throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Nulty, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,784,552
`Issue Date:
`August 31, 2004
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/540,610
`Filing Date:
`March 31, 2000
`Title:
`
`STRUCTURE HAVING REDUCED LATERAL SPACER
`
`
`
`EROSION
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIVEK SUBRAMANIAN
`
`
`I, Vivek Subramanian, of Berkeley, California, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner SK hynix, Inc. to provide my
`
`independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 (“the ʼ552 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an employee of
`
`SK hynix, Inc., SK hynix America, Inc.; SK hynix Memory Solutions, Inc.; and
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time expended in connection with this
`
`matter at the rate of $600 per hour, plus reimbursement of any expenses I incur. I
`
`have no financial stake in this matter, and my compensation is not contingent upon
`
`the outcome of this inter partes review of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Hynix - HYNIX-1003
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`4.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`I am an expert in the fields of semiconductor design and semiconductor
`
`fabrication, among other fields. I have over 19 years of experience as a practicing
`
`engineer, researcher, technical manager and educator in these fields.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree summa cum laude in electrical engineering
`
`from Louisiana State University in 1994, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in electrical
`
`engineering, in 1996 and 1998, respectively, from Stanford University. During my
`
`tenure as a graduate student at Stanford University, I received a prestigious
`
`Eastman Kodak fellowship from Kodak. Between 1992 and 1994, I performed
`
`research on high-performance highly scaling field effect transistors in a
`
`collaborative effort with IBM. From 1994 to 1998, I performed research in high-
`
`performance thin film transistors for high-performance 3D integrated logic,
`
`memory, and display applications.
`
`6.
`
`Between 1998 and 2000, I served as a Consulting Assistant Professor in the
`
`Electrical Engineering Department of Stanford University, and as a Visiting
`
`Research Engineer in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, where my research focused on
`
`25nm MOSFET technologies for giga-scale integration. In this role, I worked on
`
`technologies for high-performance transistor processes, and published several
`
`papers as a direct outcome of this technology development.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`In 1998, I co-founded Matrix Semiconductor, Inc., a company that pioneered
`
`the design and development of three-dimensional (3-D) integrated circuits for use
`
`in high density nonvolatile memory products. A significant focus of my activities
`
`was on the development of process technology for manufacturing these novel
`
`memory systems. I both worked on and directly managed engineers and
`
`technicians working on developing these processes. Several patents resulted from
`
`this work. Following initial volume production deliveries in 2004, Matrix
`
`Semiconductor was acquired by SanDisk Corporation and its memory products
`
`were put into high volume production. Matrix Semiconductor was nominated to
`
`the 2002 Scientific American SA50 list for visionary technology, became a Finalist
`
`for the 2003 World Technology Award for Information Technology Hardware, and
`
`won the 2005 EDN Innovation Award.
`
`8.
`
`Although my involvement with Matrix Semiconductor ended upon its
`
`acquisition by SanDisk, I remain involved in the application of pioneering
`
`technology through other start-up companies. I served as a Founding Scientific
`
`Advisor for Kovio, Inc., a start-up company focused on semiconductor
`
`manufacturing technology based on nano-particle inks and proprietary printing
`
`methods for large area electronics, which was subsequently acquired by Thin Film
`
`Electronics. In this role, I specifically worked on packaging issues relevant to
`
`semiconductor integrated circuits. In addition, I served as the Chief Scientific
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Advisor to QuSwami, Inc., a start-up company focusing on novel energy
`
`conversion devices, through 2011. Most recently, I serve as a co-founder of
`
`Dragonfly Technology, Inc., a venture-funded startup company working on
`
`“Internet of Things” Devices.
`
`9.
`
`In July of 2000, I became an assistant professor in the University of
`
`California, Berkeley’s Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer
`
`Sciences. In 2005, I was promoted to the position of tenured Associate Professor of
`
`Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences at the University of California,
`
`Berkeley, and, in July of 2011, I was promoted to my current position of full
`
`Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences. My current research
`
`interests include advanced CMOS devices and technology and thin film
`
`technologies for displays and integration applications, with a substantial focus on
`
`low-cost electronics for display, low-cost logic, and sensing applications. I also
`
`maintain a substantial research effort in advanced memory technology and have a
`
`large research program focused on semiconductor packaging, including specific
`
`efforts focused on development of interconnection strategies for packaging. I am
`
`also responsible for all the semiconductor device and technology courses offered
`
`within
`
`the department; I
`
`teach
`
`these courses routinely,
`
`including both
`
`undergraduate and graduate courses.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`10. My service on various electrical engineering industry groups over the years
`
`includes the following:
`
` serving on the International Electron Device Meeting (IEDM)’s
`
`Technical Program Committee (2001-2002) and Executive Committee
`
`(2003 to 2009);
`
` serving on the Technical Program Committee for the Device Research
`
`Conference (2000-2002);
`
` serving on the Technical Program Committee for the VLSI-TSA
`
`Conference (2005);
`
` serving as a reviewer for the peer-reviewed publication IEEE Electron
`
`Device Letters;
`
` serving as a reviewer for
`
`the peer-reviewed publication IEEE
`
`Transactions on Electron Devices;
`
` serving as a proposal reviewer/panelist for the National Science
`
`Foundation;
`
` serving as a proposal reviewer for the American Chemical Society;
`
` being a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE);
`
` being a member of the IEEE Electron Devices Society Organic
`
`Electronics Committee (2003 to 2007); and
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
` serving on the scientific advisory board to the Large Area, Organic, and
`
`Printed Electronics Conference, LOPE-C (2009 to 2013).
`
`11. Furthermore, I have received a number of academic awards and honors over
`
`the years, including the following:
`
` nominated to MIT’s Technology Review top 100 young innovators list
`
`(TR100), 2002;
`
` National Science Foundation Young Investigator (CAREER) Award,
`
`FY2002;
`
` nominated
`
`to National Academy of Engineering’s Frontiers of
`
`Engineering, 2002-03;
`
` winner of 2002 Paul Rappaport Award for best paper in an IEEE EDS
`
`Journal;
`
` Best paper award, 2004 IEEE Device Research Conference;
`
` Outstanding Teaching Award, EECS Department, UC Berkeley, 2005;
`
`Winner of the Printed Electronics Champion Award 2008 from the
`
`Printed Electronics USA Conference, 2008;
`
` Awarded an adjunct Professorship from the World-Class University
`
`Program at Sunchon National University in Korea; and
`
` Outstanding paper award, 2012 IMAPS Microelectronics Conference,
`
`for a paper specifically focused on semiconductor packaging.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
` Winner of the 2015 IEEE Kiyo Tomiyasu Award.
`
`12.
`
`I have also authored or co-authorized over 200 technical papers in
`
`international journals and conferences and have been named inventor or co-
`
`inventor on more than 40 patents covering several aspects of semiconductor
`
`devices, materials, circuit design, process technology, and memory architecture.
`
`13.
`
`In the course of my educational and professional activities, I have become
`
`familiar with the state of the art in the field of semiconductor technologies during
`
`the late 1990s and early 2000s.
`
`14. A complete list of my qualifications is set forth in my curriculum vitae,
`
`which is attached to this report as Exhibit 1 (“Vivek Subramanian Curriculum
`
`Vitae”).
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`In writing this Declaration I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the field of
`
`semiconductor design and fabrication, my industry experience in semiconductor
`
`design and fabrication, and my experience in working with others involved in the
`
`field. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 and its accompanying prosecution file history
`
`(Ex. HYNIX-1001);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,482,894 (“Havemann”, Ex. HYNIX-1004);
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,686,000 (“Heath”, Ex. HYNIX-1005); and
`
` Admitted Prior Art of the ʼ552 Patent (“APA”, Ex. HYNIX-1001).
`
`16. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected portions
`
`of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would view the references cited herein in their entirety, and in combination with
`
`other references cited herein or cited within the references themselves. The
`
`references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as being
`
`incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`17.
`I am familiar with the content of the ’552 Patent, which, I have been
`
`informed by counsel, has an earliest possible filing date of December 22, 1995
`
`(hereinafter “the Priority Date”).
`
`18. Additionally, I have reviewed the other references cited above in this
`
`Declaration. Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials
`
`through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’552 Patent at the
`
`time of the invention. I believe one of ordinary skill around December 22, 1995
`
`would have had either a (i) Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering with 5
`
`years of experience in semiconductor design and manufacture, (ii) or a masters or
`
`Ph.D. degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering with equivalent experience
`
`in
`
`semiconductor design and manufacture.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Grounds for Invalidating Patent Claims in an Inter Partes
`Review: 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the following restriction—which is set forth in 35 U.S.C. §
`
`311(b)—limits an IPR petition to anticipation and obviousness grounds, using only
`
`prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. In other words, an IPR
`
`petitioner can only discuss whether another published prior art reference
`
`anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or renders the challenged patent claims obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that an IPR petitioner is prohibited from challenging a patent on
`
`other grounds such as the on-sale bar, non-patentable subject matter, or invalidity
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for unsupported claims or indefiniteness.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`21.
`
` I understand that the following standards—which are taken from 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102—govern the determination of whether a claim in a patent is invalid as
`
`“anticipated.”
`
`22.
`
`In general, a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if each and every feature
`
`of the claim is found, expressly or inherently, in a single item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether the single item of prior art anticipates the claim, one
`
`considers not only what is expressly disclosed in the particular item of prior art, but
`
`also what is inherently present or disclosed in that prior art or what inherently
`
`results from its practice. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior
`9
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`

`
`
`
`art reference are inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with,
`
`or includes, the claim limitations, or if the missing element or feature would be the
`
`natural result of following what the prior art teaches to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. It is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art reference
`
`(extrinsic evidence), including experimental testing, in determining whether a
`
`feature, while not expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`Mere probabilities are not enough, but it is not required that persons of ordinary
`
`skill actually recognized the inherent disclosure at the time the prior art was first
`
`known or used.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that there are a number of different ways that anticipation can
`
`occur. First, if the claimed invention was “known or used by others” in this country
`
`before the asserted date of invention, then the claim is anticipated. A
`
`demonstration or oral presentation could suffice; printed publications are not
`
`required. Second, if the claimed invention was “in public use” in this country more
`
`than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent in the United States,
`
`then the claim is anticipated. Public knowledge of the invention or an enabling
`
`disclosure is not required; only public use is required. Third, if the claimed
`
`invention was “described in a printed publication” anywhere in the world prior to
`
`the alleged invention or more than one year prior to the date of the application for
`
`the patent in the United States, then the claim is anticipated. To anticipate,
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`however, the printed publication must also enable one skilled in the art to make
`
`and use the claimed invention. Fourth, if the claimed invention was made in this
`
`country by another inventor before the asserted date of invention, and not
`
`abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, then the claim is anticipated. It is normally
`
`the first inventor to conceive, rather than the first to reduce to practice, who is
`
`entitled to priority, assuming that the first to conceive was reasonably diligent in
`
`reducing the invention to practice from a time prior to conception by the other.
`
`B. Obviousness
` I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`24.
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim in a patent
`
`is obvious when 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 invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`25. The relevant inquiry requires consideration of four factors (although not
`
`necessarily in the following order):
`
` The scope and content of the prior art,
`
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,
`
` The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention,
`
`and
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
` Objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`26.
`
` A prior art reference may be considered if it discloses information designed
`
`to solve any problem or need addressed by the patent or if the reference discloses
`
`information that has obvious uses beyond its main purpose that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would reasonably examine to solve any problem or need
`
`addressed by the patent. The combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`27. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
`
`§103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
`
`to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
`
`obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`28. The 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
`
`at the time of the invention. Indeed, often, it will be necessary to look to
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the
`
`design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
`
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
`
`fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Importantly, the question is not whether the
`
`combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious
`
`to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
`
`the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`29. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of
`
`the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation,” or by overemphasis on the
`
`importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.
`
`30.
`
` In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
`
`neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.
`
`What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is
`
`obvious, it is invalid. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be
`
`proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's
`
`claims.
`
`31.
`
` A person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will not be led only
`
`to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. Common sense
`
`teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes,
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. A person of ordinary skill is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`32. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If
`
`this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was
`
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious.
`
`33. One should be aware of the potential for distortion caused by hindsight bias
`
`and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ552 PATENT
`34. The ʼ552 Patent is directed to a semiconductor device with purported
`
`reduced lateral spacer erosion. ʼ552 Patent, Abstract. A color annotated version of
`
`Figure 4(L) of the ʼ552 Patent, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional
`
`planar side view of the disclosed semiconductor device:
`
`
`
`14
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`35. As illustrated in Figure 4(L), the semiconductor device includes insulating
`
`spacers in yellow which are at an angle relative to the substrate surface of between
`
`85 and 90 degrees. An etch stop layer with etch resistant properties is highlighted
`
`in red. There is also disclosed an insulating layer in orange which insulates the
`
`conductive layer 415. ʼ552 Patent, 10:31-65; 11:63 – 12:20. Shown in blue is a
`
`transistor contact point which is deposited in what the patent calls a contact region
`
`or contact opening. ʼ552 Patent, 13:43-45. As shown, the etch stop material is
`
`etched away from the bottom of the contact opening and allows electrical contact
`
`with the conductive region 445. ʼ552 Patent, 11:60-62.
`
`V. HAVEMANN
`36.
`I have been asked by counsel for Petitioner to review the asserted claims of
`
`the ʼ552 Patent in view of Havemann. I have performed that analysis and it is my
`
`opinion that Havemann anticipates Claims 1-12 of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Overview of Havemann
`37. Havemann describes a semiconductor device
`
`incorporating “organic
`
`dielectric materials to form self-aligned contacts (SACTs)” in deep, narrow gaps.
`
`ʼ894 Patent, Abstract. Figure 2D of Havemann illustrates an embodiment of its
`
`self-aligned contact:
`
`38. Figure 2D is annotated below and shows conductors 26 (purple) with
`
`insulating conductor caps 28 (orange) formed over a silicon substrate 20 (green).
`
`
`
`
`
`A conformal dielectric layer 30 shown in yellow is formed as shown. An
`
`insulating layer 32 shown in lime green is also deposited. As shown in red (42), a
`
`conformal dielectric overlayer is taught. Havemann discloses that the preferred
`
`conformal layer (42) in red is a nitride, whereas the preferred underlying dielectric
`
`insulator (30) shown in yellow is an oxide: “If conformal layer 30 and overlayer 42
`
`differ in materials (e.g., thermal oxide and nitride), relative selectivity between the
`16
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`

`
`
`
`two materials may also be exploited to design a structure wherein conductor caps
`
`28 are extremely thin.” ʼ894 Patent at 5:27-31. Havemann discloses that the gap
`
`43 can be used for a “contact plug” to make electrical connection with the
`
`substrate. ʼ894 Patent at 4:62-5:1. This optional contact plug is shown in blue.
`
`39. Shown below is colored figure 4(L) from the ’552 Patent with the colored
`
`Figure 2D of the ʼ894 Patent.
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`40.
`
`It is my opinion that Havemann anticipates Claim 1 of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`[1.0] “A structure, comprising”
`
`41. Havemann discloses “a structure for self-aligned contacts on semiconductor
`
`devices.” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent, 2:10-11.
`
`[1.1] “(a) a conductive layer disposed over a substrate;”
`
`42. Havemann discloses a SACT embodiment with “[c]onformal dielectric 30
`
`deposited on the sidewalls of conductors 26….” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent,
`
`5:10-11. Figure 2D of Havemann illustrates the conductors 26, in purple, as a
`
`conductive layer disposed over a substrate 20 shown in green:
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that Havemann discloses the claim limitations recited in
`
`
`
`[1.1].
`
`[1.2] “(b) a first insulating layer on the conductive layer;”
`
`43. Havemann discloses a structure that includes insulating conductor caps 28.
`
`(emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at 3:62-65. The insulating conductor caps 28 are on
`
`the conductive layer 26 and are illustrated in Figure 2D below in orange:
`
`
`
`As shown in the table at column 6 line 5 in the Havemann patent, the preferred
`
`material for these insulating caps is CVD oxide, which is explicitly listed as an
`
`alternative material. This aligns with the ’552 Patent’s disclosure that the
`
`insulating layer is made up of a TEOS oxide, which is a type of CVD oxide.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that Havemann discloses the claim limitations recited in
`
`[1.2].
