throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: June 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`and
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002871
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01311 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Intel Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc.,
`Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC &
`Co. KG, and Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) challenge the patentability of claims 1–7 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’552
`patent”), owned by DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision
`is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. We base
`our decision on the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d). With respect to the grounds instituted in this trial, we have
`considered the papers submitted by the parties and the evidence cited
`therein. For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 of the ’552 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`On December 8, 2015, Intel Corporation filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–7 of the ’552 patent.
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). On
`June 8, 2016, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of the ’552
`patent based on the following specific grounds (Paper 11, “Dec. on Inst.,”
`28–29).
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 2, and 4–7
`
`3
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Heath2
`
`Heath, Hawley,3 and Chappell4
`
`After institution, Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc.,
`Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC &
`Co. KG, and Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG
`(collectively, “Qualcomm”) filed a petition requesting inter partes review of
`claims 1–7 of the ’552 patent on the same grounds asserted by Intel
`Corporation, accompanied by a timely motion seeking joinder with this
`proceeding. IPR2016-01311, Papers 3 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder).5
`Patent Owner did not oppose the joinder. We instituted an inter partes
`review and joined it with the present proceeding. Papers 18, 19.
`On September 7, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 20, “PO Resp.”) that contained no citations to evidence and no
`argument, other than noting that, in contrast to the standard applied in
`reaching a decision to institute (i.e., a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will
`prevail on its challenge to patentability of a claim), the standard for reaching
`
`
`2 Ex. 1003, U.S. Patent No. 4,686,000 (Aug. 11, 1987) (“Heath”).
`3 Ex. 1004, European Patent Application Publication No. 0592078 A1 (Apr.
`13, 1994) (“Hawley”).
`4 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,541,427 (July 30, 1996) (“Chappell”).
`5 Because Qualcomm’s petition in IPR2016-01311 is identical in all
`substantive aspects to the Petition in this proceeding (see Paper 18, 8–9), we
`cite only to the Petition throughout this Final Written Decision.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`a final decision is whether the Petitioner proved unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner then stated that it
`“defers to the Board to make this determination based on its impartial
`analysis of the prior art and Petitioners’ arguments.” Id.
`In its Reply (Paper 21, “Pet. Reply”) filed on December 7, 2016,
`Petitioner stated that Patent Owner has not cross-examined Petitioner’s
`expert, John C. Bravman, Ph.D., or provided any testimony that contradicts
`Dr. Bravman’s testimony, and that the challenged claims should be found
`unpatentable. Pet. Reply 1–2.
`No hearing was held because we determined oral argument is not
`necessary to render a final written decision in this proceeding. See Paper 24,
`2.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`According to the parties, the ’552 patent is the subject of the
`following patent infringement cases: DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`Case No. 6:15-cv-130-JRG (E.D. Tex.); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Samsung
`Elec. Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:15-cv-690 (E.D. Tex.); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v.
`SK Hynix, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-691 (E.D. Tex.); and DSS Tech. Mgmt.,
`Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-692 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 7; Paper 6,
`2–3. In related proceedings before the Board, we instituted inter partes
`reviews of claims 8–12 of the ’552 patent in IPR2016-00288 and IPR2016-
`01314.6 The ’552 patent is also the subject of an instituted trial proceeding
`Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2016-00782.
`
`
`6 Case IPR2016-01314 has been joined with IPR2016-00288.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Additionally, we instituted inter partes reviews of claims of U.S. Patent No.
`5,965,924 in Intel Corp. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Cases IPR2016-00289,
`IPR2016-00290, IPR2016-01312, and IPR2016-01313.7
`
`II. THE ’552 PATENT
`A. Described Invention
`The ’552 patent describes a process of semiconductor device
`fabrication and a structure of a semiconductor device having “substantially
`rectangular” lateral insulating spacers adjacent to gate electrodes. Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. The ’552 patent defines the term “substantially rectangular” to
`mean that “a side of the spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface
`of more than 85°.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 40–42.
