`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 20, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before: BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`JARED BOBROW, ESQ.
`ROBERT S. MAGEE, ESQ.
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, California 94065-1135
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`JAMES C. GUMINA, ESQ.
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`June 20, 2017, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Good afternoon, everyone.
`This is the oral hearing in case IPR2016-00782. I am Judge
`McNamara, with me is Judge Moore. Judge Chung is
`participating remotely, so I would ask everyone to make sure that
`they put any demonstratives or anything they use, limit that to
`what's already been filed so he can look at it, and to speak into the
`microphone so that Judge Chung can hear everything.
`Beginning with the Petitioner, can I have the parties
`introduce themselves.
`MR. BOBROW: Yes, good afternoon. My name is
`Jared Bobrow, counsel for the Petitioner, Samsung Electronics.
`With me at counsel table is Robert Magee, also counsel. And
`James Shin from Samsung is also here as well. Thank you.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you. Patent Owner?
`MR. GUMINA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My
`name is Jim Gumina, I am counsel for DSS and I will be arguing
`today.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Great. Well, welcome to the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Each party will have 30 minutes
`total of argument time. The Petitioner will go first, since the
`burden of proof is on the Petitioner. The Patent Owner can then
`argue its opposition to the Petitioner's case, and the Petitioner will
`then get one more shot with any time it reserves for rebuttal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`So I assume everyone is ready to begin, so let's get
`
`started.
`
`MR. BOBROW: Very good.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Is there some amount of time
`you would like me to alert you to?
`MR. BOBROW: Yes, if you can alert me when we hit
`the 15-minute mark, I would appreciate it.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. Please proceed.
`MR. BOBROW: Thank you very much, Your Honors.
`After the course of briefing in this case, I think it's fair to say that
`the issues in dispute have really come down to three, and I'm
`referring now to slide 3 in the PowerPoint deck that we filed the
`other day. The first issue relates to the Kuesters reference, that's
`the principal reference in the petition. And the first issue really is
`whether Kuesters discloses the claimed angle, the angle between
`the edge of the sidewall spacer, and the substrate. Issue number
`one.
`
`Issue number two pertains to the argument made by the
`Patent Owner that various embodiments and limitations in the
`specification, as they pertain to material size, process conditions
`and the like, should be read into the -- into the claims.
`And last, it relates to a combination, an obvious
`combination set forth in grounds 3 and 4, there is a -- an error in
`bullet number 3 there. This pertains to claims 1 through 7, it
`doesn't pertain to 8 through 12. So it's only 1 through 7. And as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`it pertains to that, the argument made by the Patent Owner was
`that somehow Heath did not teach, along with Kuesters, the
`invention.
`In summary, with respect to the first issue, it's very clear
`in Kuesters that the claimed angle is disclosed. It's set forth in an
`SEM image, and a person of ordinary skill in the art has presented
`the only evidence, the only evidence of what that image discloses,
`and Dr. Fair, a chaired professor at Duke University, evaluated it
`and set forth that it indeed disclosed to a person of ordinary skill
`an angle greater than 85 degrees.
`On the second, Petitioner's arguments are simply
`unfounded. They seek to read in limitations from the
`specification which is improper. Particularly here, there has been
`no disavow, there is no disclaimer, and the specification indeed
`supports the view that these claims are indeed open-ended.
`And then last, with respect to Heath, the argument that
`the Patent Owner makes is a strawman, in the sense they attack
`Heath as it pertains to a sidewall spacer, and yet Petitioner's
`combination doesn't rely upon Heath for the sidewall spacer, it
`relies on Kuesters.
`So, those will be the focus of the argument that I make
`today. And so if we might turn to -- we can just jump straight
`ahead to slide 11, and slide 11, as it pertains to the first issue,
`Kuesters' disclosure of the claimed angle. You can see in slide 11
`the SEM image that adheres in Kuesters. This is figure 4a, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`you can see in figure 4a that this is an SEM image which indeed
`is a scaled image.
`If you look at the lower left corner of the image, you
`can see the designation 0.5 microns, and then there's a bar, clearly
`indicating that the authors intended for this image to be used in a
`scaled fashion. The question, of course, for anticipation, is what
`does Kuesters disclose to a person of ordinary skill. There is no
`dispute that Kuesters discloses a contact region, that it discloses a
`polysilicon or conductive gate, that it discloses indeed a sidewall
`spacer, or a next stop over, at least a portion of the sidewall
`spacer. The only challenge made by Patent Owner has to do with
`the angle between the sidewall spacer and the substrate.
`And here, in terms of what this discloses to a person of
`ordinary skill, we have only as part of evidence in the record, put
`aside attorney argument, the only evidence that we have in the
`record is from Dr. Richard Fair, a professor at Duke University,
`who read the reference, read the figure, identified the elements
`that are set forth in the SEM image, reviewed the image to
`determine the boundaries between the different materials, where
`does the polysilicon begin and end, where does the sidewall begin
`and end, where is the substrate, where is the nitride material?
`Based upon his skill and experience and applying the
`skill and experience of a person of ordinary skill, he was able to
`identify and locate all of those areas, and determine that indeed --
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`MR. BOBROW: Yes?
`JUDGE CHUNG: Can you hear me? Hi, this is Judge
`
`Chung.
`
`MR. BOBROW: Yes?
`JUDGE CHUNG: So, I have a question about what the
`SEM image shows. As you say, it takes some explanation, you
`know, to read what the SEM image, you know, shows to one of
`ordinary skill. The same image, figure 4a of Kuesters, is also
`shown in the petition, pages 20 and 21. And there, on page 21 of
`petition, Petitioner talks about what's shown in the front plane and
`the back plane of the image, or of the structure that's shown in
`figure 4a. And you say that the front plane of the SEM image
`shows the poly gate, insulating top oxide and oxide sidewall
`spacer, and the back plane of the image shows a nitride layer,
`which is I guess is the etch stop, and the thin oxide nitride oxide
`layer, but -- so, but you're saying that the front plane of the image
`shows a nitride etch stop adjacent to the sidewall spacer.
`So my question is, you know, whether and how figure
`4a shows nitride etch stop on the front plane, you know, near the
`sidewall spacer.
`MR. BOBROW: So, I think for purposes of the claim,
`and if we look at, for example, at claim 1, it merely says that you
`have an etch stop material, and I'm on slide 4 now, it says, "an
`etch stop material over said first insulating layer." And so in
`terms of going back to your question then, in terms of the very
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`front, the very front of that contact, which Dr. Fair testified was
`sort of taken through the middle of the contact region, the slice
`through the middle, it doesn't appear that there is any nitride over
`the oxide sidewall spacer there. Where it is over the sidewall
`spacer is further in the back, as you sort of recede into the page,
`and you get further to the back of it, that's where the nitride etch
`stop remains over the sidewall spacer.
`At the front part, where it's largely that whitish -- more
`whitish color, as it were, it doesn't appear, according to Dr. Fair,
`that it -- that the nitride etch stop is present in that portion of the
`sidewall spacer.
`JUDGE CHUNG: I see. I understand. Thank you.
`Thank you for the explanation.
`MR. BOBROW: Okay, thank you.
`So, if we go back to this image and further elaborate on
`it, there hasn't been any dispute about what Dr. Fair did vis-a-vis
`identifying these various structures that are shown in the image,
`or that those structures are there. What Dr. Fair did was he
`looked at the structures, identified where they are, identified their
`boundaries, determined that the image was of a quality that
`permitted measurement and analysis, and then he did a
`measurement.
`He measured the angle between the substrate and the
`edge of that left sidewall spacer, and measured that, using a
`protractor, which he says is the standard way to do it in the field,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`and he came up with an angle of between 86 and 87 degrees.
`That's what's set forth in appendix A of his declaration. Then
`what he did was, to help illustrate the measurement that he did, he
`then made some annotations on the figure to help identify the
`particular structures, and they were colored and he drew in some
`lines to help illustrate the angle that he was measuring.
`Indeed, in doing so, he clearly did a pretty accurate job,
`because in the angled drawing here, his annotated version, the
`angle measures out to 87 degrees, and when he measured from
`the original SEM image, it was 86 to 87 degrees. So he measured
`from the image, he determined where the boundaries were, using
`the skill of an ordinary artisan, and determined what the angle is
`and did the measurement.
`Now, it's important here to make a couple of points.
`Point number one is that this is a scaled image, suitable for
`measurement. Clearly there wouldn't be scaling in there if
`someone didn't think that this was going to be appropriate to take
`measurements. Second, SEMs are used in the industry in the way
`that Dr. Fair used them here. SEMs are used to evaluate, to
`analyze semiconductor devices, processes are performed, and
`after those processes are performed, SEMs are used to evaluate
`whether the process was successful or not, whether the structures
`were formed in the way that was intended. And that's what Dr.
`Fair is merely doing here, looking at the SEM to see what the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`angle is between the -- between the sidewall edge and the
`substrate.
`And indeed, we cited in our brief the Nobelpharma case
`where the Federal Court of Appeals upheld a jury determination
`where the jury relied upon an SEM to determine the size of
`features, the number of features, that sort of thing. So this isn't
`something new, this isn't some unique or odd use of an SEM, this
`is the way SEMs are used in the semiconductor industry. They
`are used, of course, by persons of ordinary skill.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel?
`MR. BOBROW: Yes?
`JUDGE CHUNG: So, I understand that the one of
`ordinary skill in the art, in the industry, you know, may use the
`SEM images to evaluate the structure of semiconductor devices,
`so the question I have is that, I mean, you -- Petitioner argues that
`the technique that Dr. Fair used is, you know, something that is
`kind of standard in the industry. So I was wondering whether the
`SEM image that's shown in figure 4a provides sufficient
`resolution and sufficient detail to reasonably determine, you
`know, that the angle which is for a specific structure, you know,
`to teach the limitation that's claimed -- recited in the claim.
`Dr. Fair doesn't really mention -- you know, I guess if
`the image is really fuzzy, and it doesn't show sufficient detail, can
`he guess that it might be difficult to measure angles or some
`detailed structure. So my question is, is it your position that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`figure 4a shows sufficient detail and sufficient resolution to allow
`one of ordinary skill in the art to make angle measurements?
`MR. BOBROW: Yes, Judge Chung, the answer is yes
`to that. And that is set forth in Dr. Fair's reply declaration. When
`the Patent Owner suggested that there may be some issues with
`the image itself, either because of the angle from which the image
`was taken, or because of their apparent inability to find the edge
`of the sidewall spacer, Dr. Fair responded to those arguments and
`testified in his declaration that number one, this is a good quality,
`high quality, resolution image. And number two, that it's the kind
`of image that those of ordinary skill in the art use, and that he was
`able to find the edge, what he calls in his declaration the leading
`edge, of the sidewall spacer with sufficient resolution to measure
`the angle.
`And so he commented upon that in his opening
`declaration, where he testified that he was able to indeed find the
`front edge, and then when the questions were raised about the
`sufficiency of the image, he answered those in a declaration.
`I do think it's important in responding to your question,
`Judge Chung, that what the Patent Owner has done is not advance
`any evidence to support their position. Their position rests
`entirely on attorney argument and assertion that there's something
`wrong with the image, that the image was taken at an angle off of
`perpendicular or what have you, but there's no evidence that
`there's anything deficient about the image, only argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`What I think we can see from the Patent Owner, and
`now I'm looking at slide 14, is that with respect to what the Patent
`Owner did, and turning then to slide 15, we can really see this in
`even greater detail, the Patent Owner did not rely upon a person
`of ordinary skill in the art to do the measurement. They instead
`used their attorneys to do the measurement, and their attorneys
`measured a different angle than the angle that Dr. Fair measured,
`and they positioned their line in a different location than the
`location that Dr. Fair positioned his line.
`Dr. Fair is a person of ordinary skill. He found where
`the boundary was. What the Patent Owner has done is simply
`have their attorneys put the line in a different spot, but their
`attorneys are not of ordinary skill, and there's no expert or other
`evidence to support their positioning of the line.
`Indeed, what Dr. Fair said, when he looked at this, in
`the reply, what he said in his reply declaration is that the Patent
`Owner's attorneys used a thick line, that line was drawn over the
`edge of the sidewall spacer, and it went through, not at the edge,
`not tangent to the sidewall spacer, but went through and into the
`interior of the sidewall spacer. That was Dr. Fair's testimony.
`And that's set forth in paragraphs 49 to 52 of the reply
`declaration.
`And you can actually see it here on slide 17 in the
`blown-up version, you can see on the left the annotated version
`that Dr. Fair made, and you can see just how much further into
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`the sidewall spacer the Patent Owner's attorneys have drawn the
`line in order to end up with a smaller angle.
`So there's no support for that. There's no evidence in
`support of that. It's just attorney argument. But as Dr. Fair
`alluded to, it is an improper measurement because it cuts into the
`region of the sidewall spacer, and it's not tangent to the sidewall
`spacer. And that's where the problem measurement is made.
`Briefly, because I can see that I've already gone through
`the 15 minutes, briefly, let me just touch on the two additional
`issues. The first issue is, as shown on slide 18, that the Patent
`Owner wishes to read into the claim in order to avoid anticipation
`or obviousness a number of limitations that simply do not appear
`there. They are taken from the specification, they are not in the
`claims, and it is simply black letter law at this point that that is
`improper, importing limitations into a claim is improper, and
`importing method claims into an apparatus claim is improper.
`This is particularly so where the specification -- and this
`is all set forth in column -- in slide 21, the specification makes
`clear that all of those limitations are merely exemplary, they're
`illustrative, and the patent specifically says that they do not need
`to be employed to practice the invention.
`So there is no basis whatever to limit the claims with
`these additional limitations, and the Court in construing this very
`patent in connection with the Intel IPR rejected the Patent
`Owner's effort to read a process limitation into the angle
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`limitation in connection with that IPR. And that's set forth on
`slide 22.
`The last point I would like to make has to do with the
`combination that pertains to grounds 3 and 4, Kuesters and Heath.
`And this goes to the argument that the DSS, the Patent Owner's
`attorneys made to say, in effect, Heath says that it is optional to
`have a sidewall spacer, and therefore Kuesters plus Heath does
`not teach the invention because the invention includes a sidewall
`spacer. That is what I understand their argument to be. That is
`attacking a strawman, because the Petitioner expressly relies upon
`Kuesters for the sidewall spacer, not Heath. It relies upon
`Kuesters. And so whether Kuesters does or doesn't disclose a
`sidewall is neither here nor there. The Petitioner relies on Heath
`for the teaching that you don't need to have an oxide liner over
`your sidewall spacer, that that can be done away with. That's the
`reason that Heath was cited in the petition.
`And so to say that it doesn't have a sidewall doesn't
`matter, but I would also point out in addition, and this is set forth
`on slide 26, that -- and the Patent Owner acknowledges, Heath
`does disclose an embodiment that has a sidewall spacer. And
`that's set forth in the top bullet on slide 26. There is an
`embodiment, it has a sidewall spacer, and it remains part of the
`structure.
`What Heath says is that whether you want to have a
`spacer and how thick it is is a question of performance. That's a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`question of device performance. You'll have a thicker one under
`certain conditions, a thinner one under others, you may decide to
`eliminate it all together. It's going to depend on performance.
`That's not teaching away from a sidewall spacer, that's
`saying use a sidewall spacer when it's appropriate to do it, and
`here's an embodiment that uses it and here's another embodiment
`that doesn't.
`Your Honors, unless you have further questions, that's
`all I have at this point.
`JUDGE CHUNG: I have one more question, counsel.
`Regarding claim 3, for I guess ground 1, which is based on
`anticipation by Kuesters, in the claim you combine Kuesters with
`Heath to teach that the etch stop material as recited in claim 3 is
`silicon dioxide. And that's fine, I understand that, but the
`question I have is that the claim 1 from which claim 3 depends
`recites -- requires that the etch stop material needs to be different
`from the insulating spacer, and in the anticipation ground, you
`rely on disclosure in Kuesters that the insulating spacer is made
`of oxide.
`So, the question I have is with respect to claim 3, do
`you need to show that the insulating spacer now has to be
`different from the silicon dioxide you rely on in Haveman?