`
`[1.3] “(c) a contact region in said first insulating layer;”
`
`44. Havemann discloses that “preferably a short anisotropic etch of the
`
`conformal layer follows these steps if contact is to be made to the substrate in the
`
`gap (which may then be followed by a deposition of conducting material in the gap
`
`to form an electrical contact to the substrate).” ʼ894 Patent at 2:62-66. The contact
`
`region identified in Figure 2D below is an example of a gap between the first
`
`insulating layers 28.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In fact, Havemann discloses “contact plug 40, formed of a conducting material
`
`(e.g. a composite comprised of a refractory metal underlayer with a tungsten
`
`overlayer) may be deposited in cap window 39 and contact window 41 (which
`
`includes the portion of insulated gap 29 underlying window 39) to form a contact
`
`to the substrate at gap bottom 43.” ʼ894 Patent at 4:63-5:1. Thus, it is my opinion
`
`that Havemann discloses the claim limitations recited in [1.3].
`
`[1.4] “(d) at least one insulating spacer in the contact region adjacent to the
`first insulating layer; and”1
`
`
`
`
`1 Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite an “insulating spacer” while claims 8-10 recite an
`
`“insulative spacer.” In performing my analysis herein, I have used the following
`
`construction for those terms: “electrically insulating material next to a conductive
`
`portion and within the contact region/opening” which in my opinion, is consistent
`
`with the understanding of this term to a person of skill in the art in view of the
`
`specification of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`45.
`
`In the table at column 6, line 16, Havemann discloses a conformal layer 30
`
`made of a material, such as CVD oxide. (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at 6:16.
`
`
`
`As explained in the ’552 Patent, oxide layers (e.g., TEOS oxide layers) are
`
`insulators. ʼ552 Patent at 4:37-38. CVD oxide is a known disclosure of an oxide
`
`layer because it is an oxide deposited via chemical vapor deposition.
`
`46. The conformal layer 30, shown in yellow below in Figure 2D is electrically
`
`insulating material next to a conductive portion and within the contact
`
`region/opening:
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2D, the conformal layer 30 is adjacent to the
`
`insulating conductor caps 28 (i.e., the first insulating layer). ʼ894 Patent, Figure
`
`2D. Notably, in the table in column 6, the insulating spacers 30 are disclosed as
`
`the same material as insulating layer 28—CVD oxide. Likewise, in the ’552
`
`Patent, the insulating spacers and the first insulating layer are both TEOS oxides,
`
`which is a type of CVD oxide. ʼ552 Patent at 11:41-42. In fact, the only thing that
`
`distinguishes the insulating layer and the insulating spacers in the ’552 Patent is
`
`that the spacers are distinguished by “ghost lines.” Id. Thus, it is my opinion that
`
`Havemann discloses the claim limitations recited in [1.4].
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`[1.5] “(e) an etch stop material over said first insulating layer and adjacent
`
`to the insulating spacer, the etch stop material being a different material
`from the insulating spacer,”2
`
`
`47. Havemann discloses that “[a]dditional material may subsequently be
`
`deposited as a conformal dielectric overlayer 42, e.g., using thermal oxide or
`
`silicon nitride (see FIG. 2C).” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at 5:16-18. The ’552
`
`Patent explains that silicon nitride is a known etch stop material. ʼ552 Patent 4:42-
`
`44. This is also disclosed in Havemann, which says “[i]f conformal layer 30 and
`
`
`2 Claims 1-5, 8-10 all recite an “etch stop material.” In applying these terms in my
`
`analysis herein, I have used the following construction: “etch resistant material
`
`applied to permit subsequent etching of the substrate without risk of exposing the
`
`device structures and layers.” This understanding comes directly from the
`
`specification (ʼ552 Patent at 4:13-18) and is consistent with the understanding of
`
`this term to a person of skill in the art in light of the specification. Claim 1 recites
`
`an “etch stop material over said first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating
`
`spacer.” In performing my analysis here, I have interpreted this term to mean
`
`“etch stop material over at least a portion of an electrically insulating layer and
`
`next to at least a portion of the insulating spacer.” This construction is consistent
`
`with the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in view of the ʼ552 Patent’s
`
`specification.
`
`
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`overlayer 42 differ in materials (e.g., thermal oxide and nitride), relative selectivity
`
`between the two materials may also be exploited to design a structure wherein
`
`conductor caps 28 are extremely thin.” ʼ894 Patent at 5:27-31. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time knew that silicon nitride was a known etch stop material.
`
`As shown in Figure 2D below, layer 42 is over the first insulating layer 28 and
`
`adjacent to the insulating spacer 30. ʼ894 Patent at 5:15-22. Importantly, the table
`
`in column 6 identifies “silicon nitride” as the preferred material for layer 42.
`
`
`
`48. Havemann clarifies that the etch stop material and insulators should be
`
`different materials: “If conformal layer 30 and overlayer 42 differ in materials
`
`(e.g. thermal oxide and nitride), relatively selectively between the two materials
`
`may also be exploited to design a structure wherein conductor caps 28 are
`
`extremely thin.” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at 5:27-31. One of skill in the art
`
`at the time would have understood that the conformal dielectric 42 is an etch stop
`
`material over the first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating spacer.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`[1.6] “wherein a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the
`substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more
`than 85°.”
`
`
`49. Figure 2D of Havemann illustrates that the insulating spacers, in yellow, are
`
`perpendicular to the substrate surface 20:
`
`
`
`Specifically, Havemann discloses that “[c]ap window 39 supplies a pattern for
`
`etching a contact window through organic-containing layer 32 by a suitable
`
`anisotropic (substantially in one direction, usually vertical) etch.” ʼ894 Patent, col.
`
`4, lines 37-40.
`
`50. Havemann further discloses that “limited etch anisotropy” is the “ability to
`
`etch in one direction only, e.g. vertically.” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at col.
`
`2, lines 4-5. Thus, it is my opinion that Havemann discloses the limitations recited
`
`in [1.6].
`
`51.
`
`See claim chart A in Exhibit HYNIX-1008.
`
`Claim 2
`
`52.
`
`It is my opinion that Havemann anticipates Claim 2 of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`25
`
`

`
`
`
`[2.0] “The semiconductor apparatus of claim 1 wherein said etch stop
`
`material comprises silicon nitride.”
`
`53. Havemann discloses that “silicon nitride and silicon dioxide (of different
`
`varieties) are used for the dielectric layers;….” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at
`
`1:56-60. As explained above, the table in column 6 clarifies that the preferred
`
`material for the etch stop layer 42 is silicon nitride. Thus, Havemann discloses the
`
`claim limitations recited in [2.0].
`
`54.
`
`See claim chart A in Exhibit HYNIX-1008.
`
`Claim 3
`
`55.
`
`It is my opinion that Havemann anticipates Claim 3 of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`[3.0] “The semiconductor apparatus of claim 1 wherein said etch stop
`
`material comprises silicon dioxide.”
`
`56. Havemann discloses that “[s]ilicon nitride and silicon dioxide (of different
`
`varieties) are used for the dielectric layers;….” (emphasis added). ʼ894 Patent at
`
`1:56-60 Havemann makes clear that either silicon nitride or silicon dioxide are
`
`useable as an etch stop material for drawing element 42, as shown in the table
`
`below. ʼ894 Patent, Table at 6:30-31.
`
`
`
`WDC 373144353v4
`
`26
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Thermal oxidation and CVD oxide are and were well-known methods for
`
`providing silicon dioxide. It is my opinion that one of skill in the art at the time
`
`would understand that by disclosing thermal oxide and CVD oxide above,
`
`Havemann is disclosing silicon dioxide as an alternative for silicon nitride to be
`
`used as the etch stop material. Moreover, claim 5 of Havemann discloses that the
`
`conformal dielectric layer can be CVD silicon dioxide. Thus, it is my opinion that
`
`Havemann discloses the claim limitations recited in [3.0].
`
`57.
`
`See claim chart A in Exhibit HYNIX-1008.
`
`Claim 4
`
`58.
`
`It is my opinion that Havemann anticipates Claim 4 of the ʼ552 Patent.
`
`[4.0] “The structure of claim 1, wherein the insulating spacer has a surface
`
`portion in the contact region without overlying etch stop material.”
`
`59. As illustrated below, Figure 2D of Havemann discloses that after etching the
`
`top portion of the insulating spacer is not covered by etch stop. ʼ894 Patent at 5:6-
`
`9, Figure 2D. The surface o

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