`Figure 4(D) of the ’552 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4(D) illustrates a cross-sectional view of a series of gates 415 (also
`called conducting layers or polysilicon layers) completely encapsulated in
`insulating material 420, e.g., TEOS (tetraethyl orthosilicate glass), where
`
`
`7 Cases IPR2016-01312 and IPR2016-01313 have been joined with
`IPR2016-00290 and IPR2016-00289, respectively.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`spacers or spacer portions 435 of the insulating material adjacent to the gates
`have substantially rectangular profiles. Id. at col. 9, ll. 9–13; col. 11, ll. 40–
`46. As shown in Figure 4(D), gates 415 are insulated from sources or drains
`405 by insulating dielectric layers 410. See id. at col. 10, ll. 49–50. The
`’552 patent describes a process of making high quality contacts to the
`sources or drains, such as “self-aligned” contacts, by etching structures over
`substrate 400 and sources or drains 405. Id. at col. 7, ll. 19–22; col. 8, ll. 4–
`6.
`
`Figure 4(I) of the ’552 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4(I) illustrates additional structures deposited and etched over the
`structure described in Figure 4(D), such as second dielectric layer 440
`(called etch stop layer), blanket layer 450, and photoresist mask layer 455.
`Id. at col. 9, ll. 33–39; col. 11, ll. 63–65; col. 12, ll. 34–42. According to the
`’552 patent, etch stop layer 440, e.g., silicon nitride layer 440, depicted in
`Figure 4(I) is distinct or different from the underlying TEOS insulating
`layer. Id. at col. 12, ll. 10–11. The etch stop layer protects the underlying
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`TEOS layer when blanket layer 450 made of BPTEOS8 is etched away to
`create contact openings 460 and 465 above source or drain 445. See id. at
`col. 12, ll. 36–42; col. 4, ll. 41–59.
`A second etch is then performed to remove etch stop layer 440
`covering source or drain 445 in contact openings 460 and 465. Id. at col. 12,
`ll. 48–52; col. 7, ll. 43–45. The ’552 patent describes that the second etch is
`“almost completely anisotropic,” which means that the etchant etches in the
`vertical direction, or perpendicular relative to the substrate surface. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 45–48; col. 12, ll. 55–58. Hence, the etch removes the etch stop
`material covering the area of the contact openings or contact regions 460 and
`465, but does not significantly etch the etch stop material adjacent to the
`spacer portions 435.9 Id. at col. 7, ll. 53–55; col. 12, ll. 58–61.
`
`
`8 BPTEOS is an acronym for borophosphosilicate tetraethyl orthosilicate
`glass. See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 6–7.
`9 As discussed above, spacer portions 435 are illustrated in Figure 4(D) and
`the accompanying text. See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 40–46, Fig. 4(D).
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Figures 4(J) and 4(K) of the ’552 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figures 4(J) and 4(K) illustrate the structure of the semiconductor device of
`the ’552 patent after the second etch for removing the etch stop layer from
`the contact regions 460 and 465 is completed. As shown in Figures 4(J) and
`4(K), due to the anisotropic or vertical nature of the second etch, only a
`small portion, i.e., portion 475, of the TEOS spacer portion 435 is removed
`during the etch. Id. at col. 13, ll. 6–9. Of primary significance, according to
`the ’552 patent, the spacer portion 435 of the TEOS insulating layer 420
`retains its substantially rectangular profile, in contrast to the conventional
`prior art method which transforms a substantially rectangular spacer into a
`sloped spacer. Id. at col. 13, ll. 9–10; col. 7, ll. 48–51; col. 5, ll. 4–14.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced
`below with the key limitation (the “angle limitation”) emphasized in italics:
`1. A structure, comprising:
`(a) a conductive layer disposed over a substrate;
`(b) a first insulating layer on the conductive layer:
`(c) a contact region in said first insulating layer;
`(d) at least one insulating spacer in the contact region adjacent
`to the first insulating layer; and
`(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,
`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°.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`As acknowledged by the parties, the ’552 patent has expired. Pet. 29;
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Thus, we construe the claims in accordance with the
`standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). See In re CSB-Sys. Int’l, Inc., 832 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“[W]hen an expired patent is subject to reexamination, the traditional
`Phillips construction standard attaches.”) (citing In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42,
`46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., 646 Fed.
