Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 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, LTD.
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012491
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motion for joinder in Case IPR2017-00919 was
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 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, LTD.
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012491
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motion for joinder in Case IPR2017-00919 was
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Board Overlooked Patent Owner’s Arguments That Zhang
`Teaches The Desirability Of An Upper Surface Of Pure Tantalum ............... 1
`
`The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Importance Of
`Maintaining A Layer Of Pure Crystalline Tantalum With An Upper
`Surface Having A <002> Crystalline Orientation ........................................... 5
`
`Page
`
`III. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Significance That
`Zhang And Ding Teach Similar Sputter-Deposition Processes ...................... 7
`
`IV. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Evidence And
`Arguments Regarding Allegedly Predictable Results ...................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Chemical Mechanical Polishing (“CMP”) ..........................................11
`
`Inhibit Diffusion ..................................................................................12
`
`Resistivity ............................................................................................13
`
`V.
`
`Substitute Claims 11 And 12 Are Patentable ................................................14
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`The Final Written Decision (“FWD”)(Paper 47) finds claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 (the “‘324 patent”)
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Ding in view Zhang; finds proposed Substitute
`
`Claims 11 and 12 unpatentable; and finds proposed Substitute Claim 13 patentable.
`
`Patent Owner asserts the Board overlooked and misapprehended pertinent
`
`disclosure in Ding and Zhang, and Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
`
`proposed combination of Ding and Zhang, and respectfully requests rehearing.
`
`The Board Overlooked Patent Owner’s Arguments That Zhang
`Teaches The Desirability Of An Upper Surface Of Pure Tantalum
`
`I.
`
`
`
`The Board stated:
`
`The Patent Owner Response contains numerous arguments that are
`
`premised on Zhang requiring pure tantalum and prohibiting nitrogen
`
`at the upper surface of the first conductive film. See, e.g., …. All of
`
`these arguments are inapposite in light of our determination that
`
`Zhang teaches nitrogen in the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride
`
`film, including at its upper surface. See Ex. 1004, 3:53–62.
`
`Accordingly, such arguments are not further addressed in this
`
`Decision.
`
`FWD (Paper 47), pp. 20-22 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner did
`
`not argue that Zhang requires an upper surface of pure tantalum. Rather, Patent
`
`Owner argued that Zhang taught the desirability of an upper surface of pure
`
`tantalum. Arguments pertaining to the “desirability” of forming a film having a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`surface of pure tantalum are present throughout Patent Owner’s remarks, such as,
`
`“Both Ding and Zhang teach the desirability of forming a film having a surface of
`
`pure tantalum to contact a copper film.” PO Response (Paper 14), p. 21 (emphasis
`
`added); “A PHOSITA would not have modified Ding in view of Zhang to add
`
`nitrogen to Ding’s pure tantalum layer as it is contrary to both Ding’s and Zhang’s
`
`teaching of the desirability of forming a film with a surface that is pure tantalum
`
`for contacting a copper layer.” Id. (emphasis added); “Both Ding and Zhang teach
`
`the desirability of forming a film having a surface of pure tantalum, i.e., with no
`
`nitrogen.” PO Response, p. 22 (emphasis added); see also PO Response, stating
`
`“desirability” on pp. 28, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35.
`
`The Board further overlooked embodiments in Zhang having (1) an entire
`
`top film that does not contain nitrogen, and (2) an upper surface that does not
`
`contain nitrogen. PO Response, pp. 28-29. Even Petitioner acknowledges that
`
`“Zhang discloses an embodiment in which the top film of the two-layer diffusion
`
`barrier (the copper side) is a ‘tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film’ that has an upper
`
`surface which is ‘substantially pure tantalum.’” Petition (Paper 2), p. 14. Patent
`
`Owner specifically argued Zhang’s embodiments with substantially pure tantalum:
`
`Zhang also teaches the desirability that “the upper surface of the
`
`tantalum rich tantalum nitride film is substantially pure tantalum and
`
`has essentially no nitrogen atoms.” Id., 3:54-57 (emphasis added);
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`see also Petition, p.16 (“Zhang discloses an embodiment in which the
`
`top film of the two-layer diffusion barrier is a ‘tantalum-rich tantalum
`
`nitride film’ that has an upper surface which is ‘substantially pure
`
`tantalum.’”). Zhang further discloses an embodiment where the
`
`second portion of the first conductive film consists of pure tantalum.
`
`Id., 3:62-64 (“the nitrogen-containing and inert gases can be
`
`terminated and the chamber evacuated before flowing just the inert
`
`gas.”). Evacuating the nitrogen from the chamber after the tantalum
`
`nitride film has been formed, and then flowing just the inert gas would
`
`result in a film of pure tantalum that has essentially no nitrogen atoms.
`
`Exhibit 2011, ¶¶114-115.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 28-29.
