`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: December 28, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,252,675 B2
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), NVIDIA Corp. (“Petitioner”) hereby
`
`requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision denying institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,252,675 (’675 patent). Paper No. 8, Dec. 7, 2015
`
`(“Bd. Dec.”). The Board reviews a request for rehearing for abuse of discretion.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, that standard is met and accordingly rehearing is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a
`
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” “An abuse of discretion
`
`occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on
`
`factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Bernard v. Dep’t of Agric.,
`
`788 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`
`393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “A decision based on an erroneous view of
`
`the law, however, invariably constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Atl. Research
`
`Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`III. THE BOARD ERRED IN DECIDING WHETHER YAMAKAWA IS
`ANTICIPATING
`
`The sole basis for the Board’s Decision not to institute an inter partes review
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`on all grounds and claims of the ‘675 patent was the Board’s view that Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on Yamakawa’s Figure 18 for limitation 1(i) and Yamakawa’s Figures 16
`
`and 17 for limitations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(h) is improper for an
`
`anticipation analysis. The Board did not find that Figure 18 fails to meet the
`
`limitation 1(i)—rather it found that Figure 18 is a different embodiment than
`
`Figures 16 and 17. The Board found “Yamakawa itself does not appear to make
`
`clear what process steps are common between its embodiment of Figure 18 and its
`
`embodiment of Figures 16–17, and Petitioner has not provided an adequate
`
`explanation.” Bd. Dec. at 17. Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to
`
`reconsider its Institution Decision in light of substantial intrinsic evidence which
`
`clearly shows that Yamakawa discloses what semiconductor process steps of
`
`Figures 16 and 17 are in common and that they are directly related to the process
`
`steps of Figure 18.
`
`“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such
`
`that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own
`
`knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” In re
`
`Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added) (internal quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted). The Board’s Decision relies on Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
`
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008), stating that “to establish
`
`anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`must be found in a single prior art reference.” Bd. Dec. at 9. In Net MoneyIN, the
`
`Court held that an “Internet payment system” was not anticipated by a prior art
`
`reference that disclosed all components of the invention in two separate payment
`
`protocols, each of which contained only a subset of the claimed components. 545
`
`F.3d at 1371. But, the PTAB has distinguished Net MoneyIN where a POSITA
`
`would understand that two separately disclosed methods could be used in the same
`
`program, even without express disclosure of their combination. Groupon, Inc. v.
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC, No. CBM2013-00033, 2014 WL 7273561, at *21-22 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 17, 2014); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (“[I]t is
`
`proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
`
`inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
`
`therefrom.”). In this instance, Yamakawa provides an expressed explanation that
`
`would allow a POSITA to readily see how the process steps of Figures 16 and 17
`
`are related to the process steps of Figure 18.
`
`The Board further cites In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (C.C.P.A. 1972) that
`
`“for a proper anticipation analysis, one may not pick and choose selectively from
`
`different embodiments to satisfy the claimed invention.” Bd. Dec. at 10. But In re
`
`Arkley clarifies that for anticipation, one may not pick and choose from “various
`
`disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
`
`reference.” 455 F.2d at 587 (emphasis added). However, here, Yamakawa does
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`provide such an express disclosure of relatedness.
`
`The Board focuses on Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 17(2) to meet
`
`limitation 1(h) and Figure 18(4) to meet limitation 1(i). Bd. Dec. at 16.
`
`Specifically, the Board notes that Figure 17(2) shows “removal of cap film or
`
`buffer electrode layer 50,” while “there is no such removal in the pMOS region of
`
`the device shown in Figure 18(2).” Id. For this reason, the Board found
`
`“Yamakawa’s Figure 18 embodiment is not the same as the embodiment illustrated
`
`in and discussed in connection with Yamakawa’s Figures 16-17.” Id. at 15 (citing
`
`Prelim. Resp. at 6-7). However, the Decision failed to take into account that
`
`Yamakawa expressly disclosed that the embodiments in Figure 18 and Figures 16-
`
`17 are in fact related and that a POSITA would have readily recognized the same.
`
`Yamakawa describes a method of manufacturing a single transistor as a so-
`
`called “fourth example” in Figures 16 and 17. See Ex. 1003, Yamakawa at [0133].
`
`The Board failed to recognize that Yamakawa expressly states that in the fourth
`
`example shown in Figures 16-17, the cap film 50 may optionally remain in the
`
`gate electrode:
`
`Incidentally, while it is constituted that the cap film 50 is removed in
`the fourth example described above, the cap film 50 may be left as it
`is as a part of the gate electrode. In this case, the cap film 50 may be
`left as a work function controlling layer described in the structure of
`the device, and it suffices to select a material properly and use the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`material.
`
`Id. at [0148] (emphases added). Immediately following is the “fifth example” in
`
`Figure 18, in which Yamakawa discloses a method for fabricating two transistors
`
`in a CMOS configuration—a pMOS transistor next to a nMOS transistor. Id. at
`
`[0149]. And Yamakawa clearly explains that the fourth example (in Figures 16
`
`and 17) is applied to the fifth example in Fig. 18:
`
`Fig. 18 is a diagram representing a procedure for fabricating a
`semiconductor device of a CMOS configuration to which the fourth
`example as described above is applied and in which the gate
`electrodes of a p-type field-effect transistor and an n-type field-effect
`transistor are formed differently. A fifth example of a semiconductor
`device manufacturing method to which the present invention is
`applied will be described below with reference to the diagram. . . .
`
`In this case, by the same procedure as in the fourth example, as
`shown in (1) of Fig. 18, a dummy gate 27a is provided on a gate
`insulating film 5 via a cap film 50.
`
`
`
`Id. at [0149-0150] (emphases added). A POSITA would have observed the cap
`
`film 50 in Figure 18(4) and understood that it may not be removed by the process
`
`applied in the fourth example, as provided for expressly in the specification. See
`
`id. at [0148-0149].
`
`Indeed, Yamakawa’s entire disclosure for fabricating a semiconductor
`
`device relies on a manufacturing method and how to apply that method to six
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`related examples. For example, Yamakawa describes a semiconductor device of a
`
`field-effect transistor in Figure 1. Ex. 1003, Yamakawa at [0043]. Yamakawa
`
`then describes a first and second example of a semiconductor device
`
`manufacturing method in Figures 2 to 6 and 10 to 13 having “the constitution
`
`described with reference to Fig. 1.” Id. at [0060, 0096]. Yamakawa then describes
`
`a “third example of the manufacturing method” as “an example of modification of
`
`the second example described.” Id. at [0119]. Yamakawa’s fourth example “is an
`
`example of modification of the second example and the third example . . . above.”
`
`Id. at [0133]. Both of Yamakawa’s fifth and sixth examples are procedures “to
`
`which the fourth example . . . is applied” to build two transistors in a CMOS
`
`configuration. Id. at [0149, 0157]. The fifth and sixth examples leave the cap film
`
`50 in one or both gates and modify the process of the fourth example to adjust
`
`work function. Id. at [0158-0159, Fig. 19(5)]. Thus a POSITA would have
`
`understood Yamakawa’s examples are directly related to one another and how they
`
`are applied to each other.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Jack Lee1 explained how Yamakawa applied the
`
`fourth example for fabricating a single transistor to form each of two transistors
`
`
`1 Dr. Lee’s Declaration applied the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the filing of the ‘675 patent. Ex. 1006, Lee Decl. at ¶ 21.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`shown in the fifth example (Figure 18). For example, the Lee Declaration
`
`describes Yamakawa’s process for building a single transistor, using both fourth
`
`and fifth examples. Ex. 1006, Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 45-50. After showing the
`
`completion of the single transistor, Dr. Lee explained that “the above embodiment
`
`is shown below in Fig. 18(5) as a PMOS transistor (right side), which can be
`
`formed alongside an NMOS transistor (left side).” Id. at ¶ 51. Moreover, Dr. Lee
`
`explained that the patterning step of the fourth example is applied to the CMOS
`
`configuration of the fifth example (Figure 18) to form the second transistor:
`
`Yamakawa further discloses applying the ‘fourth example,’ including
`patterning of a dummy gate electrode layer and first metal gate
`electrode layer as shown in Fig. 16(5), to a ‘procedure for fabricating
`a semiconductor device of a CMOS configuration.’
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 120, 121.
`
`
`
`While the Board does not address limitations 1(f) and 1(g), Dr. Lee
`
`understood that Yamakawa describes fabrication methods in a second and third
`
`example, which Yamakawa applies to the fourth example.2 See Pet. at 31-32
`
`
`2 Dr. Lee explains that Yamakawa discloses the process of covering the dummy
`
`gate electrode and spacers with a mold layer and then removing an upper portion
`
`of the mold layer to expose the dummy gate electrode in Figures 12(3) and 12(4)
`
`and paragraph 110. Yamakawa expressly discloses applying this process to the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 86, 87); Ex. 1003, Yamakawa at [110, 139]. Thus
`
`Yamakawa repeatedly confirms—and a POSITA would have understood—that the
`
`six examples disclosed in the specification are expressly related to each other and
`
`appropriately combined for anticipation purposes as set forth in Petitioner’s
`
`petition.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that based on the correct legal standard and
`
`the intrinsic record of Yamakawa, the Board should institute trial as to Grounds 1
`
`and 2.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner requests rehearing and
`
`institution on Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33144)
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234; 213.891.8763 (Fax)
`
`Julie Holloway (Reg. No. 44769)
`Julie.Holloway@lw.com
`
`fourth example, despite the presence of different layers in the gate electrode in
`
`Figure 12. Ex. 1003 at [139], Fig. 12, Fig. 17.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`415.391.0600; 415.395.8095 (Fax)
`
`Clement Naples (Reg. No. 50663)
`Clement.Naples@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`212.906.1200; 212.751.4864 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 28th day of
`
`December, 2015 a copy of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71 was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel
`
`at the following email addresses:
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`875 15th St. N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` nVidia-Samsung-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`875 15th St. N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` nVidia-Samsung-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`
`
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33144)
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234; 213.891.8763 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner