`obvious, the claim is unpatentable.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that before an obviousness determination is made, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art must be considered, and the scope and content of the prior
`
`art must be considered, as well. I understand that to determine the scope and
`
`content of prior art, one must determine what prior art is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem the inventor faced. I understand that prior art is reasonably
`
`pertinent if it is in the same field as the claimed invention, or is from another field
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to in trying to solve the
`
`problem.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim maybe be obvious if the prior art would have
`
`suggested, motivated, or provided a reason to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine certain prior art references to arrive at the elements of the claim. I also
`
`understand that one can look at interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art—all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`
`known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. I further understand
`
`that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Raytheon2019-0012
`
`

`
`
`
`This person of ordinary creativity works in the contexts of a community of
`
`inventors and of the marketplace. The obviousness inquiry needs to reflect these
`
`realities within which inventions and patents function. In order to arrive at a
`
`conclusion that an invention is obvious, it can be helpful to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`26. For the purposes of my opinions related to the issue of patentability of the
`
`’678 Patent, I have been informed that, because the ’678 Patent is now expired and
`
`its claims cannot be amended in this proceeding, the claims of the ’678 Patent are
`
`to be interpreted using the same claim construction standards as are applied in a
`
`district court proceeding, which I understand are generally their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention. Below I summarize the claim constructions relevant to my
`
`analysis herein.
`
`1.
`
`“Etching”
`
`27.
`
`I note that in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart, Petitioner agreed
`
`with the Patent Owner that the definition of “etching” is “removing material with
`
`
`
`9
`
`Raytheon2019-0013
`
`

`
`
`
`an etchant.” (Ex. 2042 at p. 31.) I agree with this construction and will adopt and
`
`apply it herein.
`
`28. Dr. Blanchard concludes that the term “etching” should be construed to
`
`mean “the dissolving of material by a chemical process.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 61.) Dr.
`
`Blanchard’s definition is at least partially consistent with the parties’ agreed-upon
`
`definition, insofar as “removing material with an etchant” (the agreed-upon
`
`construction) necessarily implicates using a chemical (e.g. a liquid in wet-etching
`
`or a plasma in dry etching) to dissolve and remove material. I also note that Patent
`
`Owner submitted a proposed definition for etching in its preliminary statement:
`
`“chemically removing a portion of a substrate.” Thus, though I adopt the parties’
`
`agreed-upon construction, my analysis herein would not differ if the Board adopted
`
`either Dr. Blanchard’s or the Patent Owner’s earlier construction of “etching.”
`
`2.
`
`“Etchable Layer” and “Etch-Stop Layer”
`
`29.
`
`In the district court proceedings, Patent Owner proposes a construction of
`
`“etchable layer” as “a portion of the first substrate that is readily etched, relative to
`
`the etch stop layer.” (Ex. 2042 at p. 31.) Patent Owner proposes a construction of
`
`“etch-stop layer” as “a portion of the first substrate that is etched less readily,
`
`relative to the etchable layer.” (Id.) I have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`
`
`10
`
`Raytheon2019-0014
`
`

`
`
`
`support of these constructions and I agree with these constructions and the
`
`arguments made in support thereof. Thus, I adopt these constructions herein.
`
`30. Dr. Blanchard asserts that the terms “etchable layer” and “etch-stop layer”
`
`“stand in relation to a particular etchant” and that an “etch-stop layer must be more
`
`resistant to an etchant than a corresponding etchable layer.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 61.)
`
`Thus, Dr. Blanchard concludes that “[i]n other words, an ‘etchable layer’ is
`
`dissolved rapidly by an etchant, while an ‘etch[-]stop layer’ is dissolved slowly (or
`
`not at all by the same etchant).” (Id.) Dr. Blanchard’s definitions appear to be
`
`consistent with the Patent Owner’s constructions. Thus, though I adopt the Patent
`
`Owner’s constructions, my analysis herein would not differ if the Board adopted
`
`Dr. Blanchard’s constructions of “etchable layer” and/or “etch-stop layer.”
`
`3.
`“Etching Away the Etchable Layer of the First Substrate Down
`to the Etch-Stop Layer”
`
`31.
`
`In the district court proceedings, Patent Owner proposes a construction of
`
`“etching away the etchable layer of the first substrate down to the etch-stop layer”
`
`as “etching the etchable layer to at least the etch-stop layer.” (Ex. 2042 at p. 31.) I
`
`have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments in support of this construction and I
`
`agree with this construction and the arguments made in support thereof. Thus, I
`
`adopt this construction herein. Neither Dr. Blanchard nor Petitioner proposes a
`
`construction of this claim phrase.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Raytheon2019-0015
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. Relevant Time Frame
`32.
`I understand that anticipation and obviousness must be evaluated at the time
`
`the invention was made. I understand that the declarations of the inventors of the
`
`’678 Patent are being submitted. (Exs. 2015, 2016 and 2017.) I further understand
`
`that they have declared that Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13-18 were conceived and
`
`reduced to practice by August 9, 1990 (Exs. 2015, ¶¶ 5-9, 23-26; 2016, ¶¶ 4, 12-13,
`
`16-17, 21-22) and that Claims 6-7 and 11-12 were conceived and reduced to
`
`practice by June 1991 (Exs. 2016, ¶¶ 5-7, 19-21, 25-32; 2017, ¶¶ 4-6, 14-22.). I
`
`will assume for the purpose of this declaration that August, 1990 was the date the
`
`inventions in Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13-18 were made, and that June 1991 was the
`
`date the inventions in Claims 6-7 and 11-12 were made, with the understanding
`
`that my testimony will also be applicable to some time prior to those dates,
`
`approximately the early 1990s. I may refer to this time period as the “relevant time
`
`frame,” and my testimony concerning obviousness is directed to this time frame,
`
`even if I occasionally do not explicitly use a past tense.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that the front page of the ’678 Patent (left column, field
`
`“[63] Continuation of Ser. No. 6,120”) indicates the first application related to the
`
`’678 Patent was filed on January 19, 1993. (Ex. 1001.) For purposes of my
`
`declaration and analysis, whether the Board decides to accept the August 1990 and
`
`
`
`12
`
`Raytheon2019-0016
`
`

`
`
`
`June 1991 invention dates or the January 19, 1993 filing date of the earlier-filed
`
`application is inconsequential. The analysis presented herein also applies if the
`
`Board decides that the ’678 Patent has a later date of invention and therefore the
`
`relevant time frame is in 1993 rather than in 1990.
`
`VII. Technical Background
`A.
`Integrated Circuit Manufacturing
`1. Moore’s Law
`
`34. To understand the invention of the ’678 Patent, it is important to consider
`
`the status of the miniaturization of integrated circuits at the time of the invention in
`
`the early 1990s. The progress in miniaturization is central to the context of the
`
`invention since the ’678 Patent describes a method for closely integrating silicon
`
`integrated circuits into a more complex and compact integrated system, i.e.
`
`miniaturization of integrated electronic systems.
`
`35.
`
`In the 1950s when transistors (also called “solid state amplifiers”, an
`
`evolutionary
`
`jump from existing vacuum
`
`tube
`
`technology) first became
`
`commercially practical, designers of electronic products composed of such
`
`
`
`13
`
`Raytheon2019-0017
`
`

`
`
`
`components realized the “tyranny of numbers” would limit that miniaturization.1
`
`The phrase refers to the fact that the components would need many electrical
`
`connections to other components and, as the components got smaller, such
`
`interconnection in the desired systems could not be practically accomplished by
`
`hand. The ability to place many transistors next to each other simultaneously in
`
`the same piece of semiconducting silicon allowed for these transistors to be
`
`connected to each other in one step by depositing metal films across the piece of
`
`semiconductor and etching the film such that metal line traces connected
`
`transistors to each other in desired patterns. This processing was known as “planar
`
`processing” 2 and it formed modern “integrated circuits.” Over time, layers of
`
`metal line traces separated by dielectric insulation were applied, building a planar
`
`network of metal lines interconnecting the various transistors to each other. Many
`
`processes across silicon wafers were developed to manufacture many such
`
`integrated circuits in a silicon wafer, and in batches of silicon wafers in
`
`
`1 “The Technological Impact of Transistors”, J.A. Morton and W.J. Pietenpol,
`
`Proceedings of Institute the of Radio Engineers (1958) 955. (Ex. 2020.)
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 2,981,877. (Ex. 2021.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Raytheon2019-0018
`
`

`
`
`
`production.3 Thus, planar processing produces transistors in a plane, that is, the
`
`plane of the starting silicon wafer blank.
`
`36. These methods of producing integrated circuits resulted in an economic
`
`feedback loop, in which investment in equipment and processes to produce
`
`evermore increased transistor densities, and therefore, integrated circuit density,
`
`resulted in an exponential rise in manufactured transistor density. In other words,
`
`more and more transistors were being rapidly squeezed into smaller areas in the
`
`plane of the wafer. This two-dimensional (2-D) techno-economic law, in which
`
`transistor density in integrated circuits exponentially increases with time in the
`
`silicon wafer-plane, is referred to as Moore’s Law, named after an Intel founder
`
`that recognized the trend in 19654 and updated it in 1975.5 Since Moore’s Law is
`
`exponential, it dominated the design of integrated systems from the 1960s and into
`
`
`3 “VLSI Technology,” S.M. Sze, McGraw-Hill, New York (1983). (Ex. 2022.)
`
`4 “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”, G.E. Moore, Electronics
`
`38 (1965). (Ex. 2023.)
`
`5 “Progress in Digital Integrated Electronics”, G.E. Moore, International Electron
`
`Devices Meeting, IEEE, 1975, pp. 11-13. (Ex. 2024.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`Raytheon2019-0019
`
`

`
`
`
`the new millennium. Thus, at the time of the invention, the central driving force
`
`for miniaturization was this 2-D integration. Integrating pieces of silicon in three
`
`dimensions, for the majority of those creating integrated systems, was unnecessary
`
`at the time of invention, since at that time Moore’s Law reliably allowed a much
`
`higher degree of integration in-plane at very low cost, year after year.
`
`2.
`
`Advanced Packaging
`
`37. Moore’s Law resulted in a standardized packaging industry in which the
`
`integrated circuit could be mounted, and connections from the integrated circuit to
`
`the pins of the package could be accomplished inexpensively. The package
`
`requirements are minimized by the progress of Moore’s Law: increased transistor
`
`density also decreased power use per function, resulting in thermal requirements
`
`that could be managed with evolutionary package development.
`
`38. The ’678 Patent describes methods of three-dimensional (3-D) integration,
`
`in which integrated circuits processed from methods used in microelectronic
`
`processing3 can be stacked in the dimension perpendicular to the 2-D plane of
`
`Moore’s Law microelectronic fabrication.6 At the time of invention, these methods
`
`
`6 “3-D Integration for VLSI Systems”, C.S. Tan, K.N. Chen, S.J. Koester, Pan
`
`Stanford Publishing (2012). (Ex. 2025.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`Raytheon2019-0020
`
`

`
`
`
`were ahead of their time and forward-looking since chip design and Moore’s Law
`
`were making such rapid progress that conventional low-cost silicon packaging (in
`
`2-D) was sufficient. 3-D would become most significant when Moore’s Law no
`
`longer delivered progress in 2-D that scaled with the goals of integrated systems.
`
`Indeed, 3-D has gained importance as Moore’s Law has slowed and now does not
`
`deliver the required increases demanded by integrated systems, and hence the
`
`importance of the ’678 Patent has increased as manufacturers have increasingly
`
`applied such methods of 3-D integration.
`
`39. The defense industries were leaders in much of the advanced packaging
`
`industry and 3-D integration due to their need to miniaturize ahead of the
`
`commercial capability, but their defense customers could support the costs. The
`
`’678 Patent was born from such early investigations into increasing component and
`
`circuit density. As Moore’s Law has slowed today, advanced 3-D packaging is
`
`deployed more commonly underscoring the significance and early timing of
`
`the’678 Patent.
`
`40. The groundbreaking methods disclosed in the ’678 Patent were driven by
`
`possible new configurations of semiconductors that would transform the field of
`
`image processing, important in early defense applications. Specifically, exposing
`
`the backside of a chip (through the transfer, flip and etch methods described in the
`
`
`
`17
`
`Raytheon2019-0021
`
`

`
`
`
`’678 Patent) would allow electronics to be placed behind an image sensor. This
`
`would allow for higher pixel density (i.e., higher megapixel rating) in a smaller
`
`footprint. Such a configuration also allows better low-light performance (because
`
`the light photons don’t have to navigate through a mesh of wires in a back-
`
`illuminated sensor (BSI) arrangement) and less image signal noise (again, because
`
`the electronics are behind the image sensor). Such advanced cameras were a very
`
`early example of what we call “3-D” integration today.
`
`3. Microelectronic Processes
`
`41. Many processes were developed to allow modern microelectronics to
`
`become a reality.7 General materials deposition and material removal processes
`
`are the key to microelectronic fabrication. By combining with photolithography,
`
`patterns can be created in multiple layers that form the microelectronic circuit.
`
`Layers of a material are deposited across a silicon wafer, and
`
`then
`
`photolithography is used to pattern that material with a mask, followed by methods
`
`to remove areas of the deposited material. This process sequence is repeated
`
`7 “Silicon VLSI Technology”, J.D. Plummer, M.D. Deal, P.B. Griffin, Prentice-
`
`Hall, NJ (2000); “Silicon Processing”, D.C. Gupta, ASTM Special Technical
`
`Publication 804, Philadelphia (1983). (Ex. 2026.)
`
`
`
`18
`
`Raytheon2019-0022
`
`

`
`
`
`multiple times to create transistors and their interconnections in the plane of the
`
`silicon wafer.
`
` The deposition and removal processes developed
`
`in
`
`the
`
`microelectronic industry includes:
`
` Material Deposition, Modification or Creation
` Evaporation
` Sputtering
` Epitaxy
` Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD)
` Oxidation
` Ion Implantation
` Material Removal
` Ion Milling/Sputter
` Dry Etching (Reactive Ion Etching)
` Wet Etching
` Grinding
` Polishing (Lapping)
` Chemo-Mechanical Polishing (CMP)
`
`42. These processes are used in creating the initial silicon wafers, the formation
`
`of the transistors in the silicon wafer (referred to as the “front-end” of processing),
`
`as well as in the interconnection of the transistors to each other (referred to as the
`
`“back-end” of processing). Material removal processes are key in all stages of
`
`processing.
`
`4. Material Removal Processes
`
`43. Silicon processing can involve many different types of material removal
`
`processes. Each process has different performance goals, that is, some processes
`
`specialize in quickly removing material, other processes selectively remove a
`19
`
`
`
`Raytheon2019-0023
`
`

`
`
`
`desired material while preserving other materials, reduce the roughness of final
`
`surface, and/or may be useful for cleaning a material’s surface. For example, dry
`
`etching (reactive ion etching) was developed for some processing steps due to
`
`higher reproducibility across the wafer (resulting in higher yield), whereas wet
`
`etching remains

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket