throbber
Paper No. ________
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Sony Corporation
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 5,591,678
`Issue Date: January 7, 1997
`
`Title: Process of Manufacturing a Microelectric Device using a Removable
`Support Substrate and Etch-Stop
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RICHARD A. BLANCHARD
`
`i
`
`SONY 1002
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`I.
`
`Engagement and compensation.......................................................................... 1
`Engagement and compensation ........................................................................ ..1
`
`II. Summary of opinions ......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`Summary of opinions ....................................................................................... ..1
`
`III. Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 2
`III. Qualifications ................................................................................................... ..2
`
`IV. My understanding of the relevant law ............................................................... 5
`IV. My understanding of the relevant law ............................................................. ..5
`
`A. Claim construction ......................................................................................... 5
`A. Claim construction ....................................................................................... ..5
`
`B. Anticipation .................................................................................................... 6
`B. Anticipation .................................................................................................. ..6
`
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 6
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................. ..6
`
`V. Technical introduction .....................................................................................10
`V. Technical introduction ................................................................................... .. 10
`
`A. Background ..................................................................................................10
`A. Background ................................................................................................ .. 10
`
`B.
`B.
`
`’678 Patent Disclosure .................................................................................11
`’678 Patent Disclosure ............................................................................... ..11
`
`VI. Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................................20
`VI. Level of ordinary skill in the art .................................................................... ..20
`
`VII. Predictability of the art .....................................................................................22
`VII. Predictability of the art................................................................................... ..22
`
`VIII. Relevant time frame for determining obviousness ..........................................22
`VIII.Relevant time frame for determining obviousness ........................................ ..22
`
`IX. Overview of the claims ....................................................................................23
`IX. Overview of the claims .................................................................................. ..23
`
`X. Construction of the claims ...............................................................................23
`X. Construction of the claims ............................................................................. ..23
`
`A. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13 and 15 —"Microelectronic circuit element" .........23
`A. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13 and 15 —"Microelectronic circuit element" ....... ..23
`
`B. Claims 1, 11 and 13—“Etching” and “etch-stop layer” ..............................24
`B. Claims 1, 11 and 13—“Etching” and “etch-stop layer” ............................ ..24
`
`C. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-13, 15-18 —“Wafer”.......................................................25
`C. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-13, 15-18 —“Wafer” ..................................................... ..25
`
`XI. Claims 1, 6-7 and 10-11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bertin. ...............25
`XI. Claims 1, 6-7 and 10-11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bertin. ............. ..25
`
`A. Summary of opinions relating to Bertin ......................................................25
`A.
`Summary of opinions relating to Bertin .................................................... ..25
`
`B. Bertin is prior art ..........................................................................................25
`B. Bertin is prior art ........................................................................................ ..25
`
`C. Summary of Bertin .......................................................................................25
`C.
`Summary of Bertin ..................................................................................... ..25
`
`D. Comparison of Bertin’s original patent application to the issued patent .....34
`D. Comparison of Bertin’s original patent application to the issued patent.....34
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of claims 1, 6-7 and 10-11 in combination
`E. Element-by-element analysis of claims 1, 6-7 and 10-11 in combination
`with Bertin ............................................................................................................34
`with Bertin .......................................................................................................... ..34
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................35
`
`2. Claim 6 .....................................................................................................41
`
`3. Claim 7 .....................................................................................................43
`
`4. Claim 10 ...................................................................................................45
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 11 ..............................................................................46
`
`XII. Claims 5 and 12-13 are obvious as in Ground 1 in combination with
`Morimoto..................................................................................................................48
`
`A. Morimoto is prior art ....................................................................................48
`
`B. Summary of Morimoto ................................................................................48
`
`C. Element-by-element analysis of claims 5 and 12-13 over Bertin in
`combination with Morimoto ................................................................................56
`
`1. Dependent claims 5 and 12 ......................................................................56
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 13 ...............................................................................59
`
`XIII. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-14, and 16-17 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Morimoto in combination with any of the CMP / Etching references ....................62
`
`A. Summary of opinions relating to Morimoto and the CMP / Etching
`references .............................................................................................................62
`
`B. The CMP / Etching references are prior art .................................................62
`
`C. Summary of each of the CMP / Etching references ....................................63
`
`1. Hamaguchi et al. “Novel SOI Technology Using Preferential Polishing”,
`NEC Research Notes 1480 (70), 1987. (Ex. 1004). .......................................63
`
`2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,244,534 (“Yu”). (Ex. 1007). ..........................................64
`
`3. U.S. Pat. No. 4,910,155 (“Cote”). (Ex. 1008). .......................................65
`
`4. U.S. Pat. No. 5,064,683 (“Poon”). (Ex. 1009). .......................................65
`
`5. U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,002 (“Sandhu”). (Ex. 1010). ...................................66
`
`6. U.S. Pat. No. 5,189,500 (“Kusunoki”). (Ex. 1011). ...............................67
`
`7. U.S. Pat. No. 5,066,993 (“Miura”). (Ex. 1012). .....................................70
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references. ............................................................................................................71
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-14, and 16-17 in
`combination with Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching references ..............72
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................72
`
`2. Claim 2 .....................................................................................................96
`
`3. Claim 4 .....................................................................................................99
`
`4. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................100
`
`5. Claim 10 .................................................................................................102
`
`6.
`
`Independent claim 13 .............................................................................104
`
`7. Claim 14 .................................................................................................106
`
`8. Claim 16 .................................................................................................106
`
`9. Claim 17 .................................................................................................106
`
`XIV. Claims 8 and 18 are invalid as obvious over Morimoto and any of the CMP
`/ Etching references in combination with Oldham. ...............................................113
`
`A. Summary of opinions relating to Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references in combination with Oldham. ...........................................................113
`
`B. Oldham is prior art .....................................................................................113
`
`C. Summary of Oldham ..................................................................................113
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references and Oldham .......................................................................................114
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references in combination with Oldham ............................................................115
`
`XV. Claims 3 and 15 are invalid as obvious over as Morimoto and any of the CMP
`/ Etching references in combination with Bertin ...................................................117
`
`A. Summary of opinions relating to Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references in combination with Bertin ...............................................................117
`
`B. There was motivation to combine Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references with Bertin ........................................................................................118
`
`C. Element-by-element analysis of Morimoto and any of the CMP / Etching
`references in combination with Bertin. ..............................................................119
`
`XVI. Claim 9 is invalid as obvious over Bertin in combination with Ying .......121
`
`A. Summary of opinions relating to Bertin in combination with Ying ..........121
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`B. Ying is prior art ..........................................................................................121
`Ying is prior art ........................................................................................ ..121
`
`C. Summary of Ying .......................................................................................121
`Summary of Ying ..................................................................................... ..121
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Bertin with Ying .................................121
`There was motivation to combine Bertin with Ying ............................... .. 121
`
`FHUOPU
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of Bertin with Ying ....................................122
`E1ement—by—e1ement analysis of Bertin with Ying .................................. .. 122
`
`XVII.
`XVII.
`
`Oath ........................................................................................................126
`Oath ...................................................................................................... .. 126
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`1.
`
`I, Richard A. Blanchard hereby declare as follows:
`
`I. Engagement and compensation
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Sony Corporation to serve as an expert in the
`
`inter partes review proceeding described above. I have been asked to provide my
`
`technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the references that form
`
`the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in The Petition for Inter Partes
`
`review of US 5,591,678 (the ’678 Patent). For this service, my billing rate is an
`
`hourly consulting fee of $375/hour, and I am reimbursed for actual expenses. My
`
`compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. Summary of opinions
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1, 6-7 and 10-11 are of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,591,678 (“the ’678 patent”) are unpatentable as anticipated by Bertin (Ex. 1017).
`
`4.
`
`It is further my opinion that claims 5 and 12-13 are obvious based on
`
`Bertin in combination with Morimoto (Ex. 1005, translation at Ex. 1006).
`
`5.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-14 and 16-17 obvious
`
`based on Morimoto in combination with any of the CMP / Etching references
`
`(1007-1012).
`
`6.
`
`It is further my opinion that claims 8 and 18 are invalid as obvious
`
`based on Morimoto in combination with any of the CMP / Etching references in
`
`combination with Oldham.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`7.
`
`It is further my opinion that claims 3 and 15 are invalid as obvious
`
`based on Morimoto in combination with any of the CMP / Etching references in
`
`combination with Bertin.
`
`8.
`
`It is further my opinion that claim 9 is invalid as obvious based on
`
`Morimoto in combination with any of the CMP / Etching references in
`
`combination with Ying.
`
`III. Qualifications
`
`9.
`
`I am a consultant for InSciTech, Inc., a company specializing in
`
`accident investigation and expert witness litigation support. I also provide
`
`technical consulting services to the semiconductor and electronics industry through
`
`Blanchard Associates.
`
`10. My academic credentials include both a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering (BSEE) in 1968 and a Master of Science Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering (MSEE) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
`
`1970. I subsequently obtained a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
`
`University in 1982.
`
`11. My professional background and technical qualifications are stated
`
`above and are also reflected in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix
`
`1. These qualifications are summarized below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`12.
`
`I have worked or consulted for more than 40 years as an
`
`Electrical Engineer. My primary focus has been the development, manufacture,
`
`operation and use of discrete devices and integrated circuits, the assembly of these
`
`discrete devices and integrated circuits, products that use them, and their failures.
`
`My employment history following my graduation from MIT began at Fairchild
`
`Semiconductor in 1970. At Fairchild, my responsibilities included circuit and
`
`device design, process development and product engineering in the Linear
`
`Integrated Circuits Department.
`
`13.
`
`In 1974, I joined Foothill College as an Associate Professor in the
`
`Engineering & Technology Division. My responsibilities included developing a
`
`program in Semiconductor Technology as well as teaching other courses in the
`
`division. While at Foothill College, I co-founded two companies, Cognition and
`
`Supertex. Cognition developed and manufactured semiconductor pressure sensors
`
`using a wafer bonding technique, while Supertex designed and manufactured
`
`discrete semiconductor devices and integrated circuits. In 1978, I joined Supertex
`
`as Vice President, where I developed discrete DMOS (double-diffused metal oxide
`
`semiconductor) transistors as well as integrated circuits that contained DMOS
`
`transistors. At Supertex, I also supervised the in-house assembly area, which
`
`included responsibility for the packaging of discrete DMOS transistors as well as
`
`integrated circuits that contained DMOS transistors.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`14.
`
`I left Supertex to join Siliconix in 1982, where I soon became Vice
`
`President of Engineering, with the responsibility for directing all of the company’s
`
`product design and development. At Siliconix, I directed and contributed to the
`
`development of both discrete transistors and integrated circuits, including aspects
`
`of their assembly.
`
`15.
`
`In 1987, I joined IXYS Corporation as a Senior Vice President with
`
`the responsibility for organizing an integrated circuits department. At IXYS, I
`
`developed integrated circuits that contained DMOS transistors or that interfaced to
`
`DMOS devices. My responsibilities included the design, the fabrication, the
`
`assembly, and the testing of these integrated circuits.
`
`16. These duties continued until 1991, when I left IXYS to set up
`
`Blanchard Associates, a consulting firm specializing in semiconductor technology,
`
`including intellectual property. Soon, thereafter, I was invited to join Failure
`
`Analysis Associates, which I did in late 1991. At Failure Analysis Associates, I
`
`investigated failures in electrical and electronic systems in addition to performing
`
`design and development consulting.
`
`17.
`
`I left Failure Analysis in 1998 to join IP Managers, which later
`
`merged with the Silicon Valley Expert Witness group, which is now known as
`
`Thomson Reuters Expert Witness Services (“Thomson Reuters”). At Thomson
`
`Reuters, I worked with companies on patent and trade secret matters. I also
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`consulted for a number of semiconductor companies, working with them to
`
`develop products and intellectual property, or assisting them in other technical
`
`areas through Blanchard Associates.
`
`18.
`
`In 2014, I became a Staff Consultant at InSciTech, Inc., where I
`
`continue to consult with clients on patent and trade secret matters. I also work
`
`with semiconductor and electronics companies on other technical matters.
`
`19. As shown in my resume (see Appendix 1), I am a named inventor on
`
`more than 200 issued or pending U.S. patents, have co-authored a number of
`
`articles, and have co-authored or contributed to a number of books.
`
`20.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional societies, including the
`
`institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the International Microelectronic
`
`Device Failure Analysis Society, and the Electrostatic Discharge Society.
`
`IV. My understanding of the relevant law
`
`A. Claim construction
`
`21.
`
`I understand that, when a patent is expired, a claim term in an inter
`
`partes review is to be interpreted in the following manner: First, the language of
`
`the claims themselves is of primary importance in the effort to determine precisely
`
`what it is that is patented. The terms used in a claim are generally given the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the alleged invention, unless the term is
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`expressly defined in the patent. The person of ordinary skill in the art reads the
`
`claim in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. Next to the
`
`language of the claims, the specification is the single best source for interpreting
`
`the claim terms. The claims may also be interpreted using the record of
`
`correspondence between the patent applicant and the Patent Office, and also with
`
`reference to other sources of evidence that can help to define the meaning of terms
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant time frame. I define the relevant time
`
`frame in ¶55, below.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`
`anticipated. In this case, “anticipation” means that there is a single prior art
`
`reference that discloses every element of the claim, arranged in the way required
`
`by the claim.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an anticipating prior art reference must disclose each
`
`of the claim elements expressly or inherently. I understand that “inherent”
`
`disclosure means that the claim element, although not expressly described by the
`
`prior art reference, must necessarily be present based on the disclosure. I
`
`understand that a mere probability that the element is present is not sufficient to
`
`qualify as “inherent disclosure”.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`
`obvious. Unlike anticipation, obviousness does not require that every element of
`
`the claim be in a single prior art reference. Instead, it is possible for claim
`
`elements to be described in different prior art references, so long as there is
`
`motivation or sufficient reasoning to combine the references.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`26.
`
`I understand, therefore, that when evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider obviousness of the claim “as a whole”. This consideration must be from
`
`the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and that such
`
`perspective must be considered as of the “time the invention was made”.
`
`27. The level of ordinary skill in the art is discussed in ¶¶48-53, below.
`
`28. The relevant time frame for obviousness, the “time the invention was
`
`made”, is discussed in ¶55, below.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that in considering the obviousness of a claim, one must
`
`consider four things. These include the scope and content of the prior art, the level
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim, and any “secondary considerations”.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” include real-world
`
`evidence that can tend to make a conclusion of obviousness either more probable
`
`or less probable. For example, the commercial success of a product embodying a
`
`claim of the patent could provide evidence tending to show that the claimed
`
`invention is not obvious. In order to understand the strength of the evidence, one
`
`would want to know whether the commercial success is traceable to a certain
`
`aspect of the claim not disclosed in a single prior art reference (i.e., whether there
`
`is a causal “nexus” to the claim language). One would also want to know how the
`
`market reacted to disclosure of the invention, and whether commercial success
`
`might be traceable to things other than innovation, for example the market power
`
`of the seller, an advertising campaign, or the existence of a complex system having
`
`many features beyond the claims that might be desirable to a consumer. One
`
`would also want to know how the product compared to similar products not
`
`embodying the claim. I understand that commercial success evidence should be
`
`reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claim, but that it is not necessary
`
`for a commercial product to embody the full scope of the claim.
`
`31. Other kinds of secondary considerations are possible. For example,
`
`evidence that the relevant field had a long-established, unsolved problem or need
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`that was later provided by the claimed invention could be indicative of non-
`
`obviousness. Evidence that others had tried, but failed to make an aspect of the
`
`claim might indicate that the art lacked the requisite skill to do so. Evidence of
`
`copying of the patent owner’s products before the patent was published might also
`
`indicate that its approach to solving a particular problem was not obvious.
`
`Evidence that the art recognized the value of products embodying a claim, for
`
`example, by praising the named inventors’ work, might tend to show that the claim
`
`was non-obvious.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that prior art references can be combined where
`
`there is an express or implied rationale to do so. Such a rationale might include an
`
`expected advantage to be obtained, or might be implied under the circumstances.
`
`For example, a claim is likely obvious if design needs or market pressures existing
`
`in the prior art make it natural for one or more known components to be combined,
`
`where each component continues to function in the expected manner when
`
`combined (i.e., when there are no unpredictable results). A claim is also likely
`
`invalid where it is the combination of a known base system with a known
`
`technique that can be applied to the base system without an unpredictable result.
`
`In these cases, the combination must be within the capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`33.
`
`I understand that when considering obviousness, one must not refer to
`
`teachings in the specification of the patent itself. One can, however, refer to
`
`portions of the specification admitted to be prior art, including the
`
`“BACKGROUND” section. Furthermore, a lack of discussion in the patent
`
`specification concerning how to implement a disclosed technique can support an
`
`inference that the ability to implement the technique was within the ordinary skill
`
`in the prior art.
`
`V. Technical introduction
`
`A. Background
`
`34. The following is a brief technical background covering some concepts
`
`relevant to the ’678 patent specification and its claims.
`
`35. The ’678 patent has the title “PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING A
`
`MICROELECTRIC DEVICE USING A REMOVABLE SUPPORT SUBSTRATE
`
`AND ETCH-STOP”. This title provides only a modest amount of information
`
`about the problem that the ’678 patent addresses. However, the section of the ’678
`
`patent title “Background of the Invention” contains the following information
`
`concerning the problems the inventors address.
`
`“The present inventors have determined that for some applications it
`
`would be desirable to stack and interconnect a number of such two-
`
`dimensional microelectronic devices fabricated on a substrate wafer,
`
`one of top of the other to form a three-dimensional device. The stack
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`might also include other circuit elements such as interconnect layers
`
`and thin film sensors as well.” (Ex. 1001, 1:44-50).
`
`Stacking two or more semiconductor die has several possible advantages.
`
`Typically, a circuit board is a rectangle of material, and may have to fit in a
`
`compact computer or other device. Because of the size limitations of the housing
`
`of the computer or other device, circuit boards often have limited area. Stacked die
`
`will occupy less area on a substrate such as a printed circuit board, so allow
`
`physically smaller electronic systems in applications that use die mounted on a
`
`substrate. They also allow multiple die to be incorporated into a single package
`
`that occupies approximately the same area on the circuit board as a single die,
`
`resulting in both less surface area on a substrate and a smaller package volume,
`
`which can further reduce the system size in an application that uses packaged ICs
`
`mounted to the substrate. It is also possible to join ICs made using different
`
`technologies, producing a circuit with the combined features of each IC. There
`
`was an active industry in designing stack semiconductor die arrangements during
`
`the relevant time frame. (e.g. Ex. 1006, p. 1; Ex. 1017, 1:29-52).
`
`B. ’678 Patent Disclosure
`
`36. The specification of the ’678 patent provides a description of the
`
`fabrication method (Ex. 1001 2:15-28) as well as showing a diagrammatic process
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`flow diagram of the steps used in the process in Figure 1 of the ’678 patent as
`
`shown below.
`
`“In accordance with the invention, a method of fabricating a
`
`microelectronic device comprises the steps of furnishing a first
`
`substrate having an etchable layer, an etch-stop layer overlying the
`
`etchable layer, and a wafer overlying the etch-stop layer, and forming
`
`a microelectronic circuit element in the wafer of the first substrate.
`
`The method further includes attaching the wafer portion of the first
`
`substrate to a second substrate, and etching away the etchable layer of
`
`the first substrate down to the etch-stop layer. The second substrate
`
`may include a microelectronic device, and the procedure may include
`
`the further step of interconnecting the microelectronic device on the
`
`first substrate with the microelectronic device on the second
`
`substrate.” (Ex. 1001, 2:15-28).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Figure 1 of the ’678 patent. (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1).1
`
`Figure 1 of the ’678 patent shows the technique described in this patent. The
`
`
`
`
`1 Note: The drawing labeled 26 in Figure 1 appears to contain an error. The
`
`element labeled 56 in drawing 24 and 28 is missing in drawing 26.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`specific steps shown in Figure 1 are discussed in ¶¶37-42 below.
`
`37. Stacks are made using semiconductor-based building blocks referred
`
`to as “substrates”. The first step, 20, (labeled
`
`“Furnish First Substrate” in Fig. 1) is furnishing
`
`a substrate, 40, shown in the portion of Fig. 1 of
`
`the ’678 patent at right, with highlighting added.
`
`’678 Pat., FIG. 1
`
`The substrate has three layers:
`
`42 – An etchable layer (colored blue);
`
`44 – An etch stop layer (in this instance, a layer of silicon dioxide)
`
`(colored green); and
`
`46 – A layer of single crystal silicon (a “wafer”) (colored yellow),
`
`containing integrated circuit elements, such as transistors.
`
`The three-layer substrate, 40, was not new. The ’678 patent states that “[s]uch
`
`substrates can be purchased commercially.” (Ex. 1001, 4:2). Also shown in
`
`Figure 1, for the first step (labeled “20”) is a via, 48, etched through layer 46.
`
`38. The second step, 22, (labeled “Form Microelectronic Circuit” in Fig.
`
`1) is a process sequence consisting of well-known semiconductor fabrication steps
`
`which is first used to form one or more microelectronic circuit elements (50). The
`
`present substrate is next processed so that both front side conductors (indium
`
`bumps, 61) and back side conductors (backside electrical interconnect) are present.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`39.
`
`In the third step, 24, (labeled “Attach Second Substrate” in Fig. 1), a
`
`second substrate, 58, which may include devices, is attached to the front of the
`
`structure, and is electrically contacted by the indium bumps, 61. An excerpt from
`
`Fig. 1 is reproduced below, with the second substrate, 58, highlighted in yellow.
`
`
`
`The second substrate, 58, and wafer, 46, are physically bonded (using, for
`
`example, epoxy), and are electrically connected (using, for example, an indium
`
`solder process). The second substrate may include its own microelectronic circuit
`
`element.
`
`40.
`
`In the fourth step, 26, (labeled “Remove Etchable Layer in Fig. 1), the
`
`etchable layer, 42, is removed, but the etch stop layer, 44, and the layers above 44
`
`are left. The structure may be attached a base (for example, a piece of aluminum
`
`oxide, preferably sapphire), 62, by a layer of wax, 64. An excerpt from Fig. 1 is
`
`reproduced below, with the sapphire support and wax layer highlighted in yellow.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`The etchable layer, 42, is removed, for example, by an etching process in which
`
`the etchable layer is exposed to a liquid etchant. The ’678 describes the etchant in
`
`the following passage:
`
`“The etchant is chosen so that it attacks the etchable layer 42
`
`relatively rapidly, but the etch-stop layer 44 relatively slowly or not at
`
`all. The terms 'etchable' and 'etch-stop' indicate a relative relation to
`
`each other in a particular etchant, as used herein. They are relative to
`
`each other and to the selected etchant.” (Ex. 1001, 5:52-57).
`
`41.
`
`In the fifth ste

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