`MR. BOBROW: So, for purposes of claim 3, the
`combination as you alluded to, Judge Chung, is Kuesters plus
`Haveman, and the -- what was set forth in the declaration of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`petition is that you would indeed swap out the silicon dioxide
`sidewall spacer for a silicon oxynitride sidewall spacer. And
`that's in Haveman, table 6 -- excuse me, it's in a table in Haveman
`in column 6 of the Haveman patent.
`And there, you might recall that Haveman discloses
`using a thermally grown oxide as the sidewall, which is a
`common way to do it, but then says that you could use CVD
`oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride as the spacer material.
`And then, Haveman also says that in the preferred way of doing
`it, his preferred way, you could use silicon nitride on top of the
`thermal oxide as the etch stop, but also says that you could use
`thermal oxide or CVD oxide as the etch stop when you do that.
`So the combination would be to then use a silicon oxynitride
`sidewall spacer with, for example, a CVD oxide etch stop. So
`that would be the combination.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Okay, I understand. I understand.
`Yeah, thank you.
`MR. BOBROW: Thank you.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Counsel, you have about eight
`and a half minutes left on rebuttal.
`MR. BOBROW: Thank you.
`MR. GUMINA: Lots of stuff going on here. Good
`afternoon. I'll re-introduce myself, my name is Jim Gumina, I am
`here on behalf of DSS. I am going today, unless the Court wants
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`to take me someplace else, going to focus my comments on the
`Kuesters reference and Dr. Fair's treatment of that reference.
`Samsung has made two arguments, or basically an
`anticipation argument and an obviousness argument against the
`'552 patent, all of those arguments rely on Kuesters for the
`teaching -- and solely on Kuesters -- for the teaching of the
`requisite angle that is claimed in both claims 1 and claim 8 of the
`'552 patent, and therefore in each of the claims.
`The interesting thing about the Kuesters article is that it
`has absolutely nothing to do with that angle, never teaches it, it
`doesn't discuss it, it doesn't do anything about it. Samsung knows
`this.
`
`So, the only thing they rely on is a picture, an SEM,
`that's attached to the article, okay? And it's a lovely picture, by
`the way, but there's one thing that was never intended to teach,
`and that is this angle. Okay? And indeed, our position is it does
`not, despite what Samsung and Dr. Fair said.
`And indeed, we should think about what Kuesters does
`teach. Kuesters teaches a method of -- a process for making a
`particular semiconductor, it teaches a process where the
`semiconductor is etched with a highly selective etch, and it also
`teaches all the results of having -- of having done that.
`Now, Samsung seems to believe that we have argued
`that highly selective etching should be an element read into the
`claim. We have not done that. Indeed, we are not trying to read
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`any interpretation -- any elements into this claim. However, the
`specification does inform us about the prior art, in particular it
`informs us about Kuesters, and it specifically tells us that a
`highly -- when you use a highly selective etch, you melt and
`cause a slope with respect to the insulating layer. And so you
`lose your vertical wall with a highly selective etch. And that
`informs us and should send up warning bells about what Kuesters
`actually teaches.
`We have no doubt, of course, that Dr. Fair is an expert
`in this area, he has lots of experience, he's done lots of -- lots of
`things in conjunction with microprocessors and microchips and
`manufacturing of semiconductors, but our position is that with
`respect to the issues in this case that we have raised before this
`Board, that expertise is largely irrelevant and simply unnecessary.
`This case is -- the issues that we brought forth is all
`about measuring an angle in a picture. Now, we certainly take
`the view that the picture is not sufficiently clear that you can even
`define the angle. It is blurry to a point where even one skilled in
`the art, while you may be able to distinguish the various aspects
`of the semiconductor in the picture, this particular angle, because
`of the picture, the leading edge, if you will, as they've called it, of
`the insulating layer, blends into that surface of the insulating
`layer, which goes back into the well.
`So, just looking at the picture, you can tell, and it
`doesn't take one of significant skill in the art to see that it's just
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`simply not well-defined. But even if it were, let's look at what
`Dr. Fair did with that picture, okay? Samsung now takes the
`position that Dr. Fair measured the SEM, he took an angle
`measurement off of the SEM. Yet that's not what Dr. Fair says.