`App’x 1019, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that in an inter partes review,
`“[c]laims of an expired patent are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning in accordance with our opinion in [Phillips]”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`In the Decision on Institution, applying the Phillips standard, we
`preliminarily interpreted the “angle limitation” set forth above—i.e., the
`limitation reciting “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°”—to mean “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the
`substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.” Dec.
`on Inst. 8–14. Importantly, we were unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument that the angle of a side of the insulating spacer must be obtained
`“through the use of a low selectivity etch” (Prelim. Resp. 16–20) and
`determined that the challenged claims do not require the use of a low
`selectivity etch. Dec. on Inst. 9–12.
`The parties do not present additional claim construction arguments in
`their Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply. Upon considering the
`complete record, we discern no reason to deviate from our construction,
`which was adopted from the parties’ agreed construction at the district court
`(Dec. on Inst. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1028 (Dist. Ct. Claim Construction
`Order), 7–8)), and maintain our construction of the “angle limitation” to
`mean “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the substrate
`surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.”
`No other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of
`this Final Written Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642
`F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim 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))).
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`As previously discussed, the Patent Owner Response does not contain
`any substantive argument or citations to evidence. Although it remains
`Petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence, in our Scheduling Order, we cautioned Patent Owner that “any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`waived.” See Paper 12, 4–5. Patent Owner elected not to respond
`substantively and, instead, “defers to the Board” to determine whether
`Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged claims are unpatentable by a
`preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. Under the particular
`circumstance of this case, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we
`exercise our discretion to consider Patent Owner’s substantive patentability
`arguments in its Preliminary Response in reaching a decision as set forth
`below. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a).
`A. Anticipation by Heath
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Heath. Pet. 36–46. Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations and specific citations to Heath indicating where in the
`reference the claimed features are disclosed. Id. In addition, Petitioner
`relies upon the Declaration of John C. Bravman, Ph.D. (“Bravman Decl.,”
`Ex. 1002) to support its position. Id. Upon review of all of the parties’
`papers and supporting evidence discussed in those papers, we are persuaded
`that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that
`claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`anticipated by Heath.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if a single prior
`art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set
`forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it]
`discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the
`limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in
`the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be
`arranged 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); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
`832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation
`with the principles identified above in mind.
`
`2. Overview of Heath
`Heath describes a process for forming a self-aligned contact window
`in a semiconductor device, such as an integrated circuit. Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`Heath describes a two-step etching process which comprises the steps of first
`etching a dielectric layer down to a silicon nitride etch stop layer, and then
`etching the etch stop, leaving a “stick” of the etch stop material on the
`vertical sidewall of the layer to be protected. Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 8B of Heath is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8B depicts a cross-sectional view of a semiconductor structure after
`the first etching step, including gate electrode 16 insulated from contact
`window 32 and source or drain 20 by silicon nitride layer 10. See id. at
`col. 9, ll. 50–67. In the second etching step, etch stop layer 10 is removed to
`open contact window 32 to source or drain 20. Heath describes that, because
`the nitride removal is anisotropic, vertical “stick” 10a of nitride layer 10 will
`remain on the side of gate electrode 16 so that no electrical short occurs
`between the gate electrode and the contact window or the source or drain
`region. Id. at col. 10, ll. 1–11.
`
`3. Discussion
`
`a. Claim 1
`Petitioner asserts that the embodiment depicted in Figure 8C of Heath
`discloses every limitation of claim 1. Pet. 36. According to Petitioner,
`Heath is directed to the same problem as the ’552 patent—i.e., avoiding a
`short-circuit between the contact and the gate electrode—and describes
`solving the problem in the same way—that is, through the use of a non-
`conductive sidewall spacer with vertical sides. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Abstract; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Petitioner references Figure 8C of Heath and
`asserts that Heath discloses a transistor structure consisting of the same
`components arranged in the same way as the invention of the ’552 patent.
`Id. at 25–26 (identifying various components depicted in Fig. 8C and citing
`Ex. 1003, Abstract, Fig. 8C, col. 5, ll. 26–30, col. 10, ll. 2–13; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 61, 62).
`Figure 8C of Heath is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8C above depicts a cross-sectional view of a semiconductor structure
`at the same stage of processing as Figure 8B (reproduced in Overview of
`Heath section above) combined with the addition of a sidewall spacer 16a.
`Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 14–19. Referencing Figure 8C, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations and specific citations to Heath indicating where in the
`reference each limitation of claim 1 is disclosed. Pet. 36–43. For the
`reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that Heath discloses each
`limitation of independent claim 1 as arranged in the claim.
`
`i. Preamble and Elements (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
`Beginning with the preamble of claim 1, Petitioner cites Heath’s
`disclosure of a transistor structure in Figure 8C as disclosing a “structure”
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`recited in claim 1. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 33–35, Fig. 8C;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 85). We agree with Petitioner that Figure 8C of Heath discloses
`a “structure” recited in claim 1 because, as noted by Petitioner, Heath
`describes methods to “produce a transistor structure which has source/drain
`implants like those shown in FIG. 8C.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 10,
`ll. 33–35); see also id. at 25–26 (Petitioner arguing that Figure 8C of Heath
`discloses a transistor structure consisting of the same components arranged
`in the same way as the invention of the ’552 patent). As discussed above,
`both the ’552 patent and Heath describe a process of forming a self-aligned
`contact structure in a semiconductor device. Ex. 1001, Abstract, col. 7,
`ll. 19–22, col. 8, ll. 4–6 (“The structure contemplated by the invention is an
`effective device for small feature size structures, particularly self-aligned
`contacts.”); Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`Petitioner next addresses the limitations recited in the body of claim 1.
`Claim 1 numbers from (a) to (e) the elements recited in the body of the claim
`and recites the numbered elements as follows: (a) a conductive layer
`disposed over a substrate; (b) a first insulating layer on the conductive layer;
`(c) a contact region in said first insulating layer; (d) at least one insulating
`spacer in the contact region adjacent to the first insulating layer; and (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.
`Petitioner asserts that gate electrode 16 depicted in Figure 8C
`discloses “(a) a conductive layer disposed over a substrate,” as recited in
`claim 1. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 8–11; col. 9, ll. 44–47, 50–
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`55; col. 7, ll. 36–38; Figs. 2–7, 8C). Petitioner notes that Heath discloses
`gate electrode 16 is made of polysilicon, which Petitioner argues citing the
`testimony of Dr. Bravman, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand to be electrically conductive in a transistor structure. Id. at 37
`(citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 8–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 86). Petitioner further argues
`that Figure 2 of Heath shows gate electrodes 14 and 16 are formed over
`substrate 12 as part of the same process of forming the structure depicted in
`Figure 8C. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 36–38, Fig. 2).
`We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that polysilicon
`used to form gate electrode 16 of Heath is an electrically conductive
`material. We are also persuaded that Figure 2 of Heath showing gate
`electrode 16 formed over substrate 12 is part of the same process of forming
`the structure depicted in Figure 8C because both figures illustrate the process
`of forming a self-aligned contact window in a semiconductor device. See
`Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 28–32 (“FIG. 2 shows an illustrative semiconductor
`structure near the completion of processing according to the invented
`process applied illustratively for establishing a self-aligned contact window
`to a gate electrode or field-shield electrode edge.” (emphasis added)),
`col. 11, ll. 11–13 (“As a result of the process described with reference to
`FIGS. 8 and 9, the contact window to the active area will be self-aligned,
`i.e., it will be protected from shorting to an element nearby to which contact
`is not to be made.” (emphases added)). Therefore, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s argument and evidence that Heath discloses “(a) a conductive
`layer disposed over a substrate,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner next asserts that oxide layer 24b depicted in Figure 8C
`discloses “(b) a first insulating layer on the conductive layer” recited in
`claim 1. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 52–55, Fig. 8C). Petitioner
`relies upon the testimony of Dr. Bravman and argues oxide is a common
`insulating material known to persons of ordinary skill in the art to be an
`insulating layer in a transistor structure. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87).
`As noted by Petitioner, Figure 8C plainly shows that oxide layer 24b
`is formed on gate electrode 16. Id. 37–38 (identifying oxide layer 24b
`formed on gate electrode 16 in Petitioner-annotated Fig. 8C (not reproduced
`herein)). We note that Heath describes oxide as an insulating material.
`Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 27–31 (“a self-aligned contact process which involves
`establishing gate electrodes . . . protecting the tops of these elements with an
`insulating oxide” (emphasis added)), col. 14, ll. 31–32 (“Oxide 87a . . . is
`grown as an insulator” (emphases added)). On the complete record, we
`credit the testimony of Dr. Bravman and are persuaded that oxide layer 24b
`on top of gate electrode 16 depicted in Figure 8C discloses “(b) a first
`insulating layer on the conductive layer,” as recited in claim 1.
`Figure 8C of Heath, as annotated by Petitioner, is reproduced below.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`Pet. 40. Annotated Figure 8C above shows Petitioner’s identification of
`several limitations of claim 1 present in Heath.
`Petitioner asserts that contact window 32 (annotated in pink above) in
`oxide layer 24b (annotated in gray) shown in Figure 8C discloses “(c) a
`contact region in said first insulating layer” recited in claim 1. Id. at 38–39
`(citing Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 57–61; Fig. 8C). Citing the testimony of Dr.
`Bravman, Petitioner argues that contact window 32 (i.e., the claimed
`“contact region”) is created by removing material in insulating layers 24a
`and 24b (as well as portions of etch stop layer 10 and spacer 16a) in the area
`colored in pink in Annotated Figure 8C above. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88).
`Petitioner argues that the ’552 patent similarly describes the process of
`forming a contact region in the insulating layer above the gate by etching an
`opening through the insulating layer. Id. at 39 n.8 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 11,
`ll. 14–17, Fig. 4(B); Ex. 1002 ¶ 88 n.6). Petitioner further argues that
`contact window 32 forms an opening for electric contact that extends down
`to source/drain 20. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 57–61; Fig. 8C).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument because Figure 8C shows
`contact window 32 has been formed by creating an opening in oxide layers
`24a and 24b, as indicated by the dotted lines 56 outlining the removed
`portions. Petitioner’s argument is consistent with the disclosure in Heath’s
`Figures 8A, 8B, 8C and their accompanying text, which describe in detail
`the process of forming contact window 32 by etching away materials in
`oxide layers 24a and 24b (as well as portions of etch stop layer 10 and oxide
`spacer 16a) along the dotted lines 56 and creating an opening that extends
`down to source/drain 20. Ex. 1003, Figs. 8A–C, col. 6, l. 67–col. 7, l. 3,
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`col. 9, l. 50–col. 11, l. 15. Petitioner’s cited evidence is part of this
`disclosure. Based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Heath
`discloses “(c) a contact region in said first insulating layer,” as recited in
`claim 1.
`Petitioner asserts that Figure 8C of Heath also discloses “(d) at least
`one insulating spacer in the contact region adjacent to the first insulating
`layer,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 12–27,
`Fig. 8C). Petitioner identifies sidewall spacer 16a shown in Figure 8C
`(colored in brown in Annotated Figure 8C reproduced above) as the claimed
`“insulating spacer,” and argues that sidewall spacer 16a is in contact window
`32, i.e., the claimed “contact region,” and adjacent to oxide layer 24b, the
`claimed “first insulating layer.” Id. at 39. Citing the testimony of Dr.
`Bravman, Petitioner argues that sidewall spacer 16a is an insulating spacer
`because it is made of insulating oxide. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 10,
`ll. 23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that sidewall spacer 16a is
`“in” contact window 32 because Figure 8C shows, as indicated by dotted
`line 56, a portion of sidewall spacer 16a has been removed to create an
`opening and form contact window 32. We are also persuaded that oxide
`spacer 16a is an insulating spacer because, as discussed above, oxide is a
`common insulating material known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`Therefore, we are persuaded that Heath discloses “(d) at least one insulating
`spacer in the contact region adjacent to the first insulating layer,” as recited
`in claim 1.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`Referencing Annotated Figure 8C reproduced above, Petitioner next
`asserts that Heath discloses “(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,” as recited in claim 1.
`Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, col. 5, ll. 38–39, col. 9, ll. 2–4, 66–67,
`col. 10, ll. 12–27, Fig. 8C). Petitioner identifies etch stop layer 10 shown in
`Figure 8C (annotated in purple in Annotated Figure 8C above) as the
`claimed “etch stop material” and argues that, as shown in Figure 8C, etch
`stop layer 10 is over oxide layer 24b (i.e., the claimed “first insulating
`layer”) and adjacent to sidewall spacer 16a (i.e., the claimed “insulating
`spacer”). Id. at 40. Citing the testimony of Dr. Bravman, Petitioner asserts
`that etch stop layer 10 is a “different material” from sidewall spacer 16a
`because etch stop layer 10 made of silicon nitride whereas sidewall spacer
`16a is formed of oxide. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, col. 5, ll. 38–39,
`col. 9, ll. 2–4, 66–67, col. 10, ll. 12–27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 90). Petitioner further
`argues that, in both the ’552 patent and Heath, a vertical “stick” of etch stop
`material remains adjacent to the sidewall spacer in the contact opening after
`the etching process forms the contact opening. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001,
`col. 12, ll. 58–65; Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 1–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument because Figure 8C plainly
`shows etch stop layer 10 is over oxide layer 24b and adjacent to sidewall
`spacer 16a on the right side of oxide layer 24b. As noted by Petitioner,
`sidewall spacer 16a is also adjacent to “vertical ‘stick’ 10a of layer 10” on
`the left side of oxide layer 24b, as illustrated in Figure 8C. Id. (quoting
`Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 1–11). In addition, we credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`and are persuaded that silicon nitride which comprises etch stop layer 10 is a
`different material from oxide that makes up sidewall spacer 16a. Therefore,
`we are persuaded that Heath discloses “(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,” as recited in
`claim 1.
`Patent Owner does not dispute specifically Petitioner’s contention that
`Heath discloses the preamble and numbered elements (a), (b), (c), (d), and
`(e) of claim 1. Upon considering the complete record, we determine
`Petitioner has demonstrated that Heath discloses the preamble and elements
`(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of claim 1.
`
`ii. The “Angle Limitation”
`The last limitation of claim 1, the “angle limitation,” recites “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°.” Petitioner
`asserts that Figure 8C of Heath also discloses the “angle limitation” recited
`in claim 1. Pet. 41–43. According to Petitioner, Heath discloses a sidewall
`spacer 16a with a side that is at a right angle relative to the substrate surface
`because Heath describes the sidewall spacers as “vertical” with respect to the
`substrate. Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract; col. 11, ll. 1–10; Fig. 8C).
`Pointing to Figure 8C of Heath, Petitioner argues Heath describes that the
`entire side of the sidewall spacer is at a 90° angle relative to the substrate
`surface, and, therefore, the sidewall spacer meets the “angle limitation”
`regardless of where along the side of the sidewall spacer—be it near the
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00287
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`bottom or near the top of the spacer—the angle is measured relative to the
`substrate surface. Id. at 42–43.
`Patent Owner asserts that Heath does not disclose the “angle
`limitation” recited in claim 1 because Heath does not describe using a low
`selectivity etch to obtain substantially rectangular insulating spacers.
`Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Patent Owner further asserts that Heath is merely
`cumulative of the prior art structure disclosed in the Background of the
`Invention section of the ’552 patent and that the vertical sidewall in Figure
`8C of Heath relied upon by Petitioner is the same as the prior art “vertical
`sidewall” that is shown in Figure 1(B) of the ’552 patent. Id. at 27–28.
`Patent Owner contends that both figures do not show actual etching

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