throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 6
` Entered: December 3, 2015
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–18 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’678 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Raytheon Company
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”).
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes
`
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of
`
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained
`
`below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to all of the challenged
`
`claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute trial as to
`
`claims 1–18 of the ’678 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’678 patent has been asserted in Raytheon Co. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.), and Raytheon Co. v. Sony
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, No. 2:15-cv-00342 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 2.
`
`B. The ’678 Patent
`
`The ’678 patent, titled “Process of Manufacturing a Microelectric
`
`Device Using a Removable Support Substrate and Etch-Stop,” relates to a
`
`method of fabricating a microelectronic device, in which the microelectronic
`
`device is moved from one support to another during fabrication. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:12–13. According to the ’678 patent, “[t]he invention permits
`
`microelectronic devices to be prepared using well-established, inexpensive
`
`thin-film deposition, etching, and patterning techniques, and then to be
`
`further processed singly or in combination with other such devices, into
`
`more complex devices.” Id. at 2:9–14. Figure 1 of the’678 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a process flow diagram of the method of the ’678 patent,
`
`schematically illustrating each stage of fabrication of a microelectronic
`
`device formed in accordance with the method. Id. at 3:48–50. As shown in
`
`box 20, first substrate 40 is provided, the first substrate including etchable
`
`layer 42, etch-stop layer 44, and wafer layer 46. Id. at 3:65–4:2. As noted in
`
`the ’678 patent, “[s]uch substrates can be purchased commercially,” or
`
`“prepared by applying well-known microelectronic techniques.” Id. at 4:2,
`
`4:22–23. In a preferred embodiment, etchable layer 42 is a layer of bulk
`
`silicon, etch-stop layer 44 is a layer of silicon dioxide, and wafer layer 46 is
`
`a layer of single crystal silicon. Id. at 4:3–15.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`Microelectronic circuit element 50 is formed in wafer layer 46, as
`
`shown in box 22. Id. at 4:37–52. The ’678 patent notes that “the present
`
`invention is not limited to any particular circuit element 50,” and, for
`
`example, “can include many active devices such as transistors,” or “may be
`
`simply a patterned electrical conductor layer that is used as an interconnect
`
`between other layers of structure in a stacked three-dimensional device.”
`
`Id. at 4:55–56, 4:47–51.
`
`Second substrate 58 is attached to the structure, as shown in box 24.
`
`Id. at 5:14–44. Second substrate 58 may comprise, for example, silicon or
`
`aluminum oxide, and optionally may include a microelectronic device
`
`deposited therein. Id. at 5:18–25. Etchable layer 42 is removed by etching,
`
`as shown in box 26. Id. at 5:45–6:9. The entire structure may be attached
`
`temporarily to base 62, which may be a piece of aluminum oxide
`
`(particularly, sapphire), to protect the structure against etch attack. Id. at
`
`5:47–49. As described in the ’678 patent, 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.” Id. at 5:52–54.
`
`“Back-side electrical connections are formed through the [exposed]
`
`etch-stop layer 44 (for direct back-side interconnects 56’) and through the
`
`etch stop layer 44 and the wafer layer [46] to the microelectronic circuit
`
`element 50 (for indirect front-side interconnects [56]),” as shown in box 28.
`
`Id. at 6:10–14. The connections are formed by patterning etch-stop layer 44
`
`using well-known patterning techniques. Id. at 6:14–17. Electrical
`
`conductor layer 70 may be deposited over etch-stop layer 44 and back side
`
`electrical connections 56, 56’. Id. at 6:44–49.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`As shown in box 30 of Figure 1, final structure 71 may be joined with
`
`another microelectronic device 72, to form a three-dimensional structure
`
`comprising structures 71, 72. Id. at 6:50–58, Fig. 2.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 11, and 13 are independent.
`
`Claims 2–10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1; claim 12 depends
`
`from claim 11; and claims 14–18 depend, directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 13. Claim 1 of the ’678 patent, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`
`challenged claims:
`
`1. A method of fabricating a microelectronic device,
`comprising 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;
`
`forming a microelectronic circuit element in the exposed
`side of the wafer of the first substrate opposite to the side
`overlying the etch-stop layer;
`
`attaching the wafer of the first substrate to a second
`substrate; and
`
`etching away the etchable layer of the first substrate
`down to the etch-stop layer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:5–16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`D. The Applied References and Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies on the following evidence. Pet. 2.
`
`Reference
`
`Tsuneo Hamaguchi & Nobuhiro Endo,
`Novel SOI Technology Using Preferential
`Polishing, NEC Research Notes 1480 (70)
`(1987) (“Hamaguchi”)
`JP App. Pub. No. 64-18248 (“Morimoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,244,534 (“Yu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,910,155 (“Cote”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,064,683 (“Poon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,069,002 (“Sandhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,500 (“Kusunoki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,066,993 (“Miura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,681,718 (“Oldham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,864,819 (“Ying”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,202,754 (“Bertin”)
`
`Date
`
`1987
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 10041
`
`Jan. 23, 1989 Ex. 10062
`Sept. 14, 1993 Ex. 1007
`Mar. 20, 1990 Ex. 1008
`Nov. 12, 1991 Ex. 1009
`Dec. 3, 1991
`Ex. 1010
`Feb. 23, 1993 Ex. 1011
`Nov. 19, 1991 Ex. 1012
`July 21, 1987 Ex. 1014
`Feb. 11, 1975 Ex. 1016
`Apr. 13, 1993 Ex. 1017
`
`Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of Dr. Richard A.
`
`Blanchard (Ex. 1002, “Blanchard Declaration”).
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 1–18 as follows. Pet. 2,
`
`18–60.
`
`References
`Bertin
`Bertin and Morimoto
`Bertin and Ying
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 102
`1, 6, 7, 10, 11
`§ 103
`5, 12, 13
`§ 103
`9
`
`
`1 Hamaguchi is a Japanese-language reference (Ex. 1003). Citations to
`Hamaguchi herein are to the certified English translation submitted by
`Petitioner (Ex. 1004).
`2 Morimoto is a Japanese-language reference (Ex. 1005). Citations to
`Morimoto herein are to the certified English translation submitted by
`Petitioner (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`References
`Morimoto and CMP/Etching
`references3
`Morimoto, CMP/Etching
`references, and Oldham
`Morimoto, CMP/Etching
`references, and Bertin
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
`
`§ 103
`
`8, 18
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 15
`
`The ’678 patent is expired. When interpreting claims of an expired
`
`patent, our analysis is similar to that of a district court. In re Rambus, Inc.,
`
`694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`However, there is no presumption of validity, and we do not apply a rule of
`
`construction with an aim to preserve the validity of claims.
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for three terms:
`
`(1) “microelectronic circuit element”; (2) “etching,” “etchable layer,” “etch
`
`stop layer” (grouped together); and (3) “wafer.” Pet. 16–18. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed constructions for each of these terms,
`
`and additionally proposes a construction for the term “second substrate.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 3–9. For purposes of this Decision, we need only discuss the
`
`meaning of “second substrate,” recited in each of the independent claims.
`
`No other terms require express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v.
`
`
`3 Petitioner refers to Exhibits 1004 and 1007–1012, collectively, as the
`“CMP/Etching references.” Pet. 36–37.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms
`
`need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “second substrate” should be construed as
`
`“a substrate that is part of the complete device.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Thus,
`
`according to Patent Owner, a layer that is attached temporarily and
`
`subsequently removed cannot disclose the claimed second substrate. Id.
`
`at 11–12. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`The plain meaning of “second substrate” is merely another substrate
`
`(i.e., in addition to the claimed “first substrate”). Nothing in the claims
`
`themselves, or in the Specification, narrows this plain meaning. We find no
`
`persuasive evidence for limiting the term in the manner asserted by Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he language of the specification makes
`
`clear that the circuit is transferred to the second substrate to form a final
`
`device,” pointing to the ’678 patent’s Title and the Background section,
`
`which states the invention relates “to a microelectronic device that is moved
`
`from one support to another support during fabrication.” Prelim. Resp. 6
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 1:11–12). Patent Owner further points to the discussion of
`
`a disclosed embodiment, in which “‘[t]he second substrate 58 may be any
`
`suitable material, such as silicon or aluminum oxide (specifically sapphire).
`
`The second substrate may optionally include a microelectronic device
`
`deposited therein.’” Id. at 7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:18–21).
`
`Each of the independent claims, however, includes the open-ended
`
`“comprising” in its preamble, and nothing in the claims themselves
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`precludes an additional step of later removing the second substrate or limits
`
`the claims to a device in which the second substrate necessarily is retained as
`
`part of the final device. See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`
`195 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The transitional term
`
`‘comprising’ . . . is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional,
`
`unrecited elements or method steps” (quoting M.P.E.P. § 2111.03 (6th
`
`ed.1997)); see also Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc.,
`
`212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’
`
`to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”).
`
`Accordingly, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction requiring the “second substrate” remain as “part of the
`
`complete device.” No further express construction of the claim term is
`
`necessary for purposes of this Decision.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1990).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A prima
`
`facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art, itself, would
`
`appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`those principles.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based on Bertin
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Bertin. Pet. 2, 18–29. Petitioner
`
`further asserts that claims 5, 12, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Bertin and Morimoto, and that claim 9 is unpatentable
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bertin and Ying. Id. at 2, 29–35.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to show Bertin discloses the
`
`claimed invention. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. We have reviewed the parties’
`
`contentions and supporting evidence. Given the evidence on this record, and
`
`for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information
`
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on
`
`each of these asserted grounds.
`
`1. Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 by Bertin
`
`Petitioner argues that Bertin discloses all limitations of claims 1, 6, 7,
`
`10, and 11. Pet. 18–29. We discuss independent claim 1 as exemplary.
`
`Claim 1 recites a “method of fabricating a microelectronic device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:5–6. Bertin relates to such a “fabrication method and resultant
`
`three-dimensional multichip package.” Ex. 1017, Abstract; see Pet. 18
`
`(citing Ex. 1017, Abstract, 1:10–14, 1:55–2:31, 3:4–27).
`
`Petitioner relies on substrate 52, etch-stop 53, and the portion above
`
`etch-stop 53 (including active layer 54) of Bertin as disclosing the claimed
`
`etchable layer, etch-stop layer, and wafer, respectively. Pet. 18–19.
`
`Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 3a of Bertin, reproduced
`
`below (id. at 19).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`Petitioner’s annotated figure illustrates the portions of semiconductor
`
`device 50 of Bertin that Petitioner points to as corresponding to the claimed
`
`etchable layer (highlighted in blue), etch-stop layer (highlighted in green),
`
`and wafer (partially highlighted in yellow). Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1017,
`
`1:55–2:17, 3:25–46, 3:50–4:10, Figs. 3a–3i; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–73, 81–82).
`
`Petitioner further relies on active layer 54 (that includes various
`
`transistors therein), layer 63 (that contains active circuits and wiring), and/or
`
`metallized trenches 66 (Fig. 3e) with connection pads 68 as disclosing the
`
`claimed “microelectronic circuit element” being “form[ed] . . . in the
`
`exposed side of the wafer of the first substrate opposite to the side overlying
`
`the etch-stop layer.” Pet. 19–22 (citing Ex. 1017, 3:4–4:62, 5:22–38,
`
`Figs. 3d–e; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 83–88; Ex. 1001, 4:37–43).
`
`Petitioner relies on carrier 70 of Bertin as disclosing the claimed
`
`“second substrate.” Pet. 22. Petitioner provides an annotated version of
`
`Figure 3f of Bertin, reproduced below (id.).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`Petitioner’s annotated figure illustrates a second substrate (highlighted in
`
`orange) attached to the wafer (partially highlighted in yellow). Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1017, 4:63–5:44, 8:51–10:34, Figs. 3f–3i; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89).
`
`Finally, Petitioner relies on Bertin’s disclosure of chemically etching
`
`layer 58 (highlighted in blue) using an etchant selected to cease when etch
`
`stop layer 53 (highlighted in green) is reached (Ex. 1017, Fig. 3g) for the
`
`claimed step of “etching away the etchable layer of the first substrate down
`
`to the etch-stop layer.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1017, 3:4–46, 4:4–10, 4:47–
`
`52, 5:10–22, 5:39–44, 6:18–24, Figs. 3f–3g; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–91).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Bertin’s teachings are ambiguous, pointing
`
`to allegedly confusing portions of Bertin. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. For
`
`example, Patent Owner asserts that the discussion of dielectric layer 60 and
`
`layer 63 is confusing. Id. Patent Owner, however, does not provide
`
`persuasive evidence that Petitioner’s mapping of Bertin on the claims is
`
`missing any claimed element. We, thus, are persuaded, on the current
`
`record, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Bertin discloses all the
`
`steps of claim 1.
`
`We also have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence regarding claims 6, 7, 10, and 11, and similarly are persuaded,
`
`based on the record now before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`
`Bertin discloses all steps of claims 6, 7, 10, and 11. See Pet. 23–29 (citing
`
`Ex. 1017, Abstract, 1:10–14, 1:55–2:31, 3:4–4:10, 4:26–40, 4:47–53, 4:62–
`
`5:44, 6:6–9, 6:18–24, 8:51–10:34, Figs. 3a–3i; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–104);
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (arguing generally regarding the allegedly deficient
`
`disclosure of Bertin).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`2. Obviousness of Claims 5, 12, and 13 in View of Bertin and
`Morimoto
`
`Claims 5 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and
`
`further recite that “the etchable layer is silicon, the etch-stop layer is silicon
`
`dioxide, and the wafer is single-crystal silicon.” Ex. 1001, 8:29–31,
`
`9:10–12. Independent claim 13 recites limitations similar to claim 1, and
`
`additionally includes the same specific materials recited in claims 5 and 12
`
`for the etchable layer, the etch-stop layer, and the wafer, respectively.
`
`Id. at 9:13–26.
`
`As discussed by Petitioner, “Bertin discloses a three-layer silicon
`
`substrate . . . but does not expressly disclose an etch-stop layer made of
`
`SiO2.” Pet. 29; see id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1017, 5:21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶ 125).
`
`Petitioner relies on Morimoto as disclosing an SiO2 etch-stop layer. Id. at 30
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 2). According to Petitioner, “it would have been obvious
`
`to use Morimoto’s SiO2 etch-stop layer in Bertin’s structure” because
`
`“[u]sing an SiO2 etch-stop layer would have had no unpredictable
`
`results. . . . and qualifies as the use of a known equivalent for a known
`
`function (as an etch-stop layer).” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 130).
`
`Petitioner further asserts that “both Morimoto and Bertin disclose the
`
`use of single-crystal silicon for integrated circuit manufacturing in a way
`
`that renders a single-crystal silicon wafer obvious, particularly in view of the
`
`typical use of single-crystal silicon in the art.” Id. at 29, 31 (citing Ex. 1017,
`
`3:42–46, 4:30–32, 5:21–22, 5:50–51; Ex. 1006, 1; Ex. 1001, 3:64–4:11).
`
`Petitioner further cites to the Blanchard Declaration in support of this
`
`assertion. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–128).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, has not presented
`
`separate arguments regarding the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 13, or the
`
`combination of references. We are persuaded, on the record now before us,
`
`that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Bertin and
`
`Morimoto teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 13,
`
`and has articulated sufficient reasoning why it would have been obvious to
`
`combine these references in the proposed manner.
`
`3. Obviousness of Claim 9 in View of Bertin and Ying
`
`Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and recites a further step of, “after the
`
`step of attaching and before the step of etching, fixing the second substrate
`
`to an etching support that is resistant to attack by an etchant.” Ex. 1001,
`
`8:46–49. Petitioner relies on Ying as teaching this claim feature. Pet. 34–
`
`35. Ying relates to the fabrication of small semiconductor devices, and
`
`teaches, prior to etching a semiconductor wafer, attaching the wafer to a
`
`substrate, such as sapphire, which is not capable of being attacked by an
`
`etching solution, before etching. Ex. 1016, 1:8–11, 3:12–4:28. Petitioner
`
`asserts that “a person of skill in the art would have needed to hold the
`
`semiconductor [of Bertin] while performing etching, and would not have
`
`wanted the structure holding the semiconductor itself to be dissolved, as
`
`taught by Ying.” Pet. 35. Petitioner further cites to the Blanchard
`
`Declaration in support of its assertion that claim 9 would have been obvious
`
`in view of Bertin and Yang. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 246, 248–251).
`
`Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, has not presented
`
`separate arguments regarding the limitations of claim 9, or the combination
`
`of references. We are persuaded, on the record now before us, that
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Bertin and Ying
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 9, and has articulated
`
`sufficient reasoning why it would have been obvious to combine these
`
`references in the proposed manner.
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we authorize institution of inter partes
`
`review on the following asserted grounds: claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Bertin; claims 5, 12, and 13 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bertin and Morimoto; and claim 9 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bertin and Ying.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on Morimoto
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Morimoto and the
`
`CMP/Etching references. Pet. 2, 35–57. Petitioner further asserts that
`
`claims 8 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Morimoto, the CMP/Etching references, and Oldham, and that claims 3
`
`and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Morimoto,
`
`the CMP/Etching references, and Bertin. Id. at 2, 57–60. Patent Owner
`
`argues Morimoto does not teach or suggest several claim features. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11–18. We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence. Given the evidence on this record, and for the reasons explained
`
`below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on each of these asserted grounds.
`
`1. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 in View
`of Morimoto and the CMP/Etching References
`
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Morimoto and the
`
`CMP/Etching references renders obvious each of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`14, 16, and 17. Pet. 35–57. We discuss claim 1 as exemplary. Claim 1
`
`recites a “method of fabricating a microelectronic device.” Ex. 1001, 8:5–6.
`
`Morimoto relates to a “method for producing a semiconductor device.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 2; see Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 156).
`
`Petitioner relies on silicon substrate 11, buried oxide layer 12, and a
`
`portion above buried oxide layer 12 of Morimoto as disclosing the claimed
`
`etchable layer, etch-stop layer, and wafer, respectively. Pet. 13–14, 37–39.
`
`Petitioner provides a revised, annotated version of Figure 1(a) of Morimoto,
`
`reproduced below (id. at 13).
`
`
`
`The figure above shows Morimoto’s substrate, after ion implantation and
`
`heating, but before inclusion of the circuitry shown in Morimoto’s
`
`Figure 1(a). Id. at 13–14. Petitioner’s annotated figure illustrates the
`
`portions of Morimoto that Petitioner points to as corresponding to the
`
`claimed etchable layer (highlighted in blue), etch-stop layer (highlighted in
`
`green), and wafer (highlighted in yellow). Id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1006, 2;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 157–171).
`
`Petitioner further relies on MOS transistor 13, wiring 14, and
`
`insulating file 15 as teaching the claimed “microelectronic circuit element”
`
`being “form[ed] . . . in the exposed side of the wafer of the first substrate
`
`opposite to the side overlying the etch-stop layer.” Id. at 39–40 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 173–174). This is illustrated in annotated
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`Figure 1(a) of Morimoto provided by Petitioner, and reproduced below (id.
`
`at 40).
`
`Figure 1(a) of Morimoto illustrates transistor 13 and wiring 14 formed in the
`
`
`
`semiconductor device.
`
`Petitioner further relies on supporting silicon substrate 16 of
`
`Morimoto as teaching the claimed “second substrate.” Pet. 40–41.
`
`Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 1(b) of Morimoto,
`
`reproduced below (id. at 40).
`
`Petitioner’s annotated figure illustrates a second substrate (highlighted in
`
`orange) attached to the wafer including the microelectronic devices formed
`
`therein (highlighted in yellow). Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–
`
`
`
`176).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`Figure 1(b), above, also shows that silicon substrate 11 (highlighted in
`
`blue in previous figures) has been removed. Petitioner asserts that
`
`“Morimoto teaches that the etchable layer 11 is removed down to layer 12,
`
`which is an etch-stop layer.” Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, although
`
`Morimoto explicitly discloses “chemical-mechanical polishing (‘CMP’)” as
`
`the removal method, it would have been obvious to use an etching process,
`
`as claimed. Id. at 41–49. As noted by Petitioner, the chemical mechanical
`
`polishing disclosed in Morimoto “stops at the lower surface of the buried
`
`oxide film” (i.e., layer 12, highlighted green in the figures above). Id. at 41
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 177).
`
`With its Petition, Petitioner includes seven references it describes as
`
`the “CMP/Etching references,” as evidence of the level of skill in the art,
`
`supporting the conclusion that Morimoto renders obvious using etching. Id.
`
`at 36. According to Petitioner, “[t]he seven CMP/Etching references each
`
`(redundantly) show that the etching step was at least obvious,” and the
`
`“[s]even references are cited to show the strength of the evidence, although
`
`one alone would suffice.” Id. at 36–37. Petitioner asserts (i) that it would
`
`have been obvious to use etching within a CMP process, and (ii) that it
`
`would have been obvious to use etching as a known alternative to a CMP
`
`process. Id. at 41–49. Petitioner and Dr. Blanchard cite to the CMP/Etching
`
`references as evidence of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention, and particularly as evidence that one of such skill
`
`would have known these assertions to be true. Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151–155,
`
`177–194. We similarly rely on these references as evidence of the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the evidence
`
`presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`would have recognized that Morimoto (in view of the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill) teaches or suggests the use of etching for removal of silicon
`
`substrate 11.
`
`We, thus, are persuaded, on the current record, that Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that Morimoto renders obvious all steps of claim 1.
`
`Independent claim 13 differs from independent claim 1 in that it recites
`
`specific materials for each layer of the microelectronic device. We are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that the device of Morimoto discloses a
`
`silicon etchable layer and an SiO2 etch-stop layer (Pet. 53–54 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 1–2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 209); see id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1006, 2; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶ 158–159)), and renders obvious the use of a single-crystal silicon
`
`wafer layer (id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 200–201), 53–54)).
`
`Patent Owner argues, first, that Morimoto fails to disclose “attaching”
`
`a “second substrate,” because substrate 16 of Morimoto is used only
`
`temporarily and does not form part of the final device. Prelim. Resp. 11–15.
`
`This argument is based on a construction of “second substrate” that we do
`
`not adopt, for the reasons discussed above, and, thus, is not persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Morimoto does not disclose or render obvious
`
`“etching.” Id. at 15–18. Based on the record currently before us at this
`
`stage of the proceeding, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`persuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner provides evidence and
`
`declaration testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have recognized that CMP includes etching as a part of the
`
`process, and that, alternatively, etching could be used in place of a CMP
`
`process.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01201
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`We also have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 17, and similarly are
`
`persuaded, based on the record now before us, that Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Morimoto renders obvious all the additional steps of these
`
`claims. See Pet. 49–57 (citing Ex. 1006, 2–3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 140, 152, 155,
`
`195–201, 203–206, 213–225); Prelim. Resp. 11–18 (arguing generally
`
`regarding the allegedly deficient disclosure of Morimoto with respect to
`
`claims 1 and 13).
`
`2. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 18 in View of Morimoto, the
`CMP/Etching References, and Oldham
`
`Claims 8 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively, and
`
`further recite “placing a layer of epoxy between the second substrate and the
`
`wafer portion of the first substrate, and degassing and curing the epoxy.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:41–45, 10:20–24. Petitioner points to disclosure in Morimoto
`
`that silicon substrate 16 (i.e., the claimed second substrate) is bonded to
`
`insulating film 15 (i.e., the claimed wafer portion) “with an epoxy resin or
`
`the like.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 130). Petitioner relies on
`
`Oldham as teaching that “the use of epoxy molding compound with both
`
`degassing and curing” was a common practice at the time of the invention.
`
`Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1014, 3:30–43; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 228–229). Petitioner further
`
`asserts “[i]t would have been obvious to apply steps known to be useful for
`
`epoxies . . . to the adhesive of Morimoto, and there would not have been any
`
`unpredictable results.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner, at this s

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