throbber
1975 IEEE Text Speech
`
`Gordon E. Moore, Co-founder
`Intel Corporation
`
`Progress In Digital
`Integrated Electronics
`
`Complexity of integrated circuits has approxi-
`mately doubled every year since their introduc-
`tion. Cost per function has decreased several
`thousand-fold, while system performance
`and reliability have been improved dramatically.
`Many aspects of processing and design
`technology have contributed to make the
`manufacture of such functions as complex
`single chip microprocessors or memory cir-
`cuits economically feasible. It is possible to
`analyze the increase in complexity plotted in
`Figure 1 into different factors that can, in turn,
`be examined to see what contributions have
`been important in this development and how
`they might be expected to continue to evolve.
`The expected trends can be recombined to
`see how long exponential growth in complexity
`can be expected to continue.
`
`Figure 1 Approximate component count for complex
`integrated circuits vs. year of Introduction.
`
`A first factor is the area of the integrated
`structures. Chip areas for some of the
`largest of the circuits used in constructing
`Figure 1 are plotted in Figure 2. Here again,
`the trend follows an exponential quite well,
`but with significantly lower slope than the
`complexity curve. Chip area tor maximum
`complexity has increased by a factor of ap-
`proximately 20 from the first planar transistor
`in 1959 to the 16,384-bit charge-coupled
`device memory chip that corresponds to the
`point plotted for 1975, while complexity,
`according to the annual doubling law, should
`have increased about 65,000-fold. Clearly
`much of the increased complexity had to
`result from higher density of components on
`the chip, rather than from the increased area
`available through the use of larger chips.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 Increase in die area for most complex integrated
`devices commercially available.
`
`Density was increased partially by using finer
`scale microstructures. The first integrated
`circuits of 1961 used line widths of 1 mil (~25
`micrometers) while the 1975 device uses 5
`micrometer lines. Both line width and spacing
`between lines are equally important in improving
`density. Since they have not always been equal,
`
`G. E. Moore, “Progress in Digital Integrated Electronics.” © 1975 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Technical
`Digest 1975. International Electron Devices Meeting, IEEE, 1975, pp. 11-13.
`
`Raytheon2024-0001
`
`Sony Corp. v. Raytheon Co.
`IPR2015-01201
`
`

`
`Figure 3 Device density contribution from the decrease in line widths
`and spacings.
`
` Figure 4 Decomposition of the complexity curve into various components.
`
`the average of the two is a good parameter to relate to the
`area that a structure might occupy. Density can be expected to
`be proportional to the reciprocal of area, so the contribution
`to improve density vs. time from the use of smaller dimensions
`is plotted in Figure 3.
`
`Neglecting the first planar transistor, where very conserva-
`tive line width and spacing was employed, there is again a
`reasonable fit to an exponential growth. From the exponential
`approximation represented by the straight line in Figure 3,
`the increase in density from this source over the 1959-1975
`period is a factor of approximately 32.
`
`Combining the contribution of larger chip area and higher
`density resulting from geometry accounts for a 640-fold
`increase in complexity, leaving a factor of about 100 to
`account for through 1975, as is shown graphically in Figure 4.
`This factor is the contribution of circuit and device advances
`to higher density. It is noteworthy that this contribution to
`complexity has been more important than either increased
`chip area or finer lines. Increasingly the surface areas of the
`integrated devices have been committed to components
`rather than to such inactive structures as device isolation
`and interconnections, and the components themselves
`have trended toward minimum size, consistent with the
`dimensional tolerances employed.
`
`Can these trends continue?
`
`Extrapolating the curve for die size to 1980 suggests that
`chip area might be about 90,000 sq. mils, or the equivalent
`of 0.3 inches square. Such a die size is clearly consistent with
`the 3 inch wafer presently widely used by the industry. In fact,
`the size of the wafers themselves have grown about as fast as
`has die size during the time period under consideration and
`can be expected to continue to grow. Extension to larger die
`size depends principally upon the continued reduction in the
`density of defects. Since the existence of the type of defects
`that harm integrated circuits is not fundamental, their density
`can be reduced as long as such reduction has sufficient
`economic merit to justify the effort. I see sufficient continued
`merit to expect progress to continue for the next several
`years. Accordingly, there is no present reason to expect a
`change in the trend shown in Figure 2.
`
`With respect to dimensions, in these complex devices we
`are still far from the minimum device sizes limited by such
`fundamental considerations as the charge on the electron
`or the atomic structure of matter. Discrete devices with
`sub-micrometer dimensions show that no basic problems
`should be expected at least until the average line width and
`
`
`
`2
`
`Raytheon2024-0002
`
`

`
`slope in the next few years as shown in Figure 5. The new
`slope might approximate a doubling every two years, rather
`than every year, by the end of the decade.
`
`Even at this reduced slope, integrated structures containing
`several million components can be expected within ten
`years. These new devices will continue to reduce the cost of
`electronic functions and extend the utility of digital electronics
`more broadly throughout society.
`
`
`Figure 5 Projection of the complexity curve reflecting the limit on
`increased density through invention.
`
`spaces are a micrometer or less. This allows for an additional
`factor of improvement at least equal to the contribution
`from the finer geometries of the last fifteen years. Work in
`non-optical masking techniques, both electron beam and
`X-ray, suggests that the required resolution capabilities will
`be available. Much work is required to be sure that defect
`densities continue to improve as devices are scaled to take
`advantage of the improved resolution. However, I see no
`reason to expect the rate of progress in the use of smaller
`minimum dimensions in complex circuits to decrease in
`the near future. This contribution should continue along
`the curve of Figure 3.
`
`
`With respect to the factor contributed by device and circuit
`cleverness, however, the situation is different. Here we are
`approaching a limit that must slow the rate of progress. The
`CCD structure can approach closely the maximum density
`practical. This structure requires no contacts to the compo-
`nents within the array, but uses gate electrodes that can be
`at minimum spacing to transfer charge and information
`from one location to the next. Some improvement in overall
`packing efficiency is possible beyond the structure plotted as
`the 1975 point in Figure 1, but it is unlikely that the packing
`efficiency alone can contribute as much as a factor of four,
`and this only in serial data paths. Accordingly, I am Inclined
`to suggest a limit to the contribution of circuit and device
`cleverness of another factor of four in component density.
`
`With this factor disappearing as an important contributor,
`the rate of increase of complexity can be expected to change
`
`0305/TSM/LAI/XX/PDF 306956-001US
`
`3
`
`Raytheon2024-0003

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