`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: August 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`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 IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S.
`Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG,
`Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a petition, Paper 3 (“Pet.”), to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 7–12, 15, and 17 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Petitioner also timely
`filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 4 (“Mot. For Joinder”)) of this proceeding
`with Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., Case
`IPR2016-00290 (“Intel IPR2016-00290”), which is the subject of a Decision
`to Institute entered on June 8, 2016. Petitioner represents that the instant
`Petition “is identical to the petition in [Intel IPR2016-00290].”1 Mot. For
`Joinder 6. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the
`arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition, for the
`reasons described below, we institute inter partes review of claims 7–12, 15,
`and 17.
`
`
`
`
`1 We understand Petitioner to mean identical in all substantive matters, as
`the identity of the parties is different. Petitioner also acknowledges that it
`relies on the testimony of a different expert than the expert witness in Intel
`IPR2016-00290, but states that the testimony is essentially the same. Mot.
`For Joinder 7.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`Petitioner Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc.,
`Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC &
`Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG identifies
`itself as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 5.
`
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`The parties state that Patent Owner has asserted ’924 Patent in the
`following litigation: (1) DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:15-CV-130-RWS (E.D. Tex. 2015); and (2) DSS Technology
`Management, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 6:15-CV-692-JRG (E.D. Tex.
`2015). Pet. 6.
`Petitioner notes that it has filed a separate petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1–6, 13, 14, and 16 of the ’924 Patent. Pet. 5. That
`proceeding has been designated IPR2016-01313.
`
`
`THE ’924 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1101)
`The ’924 Patent relates to semiconductor fabrication in general, and in
`particular concerns a metal plug local interconnect that is formed in the same
`process of forming metal plugs that are already designed as sub-metal
`plugged contacts. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 9–11. The ’924 Patent discloses that
`in semiconductor fabrication, it is often necessary to make a local
`interconnect between a gate polysilicon layer to N+ or P+ diffusion regions.
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 16–17. According to the ’924 Patent, conventionally such
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`local interconnects were fabricated using buried contacts, as shown in
`Figures 1A and 1B of the ’924 Patent (id. at col. 1, l. 25–col. 2, l. 11) or with
`a metallic local interconnect strap to shunt from a gate polysilicon to a
`diffusion region, as illustrated in Figures 2A and 2B of the ’924 Patent (id. at
`col. 2, l. 12–41).
`The ’924 Patent discloses a semiconductor structure in which a
`diffusion region is formed in a silicon substrate and a polysilicon gate is
`formed on the top surface of the silicon substrate adjacent to, but not
`contacting, the diffusion region. Ex. 1101, col. 3, ll. 1–6, 14–18. A layer of
`insulating material is then deposited on top of the polysilicon gate and the
`diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 6–7, 19–20. A via opening is formed in the
`insulating material to expose a portion of the polysilicon gate and a portion
`of the diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 7–8, 20–22. An electrically
`conducting material is deposited to at least partially fill the via opening to
`provide an electrical connection between the polysilicon gate and the
`diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 8–11, 23–27.
`
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`7. A method of forming a local interconnect in a semiconductor
`structure, comprising the step of:
`depositing an electrically conducting material in a via exposing at
`least a portion of a gate, a sidewall spacer adjacent to said gate
`and a portion of a diffusion region such that said electrically
`conducting material
`contacts
`and provides
`electrical
`communication between said gate and said diffusion region, said
`semiconductor structure comprising said diffusion region in a
`silicon substrate, said gate being on said substrate juxtaposed to
`but not contacting said diffusion region, said sidewall spacer
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`being disposed above said diffusion region, said via being in an
`insulating material on said gate.
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`patentability:
`
`Sakamoto, U.S. Patent No. 5,475,240 issued Dec. 12, 1995, Ex. 1103
`(“Sakamoto”); and
`
`Cederbaum et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,100,817 issued Mar. 31, 1992,
`Ex. 1104 (“Cederbaum”).
`
`
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTED IN PETITION
`Claims
`Statutory Basis
`Challenge
`Anticipation by
`7–9, 15, and 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`Sakamoto
`Obviousness over the
`combination of
`Sakamoto and
`Cederbaum
`
`10–12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner states that the instant Petition is substantially identical to the
`petition in Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., which
`was filed December 8, 2015 and assigned Case No. IPR2016-00289 (Intel
`IPR2016-00289). Pet. 1. In Intel IPR2016-00289, Intel challenged different
`claims, i.e., claims 1–6, 13, 14, and 16 of the ’924 Patent. Petitioner’s
`reference to IPR2016-00289 appears to be a typographical error. Based on
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`the claims identified in the Petition and on the representations in Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder, we understand Petitioner to represent that the instant
`Petition is identical in substance to the petition filed in Intel IPR2016-00290,
`in which Intel challenged claims 7–12, 15, and 17 of the ’924 Patent.
`Petitioner also acknowledges that it relies on the testimony of a different
`expert than the expert witness in Intel IPR2016-00290, but states that the
`testimony is essentially the same. Id. at 7. Thus, we understand that
`Petitioner challenges the claims of the ’924 Patent on the same grounds on
`which we instituted inter partes review in Intel IPR2016-00290.
`We incorporate by reference our decision in Intel IPR2016-00290 and
`institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the same grounds, for the
`same reasons.
`
`
`SUMMARY
`For the reasons discussed above, on the current record we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`will succeed on the following challenges to patentability:
`Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`Sakamoto; and
`Claims 10–12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01312
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes review
`of the ’924 Patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this
`Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is
`hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the following
`grounds and no other grounds are authorized:
`Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`Sakamoto; and
`Claims 10–12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial will be conducted in accordance
`with the Scheduling Order entered in Intel IPR2016-00290.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Grant K. Rowan
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`yung-hoon.ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Andriy Lytvyn
`Anton J. Hopen
`Nicholas Pfeifer
`Smith & Hopen, P.A.
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com
`7