`What Dr. Fair says in his supplemental declaration, which was
`filed after our brief, this being our first opportunity to respond to
`it, that he drew a tangent line -- first of all he uploaded the SEM
`into PowerPoint. And then he drew a tangent line with
`PowerPoint from silicon -- with the silicon substrate surface and
`another line tangent with the slope of the front edge of the left
`sidewall spacer, where that edge intersects the substrate surface.
`And then he measured the angle between the substrate and the
`line that he drew.
`So, in essence, what Dr. Fair did, he drew a line, he
`measured the angle that he created, and guess what? It fell within
`the scope of the claim. Samsung gave him a target, he hit it.
`Interesting the way he measured the angle as well. He
`used a protractor. No doubt, protractors are used to measure
`angles all the time. No doubt all of us have probably used
`protractors since the fourth grade. So, again, not a particular lot
`of expertise there such that's necessary to measure the angle.
`So --
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Let me ask you a question, the
`expertise isn't the ability to measure the angle --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`MR. GUMINA: Correct, and that's where I was going,
`Your Honor. The next question is, did he even measure the right
`thing? He drew -- and we learned this for the first time, by the
`way, in his supplemental declaration. He drew a tangent line
`based on a point at the bottom of the insulating spacer at the
`substrate. He took a point there and drew a tangent line and
`measured the angle of that tangent line.
`There is no basis anywhere in the patent or anywhere
`else that that's the appropriate line to draw. The claim language is
`instructive in this regard. The particular claim language that I'm
`talking about are the wherein clauses at the bottom of claim 1 and
`claim 8. Claim 1 reads, "Wherein a side of the insulating spacer
`has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is either at a
`right angle or at an acute angle of more than 85 degrees."
`Similarly, claim 8 reads, "wherein a side of an electrically
`insulated spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that
`is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85 degrees."
`Dr. Fair's line does not measure the angle at which the
`side of the insulating spacer is located. What he measured is the
`angle at which the side of the insulating spacer touches the
`substrate.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, let me ask you for a
`moment to put up Petitioner's demonstrative 15, and maybe you
`can point to me --
`MR. GUMINA: Page 15?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: The demonstrative 15 in your
`Exhibit 15. If you could put that up, please. I know it's not your
`exhibit.
`
`MR. GUMINA: It's fine.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I want you to speak to your
`points. Yeah, I think we just talked about the insulating spacer
`and where he measured it from and that sort of thing.
`MR. GUMINA: Right.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: So, to the extent that you can
`articulate it, I would like for you to explain to me on that
`diagram, which I think is similar to the diagram in the petition,
`what angles we're talking about here, and what the insulating
`spacer is relative to the substrate surface.
`MR. GUMINA: Okay. Can I approach the screen?
`JUDGE McNAMARA: That would be fine with me.
`I'm not sure that Judge Chung can see that.
`MR. GUMINA: Can you see it, Judge Chung, or would
`you rather I be at the podium?
`JUDGE CHUNG: Yeah, I am not able to see.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: But if you could just explain it
`as best you can. I understand we have some limitations.
`MR. GUMINA: First let me say that the two lines
`drawn on the right-hand side, the second line with the angle
`measured on it, that was the -- as counsel said, that's a line we
`drew, and that is correct. It was our intent, with showing that, to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00782
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`show the arbitrariness of Dr. Fair's line, okay? In the sense that
`that line can be drawn almost anywhere when you're measuring
`an angle, okay?
`But the reality is that you have to look at this all in
`context, okay? So, remember why the angle -- the 85 to 90
`degrees is important, okay? The reason it's important is because
`when you have a sloped melt and you go to the sputter edge,
`which is the next step, it erodes that portion of the insulated layer
`at an undue rate and causes -- potentially causes a short circuit,
`okay?
`
`And so what's the important information here is the
`surface, the vertical surface that would be hit by a downwardly --
`straight down sputtering, okay? And so if you look where the 87
`degrees is written on that slide, okay? That arc that they've
`drawn, okay, is basically a cross-section of the insulative layer,
`okay?
`
`And if you look at Dr. Fair's line, which is the furthest
`right line, with the arrow on it, you can see that he's drawn a line
`that covers maybe -- maybe 5 percent of the vertical surface of
`that insulative layer. And therefore, most of that insulative layer
`is still going t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
