throbber
IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Neil F. Greenblum (ngreenblum@gbpatent.com)
`
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012461
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01247 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motions for joinder in Cases IPR2017-00925 and
`
`IPR2017-00926 were granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. THE REPLY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT
`
`IMPROPERLY RELIES ON NEW ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE .......... 2
`
`III. PETITIONER’S NEW ARGUMENTS DO NOT RENDER THE
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS. ........................................................ 6
`
`A. TSMC Has Shifted Its Arguments ................................................................ 6
`
`1. Semiconductor Fabrication Is Highly Complex ......................................... 6
`
`2. The Rejections Cannot Be Sustained Because They Do Not Account .... For
`
`The Consequences Of Differences In Scale Between LOCOS Devices And
`
`Later Generation STI Devices .................................................................... 7
`
`3. There Were Major Obstacles To Implementing STI In The Devices Of
`
`Lee/Lowrey In 1995 ................................................................................... 8
`
`B. TSMC Still Does Not Establish How A POSITA Would Have Combined Lee
`
`and Noble/Ogawa To Arrive At The Claimed Subject Matter ......................10
`
`C. TSMC Does Not Establish How A POSITA Could Have Combined .. Lowrey
`
`and Noble/Ogawa To Arrive At The Claimed Subject Matter ......................23
`
`1. TSMC Does Not Establish That A POSITA Would Or Could Substitute An
` Unembedded STI Into Lowrey ..................................................................23
`
`2. TSMC Asserts Alternative Embodiments of Lowrey In The Reply Not
` Addressed In The Petition .........................................................................36
`
`3. TSMC Has Not Rebutted IPB’s Argument Regarding The L-Shaped
`
`Sidewalls ..................................................................................................40
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8,
`p.15, September 23, 2014.................................................................................... 2
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42, at 2 (PTAB July
`15, 2015)............................................................................................................. 4
`Rovalma v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d 1019, 1025 (Fed. Cir.
`2017). .............................................................................................................. 7, 9
`Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices, LLC, IPR2014-01447, Paper 34, pp.45-47,
`March 9, 2016. .................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.123(b) ............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a). .............................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Substitute Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert,
`Ph.D. in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response filed in IPR2016-01246 on October 5,
`2016.
`
`Schematic illustration of the Chemical Mechanical
`Polishing process from Steigerwald, Murarka, and
`Gutmann, Chemical Mechanical Planarization of
`Microelectronic Materials (1997).
`
`Schematic illustration of the Chemical Mechanical
`Polishing process from the Motorola Company.
`SCSolutions.com. Accessed September 30, 2016.
`http://www.scsolutions.com/chemical-mechanical-
`planarization-cmp-controllers-0.
`
`Photograph of a Chemical Mechanical Polishing
`Tool from the Applied Materials Company.
`BusinessWire.com. Accessed October 5, 2016.
`http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040711
`005007/en/Applied-Materials-Revolutionizes-
`Planarization-Technology-Breakthrough-Reflexion.
`
`2005
`
`Troxel, Boning, McIlrath “Semiconductor Process
`Representation.” Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical
`and Electronics, pp.139 –147 (1999).
`
`2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,052,319 to Jacobs.
`
`2007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,656 to Cordova et al.
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Served on
`January 27,
`2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2008
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Description
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Hunt, “Low Budget Undergraduate
`Microelectronics Laboratory.” University
`Government Industry Microelectronics Symposium,
`pp.81-87 (2006).
`
`
`
`2009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,074,709 to Young.
`
`Burckel, “3D-ICs created using oblique processing.”
`Advanced in Patterning Materials and Processes
`XXXIII, pp. 1–12 (2016).
`
`Substitute Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert,
`Ph.D. in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response filed in IPR2016-01247 on October 7,
`2016.
`
`Served on
`January 27,
`2017
`
`Corrected Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert,
`Ph.D. in support of Patent Owner’s Response filed
`in IPR2016-01246 on March 24, 2017.
`
`Thompson, L. F. “An Introduction to Lithography.”
`Introduction to Microlithography, ACS Symposium
`Ser., American Chemical Society, pp. 1-13 (1983).
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`CA1275846 C to Roland et al.
`
`2015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,314,843 to Yu et al.
`
`2016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,231,306 to Meikle et al.
`
`2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,529,621 to Ballard.
`
`2018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,310,624 to Ehrlich.
`
`2019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,097,422 to Corbin, II et al.
`
`2020
`
`Declaration of Amanda Dove.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Description
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`2021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,952,524 to Lee et al.
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`Bryant, A.; Haensch, W.; Geissler, S; Mandelman,
`Jack; Poindexter, D.; and Steger, M. “The Current-
`Carrying Corner Inherent to Trench Isolation.”
`IEEE Electron Device Letters, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp.
`412-414 (1993).
`
`Ohe, Kikuyo; Odanaka, Shinji; Moriyama, Kaori;
`Hori, Takashi; and Fuse, Genshu. “Narrow-Width
`Effects of Shallow Trench-Isolated CMOS with n+-
`Polysilicon Gate.” IEEE Transactions on Electron
`Devices, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1110-1116 (1989).
`
`Shigyo, N.; Wada, T.; Fukuda, S.; Hieda, K.,
`Hamamoto, T.; Watanabe, H.; Sunouchi, K.; and
`Tango, H. “Steep Subthreshold Characteristic and
`Enhanced Transconductance of Fully-Recessed
`Oxide (Trench) Isolated 1/4 µm Width MOSFETs.”
`1987 International Electron Devices Meeting, pp.
`636-639 (1987).
`
`Furukawa, T., and Mandelman, J.A. “Process and
`Device Simulation of Trench Isolation Corner
`Parasitic Device.” Journal Of The Electrochemical
`Society, Vol. 135, No. 8, p. 358C, Item 236 (1988).
`
`“Structural Analysis Sample Report” downloaded
`from
`https://www.chipworks.com/TOC/Structural_Analy
`sis_Sample_Report.pdf (2013).2
`
`2027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,776,922 to Bhattacharyya et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Date corrected from 2008 to 2013.
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Description
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Subbanna, S.; Ganin, E.; Crabbé, E.; Comfort, J.;
`Wu, S.; Agnello, P.; Martin, B.; McCord, M.;
`Newman, H. Ng. T.; McFarland, P.; Sun, J.; Snare,
`J.; Acovic, A.; Ray, A.; Gehres, R.; Schulz, R.;
`Greco, S.; Beyer, K.; Liebmann, L.; DellaGuardia,
`R.; Lamberti, A. “200 mm Process Integration for a
`0.15 µm Channel-Length CMOS Technology Using
`Mixed X-Ray / Optical Lithography.” Proceedings
`of 1994 IEEE International Electron Devices
`Meeting, pp. 695-698 (1994).
`
`Chung, J.; Jeng, M.-C.; Moon, J.E.; Wu, A.T.;
`Chan, T.Y.; Ko, P.K.; Hu, Chenming. “Deep-
`Submicrometer MOS Device Fabrication Using a
`Photoresist-Ashing Technique.” IEEE Electron
`Device Letters, Vol. 9. No. 4, pp. 186-188 (1988).
`
`Tanaka, Tetsu; Suzuki, Kunihiro; Horie, Hiroshi;
`Sugii, Toshihiro. “Ultrafast Low-Power Operation
`of p+-n+ Double-Gate SOI MOSFETS.” 1994
`Symposium on VLSI Technology Digest of Technical
`Papers, pp. 11-12 (1994).
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`WIPO Publication No. WO 90/05377 to Lowrey.
`
`2032
`
`Kaufman, F. B.; Thompson, D. B.; Broadie, R. E.;
`Jaso, M. A.; Guthrie, W. L.; Pearson, D. J.; and
`Small, M. B. “Chemical‐Mechanical Polishing for
`Fabricating Patterned W Metal Features as Chip
`Interconnects.” Journal of The Electrochemical
`Society, Vol. 138, No. 11, pp. 3460-3465 (1991).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Description
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Landis, H.; Burke, P.; Cote, W.; Hill, W.; Hoffman,
`C.; Kaanta, C.; Koburger, C.; Lange, W.; Leach, M.;
`and Luce, S. “Integration of chemical-mechanical
`polishing into CMOS integrated circuit
`manufacturing.” Thin Solid Films, Vol. 220, No. 1-
`2, pp.1-7 (1992).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of
`Steigerwald, Murarka, and Gutmann, Chemical
`Mechanical Planarization of Microelectronic
`Materials (1997).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Introduction
`to Microlithography, ACS Symposium Ser.,
`American Chemical Society (1983).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of IEEE
`Electron Device Letters, Vol. 14, No. 8 (1993).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of IEEE
`Transactions on Electron Devices, Vol. 36, No. 6
`(1989).
`
`Front cover and table of contents of 1987
`International Electron Devices Meeting (1987).
`
`Front cover of Proceedings of 1994 IEEE
`International Electron Devices Meeting (1994).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amended version of Exhibit 2026 - “Structural
`Analysis Sample Report” downloaded from
`https://www.chipworks.com/TOC/Structural_Analy
`sis_Sample_Report.pdf (2013).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Russell, Phillip E. “SEM-Based Characterization
`Techniques.” Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., Vol. 69,
`pp.15-22 (1986).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2042
`
`Front cover and table of contents of Mat. Res. Soc.
`Symp. Proc., Vol. 69 (1986).
`
`Russell, Phillip E. “SEM Based Characterization
`Techniques for Semiconductor Technology.”
`Spectroscopic Characterization Techniques for
`Semiconductor Technology, Vol. 452, pp.183-189
`(1983).
`
`Front cover and table of contents of Spectroscopic
`Characterization Techniques for Semiconductor
`Technology, Vol. 452 (1983).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Thorton, P.R.; Davies, I.G.; Shaw, D.A.; Sulway,
`D.V.; Wayte, R.C. “Device Failure Analysis By
`Scanning Electron Microscopy.” Microelectronics
`and Reliability, Vol. 8, pp. 33-53 (1969).
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2046
`
`Front cover and table of contents of
`Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 8 (1969).
`
`Pabbisetty, S.V.; Gavisetty, Kumar; Vaughan,
`Steve; Wills, Kendall Scott. “Electron beam testing
`and its application to VLSI technology.”
`Characterization of Very High Speed
`Semiconductor Devices & Integrated Circuits, Vol.
`795, pp.166-177 (1987).
`
`Front cover and table of contents of
`Characterization of Very High Speed
`Semiconductor Devices & Integrated Circuits, Vol.
`795, (1987).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`Description
`
`Wolfgang, Eckhard; Lindner, Rudolf; Fazekas,
`Peter; Feuerbaum, Hans-Peter. “Electron-Beam
`Testing of VLSI Circuits.” IEEE Journal of Solid-
`State Circuits, Vol. SC-41. No. 2, pp. 471-
`481(1979).
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Front cover and table of contents of IEEE Journal of
`Solid-State Circuits, Vol. SC-41. No. 2, pp. 471-
`481(1979).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`2051
`
`Front cover and table of contents of IEEE Electron
`Device Letters, Vol. 9. No. 4 (1988).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Front cover and table of contents of 1994
`Symposium on VLSI Technology Digest of Technical
`Papers (1994).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Front cover and table of contents of Journal of The
`Electrochemical Society, Vol. 138, No. 11, pp.
`3460-3465 (1991).
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`Served on
`April 14,
`2017
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`
`
`2054
`
`Front cover and table of contents of Thin Solid
`Films, Vol. 220, No. 1-2, pp.1-7 (1992).
`
`Exhibit 2012 - Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert,
`Ph.D. in support of Patent Owner’s Response filed
`in IPR2016-01246 on March 24, 2017 with
`amended CV.
`
`Amended Exhibit 2020 - Declaration of Amanda
`Dove.
`
`Transcript of Conference Call conducted on June
`20, 2017
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2058
`
`Drawing by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Banerjee
`
`2059
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,945,715 to Kuriyama
`
`2060
`
`European Patent Application No. EP 0 739 032 to
`Park et al.
`
`2061
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,281,562 to Segawa et al.
`
`2062
`
`First and Last Pages of JP H9-172063
`
`2063
`
`Verified English Translation of First and Last Pages
`of JP H9-172063
`
`2064
`
`First and Last Pages of JP H9-97838
`
`2065
`
`Verified English Translation of First and Last
`Pages of JP H9-97838
`
`2066
`
`First and Last Pages of JP H9-120964
`
`2067
`
`Verified English Translation of First and Last Pages
`of JP H9-120964
`
`2068
`
`Patent Assignment Abstract of Title for 08-571,131
`
`2069
`
`Recorded Assignment assigning the 08-571,131
`application
`
`2070
`
`Recorded Assignment assigning 08-685,726
`
`2071
`
`Recorded Assignment assigning the 08-685,726
`application
`
`
`
`x
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`Provided
`on June 27,
`2017
`
`Provided
`on June 27,
`2017
`
`Provided
`on June 27,
`2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Newly
`Submitted
`
`2072
`
`Patent Assignment Abstract of Title for 08-340,341
`
`2073
`
`Recorded Assignment assigning the 08-340,341
`application
`
`2074
`
`Executed Declaration of Mr. Hajime Ogawa
`
`2075
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,709,950 to Segawa et al.
`
`2076
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,967,409 to Segawa et al.
`
`2077
`
`2078
`
`Order Granting Joint Motion To Dismiss All Claims
`And Counterclaims With Prejudice, Godo Kaisha IP
`Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited et al., USDC EDTEX
`2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP, Document 337, July 5,
`2017.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Sanjay K. Banerjee
`dated June 27, 2017 and Errata Sheet (dated June
`28, 2017) from the Deposition of Dr. Sanjay K.
`Banerjee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Trial was instituted in pertinent part based upon Petitioner’s arguments that a
`
`Shallow Trench Isolation (STI) as disclosed in specific embodiments of Noble and
`
`Ogawa could be simply substituted for the LOCOS (Local Oxidation of Silicon)
`
`isolations disclosed in Lee and Lowrey. The Petitions omitted any explanation of
`
`“how” the elements of the embodiments would or could have been combined at the
`
`time of the invention. Indeed, the Reply admits that the Petitions did not discuss
`
`“how” to combine the prior art, as TSMC believed there was no need to do so. See
`
`Reply, p.18, n.9.
`
`For the first time in its Reply, Petitioner TSMC argues “how” an STI could
`
`allegedly be substituted for the LOCOS disclosed in Lee/Lowrey. However,
`
`TSMC no longer focuses on the embodiments of Noble/Ogawa, which it argued in
`
`the Petitions, instead relying on different embodiments and new evidence.
`
`This Sur-reply was authorized in Paper 28, July 6, 2017. Petitioner’s Reply
`
`should not be considered because it contains new arguments and relies on new
`
`evidence to support arguments that should have been set forth in the Petitions.
`
`Additionally, as explained herein, both Petitioner’s new and original arguments
`
`contain fundamental fatal flaws that do not render the challenged claims obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`II. THE REPLY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT
`IMPROPERLY RELIES ON NEW ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
`
`From the outset, Patent Owner (“PO” or “IPB”) asserted that neither Petition
`
`(‘01246 or ‘01247) described how the prior art could be combined to form the
`
`claimed subject matter:
`
`Neither the Petition in IPR2016-01246 nor the Petition in
`
`IPR2016-01247 describes how the fabrication processes
`
`disclosed in the prior art references could be combined to form
`
`the subject matter recited in the challenged claims.
`
`PO’s Preliminary Responses, Paper 7, p.3; see also Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8, p.15, September 23, 2014.
`
`(Finding the declaration did not explain the “how,” “what,” and “why” of the
`
`proposed combination of references and that “statements of general principles from
`
`the case law that a proposed combination ‘involves no more than a combination of
`
`known elements,’ or that a proposed combination is ‘the predictable use of such
`
`elements according to their established functions,’ or that a proposed combination
`
`yields ‘predictable results’ … are conclusions; they are not a substitute for a fact-
`
`based analysis of the proposed combination of references necessary to support
`
`those conclusions.”)
`
`TSMC did not seek to file supplemental information under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.123(b), even though TSMC was aware prior to the institution of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`proceeding of the need for supplemental information as to “how” the prior art
`
`could be combined. Rather, TSMC filed 35 new exhibits with the Reply
`
`(Exs.1025-1059), including another expert declaration of 93 pages (not including
`
`attachments). Ex.1057. For at least these reasons, the Reply should not be
`
`considered. Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices, LLC, IPR2014-01447, Paper 34,
`
`pp.45-47, March 9, 2016.
`
`The following are a few examples of new arguments and evidence raised in
`
`the Reply not raised in the Petitions:
`
`• The Petitions argued only “embedded” embodiments of Noble/Ogawa
`
`because they included many of the same elements as Lee/Lowrey whereas
`
`the Reply now argues only “un-embedded” references/embodiments.
`
`Institution Decision, p. 12.
`
`• The Reply newly argues a technique using a substrate as a polish/etch-stop.
`
`Reply, pp.3-7.
`
`• The Reply newly argues using a dedicated polish/etch-stop layer. Reply, p.4.
`
`• The Reply newly argues Dash (Ex.1058), Horiguchi (Exs.1028/1029) and
`
`Sumi (Exs.1026/1027). Reply pp.11-15.3
`
`
` TSMC improperly asserts that Dash, Horiguchi and Sumi are already art “of
`
`3
`
`record” because they are incorporated by reference or appear on the face of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`• TSMC admits that the argument/evidence in the Reply in Section II.A.2.b.
`
`was not presented in the Petitions. Reply, p.18, n.9.
`
`• The Reply newly argues: “In one process, Lowrey omits the optional ion-
`
`adjustment implant in FIG. 2, and in another, Lowrey uses a deposited oxide
`
`instead of LOCOS oxidation layer 21 to mask the adjustment implant.”
`
`Reply p.22.
`
`• In the Reply, Ueda4, Mandelman, Dash, Sumi and Horiguchi are relied upon
`
`to support TSMC’s new argument that a POSITA knew how to make raised
`
`STI without first forming gate layers. Reply, pp.8-17. These exhibits are
`
`asserted to disclose unembedded trench isolations. Id. However, in the
`
`Petitions, TSMC relied upon the embedded trench isolations disclosed in
`
`Noble/Ogawa because they had other elements similar to Lee/Lowrey.
`
`Institution Decision, p. 12.
`
`
`’174 patent. Reply, pp.11-12. “Art of record” as discussed in MasterImage 3D,
`
`Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42, at 2 (PTAB July 15, 2015) pertains
`
`to a motion to amend, not art supporting the grounds on which trial was instituted.
`
` 4
`
` IPB has moved to exclude Ueda as not available as prior art against the ‘174
`
`patent. Paper 29, July 12, 2017.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`IPB has separately filed a Motion To Exclude Evidence requesting TSMC’s
`
`new arguments and evidence be excluded. Paper 29, July 12, 2017.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`III. PETITIONER’S NEW ARGUMENTS DO NOT RENDER THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS.
`
`A. TSMC Has Shifted Its Arguments
`
`The Petitions argued embodiments from Noble/Ogawa that teach an STI
`
`embedded within a gate electrode. Noble Fig. 9, Ogawa Fig. 4(c). The Petitions did
`
`not say how the teachings of these references were to be blended with Lee/Lowrey.
`
`Apparently realizing a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would not
`
`have combined the embedded STI embodiments of Noble/Ogawa with
`
`Lee/Lowrey, TSMC shifts its arguments to rely on other references alleged to teach
`
`isolations not-embedded within a gate electrode. In other words, ignoring the
`
`teachings of the embodiments of Noble/Ogawa relied on in the Petitions, TSMC
`
`now picks and chooses disclosures of unembedded STI and argues that they can be
`
`simply substituted into Lee/Lowrey. As discussed herein, Petitioner’s new
`
`arguments are fundamentally flawed because there would be no motivation to
`
`combine either “embedded” or “unembedded” trench isolations with the primary
`
`references because as now explained by Petitioner a POSITA would not substitute
`
`them into Lee/Lowrey.
`
`1. Semiconductor Fabrication Is Highly Complex
`
`Si ICs are extremely complex systems (Exs.2013-2020). In 1995, there were
`
`millions of transistors on an Si IC. Several hundred steps were typically used to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`fabricate these devices. Up to 10,000 transistors would have fit on the head of a
`
`pin. The small feature sizes (e.g., gate electrode length) and high density of circuits
`
`make precision, cleanliness and accuracy mandatory requirements in the
`
`manufacturing environment. Petitioner states that “complexity of IC fabrication
`
`and the technical community’s recognition of that premise are not at issue in this
`
`case.” Paper 13, p. 7; Paper 16, p. 6. Complexity is directly related to the amount
`
`of description necessary to support an obviousness rejection. Rovalma v. Bohler-
`
`Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d 1019, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`2. The Rejections Cannot Be Sustained Because They Do Not
`Account For The Consequences Of Differences In Scale Between
`LOCOS Devices And Later Generation STI Devices
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The development of Si ICs devices has proceeded in terms of “technology
`
`generations” also called “technology nodes” or “process nodes”. The geometrical
`
`length associated with a specific technology node, e.g., 500 nm, represents a
`
`characteristic feature size, typically the gate length, of an Si IC. It is generally
`
`accepted that the feature size or “node” decreases by “a factor of .7 from one
`
`generation to the next.” Ex.2078, 22:1-27:5. Scaling both dimensions of a planar
`
`structure by the factor 0.7 results in a device area reduction of 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49.
`
`That is, a new technology node will be able to accommodate approximately twice
`
`as many transistors per unit area as the previous technology node.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`TSMC’s asserted motive for substituting STI for LOCOS is premised on the
`
`substantial resulting node-reduction that such a substitution could provide (Reply
`
`p.2; Institution Decision, p. 12). While STI was more complex to implement than
`
`LOCOS isolation, by far the primary, if not the only reason to substitute STI was
`
`the reduction in node size that it provided. Correspondingly, the ‘174 patent is
`
`directed to an STI smaller than .5 micron. Ex.1001, 1:34-36; Petition, pp.4-6;
`
`Ex.1004, ¶¶51-53; Ex.2078, 22:1-27:5.
`
`3. There Were Major Obstacles To Implementing STI In The
`Devices Of Lee/Lowrey In 1995
`
`It is generally accepted that certain process technologies may not be
`
`transferrable from technology node to technology node. For example, the
`
`photolithographic tools that are required for pattern-transfer form a photo-mask to
`
`an Si wafer have changed regularly. Additionally, doping procedures5 have
`
`changed significantly throughout the development of Si ICs. Also, the silicidation
`
`of the source, gate and drain, the introduction of CMP, and the introduction of
`
`metal gates have changed Si ICs.
`
`
`
`5 Doping procedures include S/D (Source/Drain) light doping (shallow doping),
`
`S/D heavy doping (deep doping), n- and p-type well doping, channel-stopper
`
`doping, and threshold-voltage-adjustment doping.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`The ’174 patent’s priority application was filed in 1995. In 1995, the next
`
`generation node was at about 250-350 nm. Ex.1001, 1:31-36 (“As a result, the
`
`dimension of a transistor is changed …. This dimensional change is unallowable in
`
`the refinement of a semiconductor device after the 0.5 µm generation.”)(emphasis
`
`added); Ex.2078, 22:21-23:9.
`
`A POSITA would know that certain process technologies that are suited for
`
`one technology node, could be unsuitable for another node. For this reason, it is
`
`imperative to consider the context of a specific node when combining technologies
`
`from different devices. In addition, when analyzing obviousness, it is imperative
`
`to determine whether the process sequence suitable for a past node device
`
`(LOCOS) would be suitable for the next-generation node device (STI). Ex.2011,
`
`¶55. An obviousness analysis that does not take this into consideration, and admits
`
`that it was not concerned with the details as to how technologies could be
`
`combined is fatally flawed. Ex.2078, 210:6-10 (Dr. Banerjee testifying that “you
`
`don’t spell out in gory detail every single aspect of every single process.”). That is,
`
`when combining references in an obviousness combination, it is necessary to
`
`consider the issue in the context of the complexity of the combinations at the time
`
`of the invention, 1995. Rovalma v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d
`
`1019, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dr. Banerjee did not do this. Ex.2078, 81:4-13;
`
`227:2-228:2; 270:8-12.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`While the Lee doping process may have been suitable for the technology
`
`nodes of the late 1980’s and very early 1990’s, it was unsuitable for the technology
`
`nodes as of the date of the invention (1995) below the 500 nm technology node,
`
`e.g., the 350/250 nm node.
`
`Dr. Banerjee’s opinions do not take node sizes into account, such that he
`
`does not address whether the process sequences, dimensions and technologies
`
`suitable for past node devices would be suitable for the next-generation node.
`
`Ex.2078, 84:10-18. For this reason alone, Dr. Banerjee’s entire analysis is based
`
`on an improper perspective and should be afforded little weight. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.65(a).
`
`B. TSMC Still Does Not Establish How A POSITA Would Have
`Combined Lee and Noble/Ogawa To Arrive At The Claimed Subject
`Matter
`
`The ‘01246 Petition argued obviousness over Lee in view of Noble/Ogawa.
`
`IPB responded that there was no explanation of how these references could be
`
`combined. Response, pp.43-94.
`
`As discussed earlier, both Noble/Ogawa first form a gate isolation layer and
`
`gate conductor layer into which an STI is embedded. In Lee, the LOCOS isolation
`
`is formed prior to the gate isolation layer and gate conductor layer. Ex.2012,
`
`¶¶124-130. As such, Lee is not combinable with Noble/Ogawa. Ex.2012, ¶¶186 et
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`seq. For this reason, as explained in the Response on pp.43-94, Lee in view of
`
`Noble/Ogawa does not render any of the challenged claims obvious.
`
`TSMC for the first time depicts their newly proposed combination using an
`
`unembedded STI:
`
`
`
`Reply, pp.19-20.
`
`TSMC asserts to form the device shown in Fig. 15’, instead of forming a
`
`LOCOS, a “raised STI 113 is formed by any of the processes discussed above”,
`
`i.e., in the newly submitted exhibits. Reply, p.19. “Then, as in Lee, gate oxide 115,
`
`polysilicon 117, and silicon nitride/silicon oxynitride layer 118 are successively
`
`deposited.” Id. “The remainder of the process would have proceeded as Lee
`
`teaches…” Reply, p.20. TSMC states that “dozens of pages” in its Petition
`
`explain “how and why” a POSITA would make the Lee combination, but identify
`
`only two pages, and the “how” argument does not appear there or anywhere else in
`
`the Petition. Reply, pp.27-28; ‘1246 Petition, pp.21, 70.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`A key feature of the Lee process is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 of Lee where the
`
`doping sequence is described. Lee discloses an unusual heavily-doped/lightly-
`
`doped process sequence. Lee’s doping sequence starts with the formation of a
`
`three-element gate sidewall (Lee Fig. 5 elements 19, 21, and 23), and the deep S/D
`
`implant 27 (Ex.1002, 3:49-4:33). The deep or heavily-doped S/D implant region 27
`
`is shown with red color in Lee’s colorized Fig. 5 below:
`
`After completing the deep implant, Lee proceeds to remove the third
`
`sidewall element 23 to then perform the shallow or lightly-doped implant. The
`
`lightly-doped S/D implant region 35 is shown with pink color in Lee’s colorized
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`This doping sequence (first deep doping then shallow doping) is opposite of
`
`how an implantation sequence is normally performed. Ex.2012, ¶98; Ex.2078,
`
`
`
`87:9-90:8.
`
`TSMC asserts that regions of higher doping and lower doping were standard
`
`in the art. ‘1246 petition, pp.25-26. But because of Lee’s reverse process order due
`
`to unreliable diffusion, the resulting doping would be unworkable with an STI.
`
`The ‘174 patent performs these fabrications steps in opposite order, i.e.,
`
`before the sidewalls are positioned, a shallow implant is performed, then the
`
`sidewalls are formed, and then the deep implant is formed.
`
`Doping procedures in Si ICs have evolved over time. Of particular
`
`relevance is the diffusion and spatial redistribution of dopants subsequent to an
`
`implantation process which is the result of thermal annealing or “drive-in.”
`
`Ex.1002, 4:38-40; 6:38-40. An expert would explain that this “drive-in” process (i)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01246
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,174
`
`
`repairs crystal defects formed during high-energy implantation, (ii) activates
`
`doping atoms to become electrically active, and (iii) causes doping atoms to diffuse
`
`and redistribute. Because the crystal is damaged during the high-energy
`
`implantation process, the diffusion is enhanced during a transitionary short time (in
`
`the millisecond to second range) while the crystal defects are repaired. The short,
`
`transitionary diffusion process is known as “transient enhanced diffusion” or TED.
`
`In order to make the FET (field-effect transistor) functional, the dopants of
`
`the shallow implant must diffuse to at least the right-hand-side edge of the gate
`
`conductor 15; this location is indicated by a green-colored arrow in Lee’s
`
`col

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