`
`Zhang discloses two processes when forming film 32 during the
`
`sputtering process. In one process, after the tantalum nitride film 22 is
`
`formed, the nitrogen flow is terminated while the inert gas continues
`
`to flow. Id., 3:44-46; see also Fig. 4. This process forms a film with a
`
`surface of pure tantalum. In the other process, after the tantalum
`
`nitride film 22 is formed, the nitrogen and argon gas flows are
`
`terminated, the chamber is evacuated (i.e., remove all gases, including
`
`the nitrogen gas), and the process continues with only the inert gas.
`
`This process forms a film of pure tantalum. Id., 3:62-64. Exhibit 2011,
`
`¶119. Thus, a PHOSITA reading Zhang would understand the
`
`desirability of forming film 32 with a surface of pure tantalum.
`
`Exhibit 2011, ¶¶118-120.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 29-30 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`By overlooking these Zhang embodiments with pure tantalum in the top film
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`(as well as the desirability of forming a film with a surface of pure tantalum), the
`
`Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments that a PHOSITA combining
`
`Zhang and Ding would have retained a layer of pure tantalum having sufficient
`
`thickness to form a surface having a tantalum <002> crystalline orientation, as
`
`this is necessary to enable easy wetting by the copper and depositing of a copper
`
`layer having a high <111> crystal orientation. PO Response, pp. 31-40.
`
`The Board ignored Zhang’s embodiments that desired no nitrogen in the top
`
`film or upper surface of the top film, and focused instead on embodiments
`
`containing nitrogen which would be expected to be amorphous and not
`
`crystalline. Ex.2011, ¶¶ 151, 160, 161; Ex.1030, 4:63-5:6, 3:1-5; PO Response, p.
`
`39. Using impermissible hindsight, the Board selected a Zhang embodiment
`
`containing nitrogen in the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film (TaN), rather than an
`
`embodiment containing no nitrogen (or no nitrogen in the upper surface) to
`
`combine with Ding’s embodiment containing no nitrogen, i.e., a layer of
`
`crystalline pure tantalum (Ta). As the Board correctly indicates when discussing
`
`Ding’s pure Ta layer:
`
`The tantalum (Ta) layer is crystalline. … (“The [tantalum] layer
`
`must be sufficiently thick to provide a tantalum <002> crystalline
`
`orientation which enables easy wetting of the tantalum surface by the
`
`copper and depositing of a copper layer having a high <111> crystal
`
`orientation.”). Ding does not describe any nitrogen within the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`tantalum layer (i.e., within the asserted “first film”).
`
`FWD (Paper 47), p. 17 (emphasis added).
`
`Had the Board not misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments and had not
`
`overlooked/misapprehended Zhang’s pertinent embodiments and Ding’s disclosure
`
`that “[t]he [pure tantalum] layer must be sufficiently thick to provide a tantalum
`
`<002> crystalline orientation ….,” the Board should have found the Challenged
`
`Claims patentable. For at least these reasons, the Board should grant rehearing.
`
`II. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Importance Of
`Maintaining A Layer Of Pure Crystalline Tantalum With An Upper
`Surface Having A <002> Crystalline Orientation
`
`
`
`The Board overlooked/misapprehended that any combination of Ding and
`
`Zhang would maintain Ding’s barrier/wetting layer formed of pure tantalum thick
`
`enough to provide a <002> crystalline orientation on the surface of the film to
`
`improve adhesion to the copper and formation of a copper layer having a high
`
`<111> crystallographic content (referred to herein as “Ding’s Objective”).
`
`The Board correctly states that the Ding inventors “‘developed a barrier
`
`layer structure comprising a layer of Ta overlying a layer of TaNx, which provides
`
`both a barrier to the diffusion of a copper layer deposited thereover, and enables
`
`the formation of a copper layer having a high <111> crystallographic content, so
`
`that copper electromigration resistance is increased.’” FWD, pp. 16-17. The
`
`Board also correctly states:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`The tantalum (Ta) layer is crystalline. Id. at 7:67–8:4 (“The [tantalum]
`
`layer must be sufficiently thick to provide a tantalum <002>
`
`crystalline orientation which enables easy wetting of the tantalum
`
`surface by the copper and depositing of a copper layer having a high
`
`<111> crystal orientation.”). Ding does not describe any nitrogen
`
`within the tantalum layer (i.e., within the asserted “first film”).
`
`FWD, p. 17.
`
`However, the Board overlooked/misapprehended Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that any combination of Ding and Zhang would maintain Ding’s Objective. The
`
`Board overlooked/misapprehended that Ding discloses an upper layer of pure Ta
`
`having a <002> crystalline orientation. The Board refers to Ding’s teaching of
`
`“crystalline,” but overlooks that such disclosure pertains only to a pure Ta layer,
`
`i.e., a pure crystalline tantalum upper layer not containing nitrogen:
`
`Indeed, Ding provides an in haec verba teaching of “crystalline.” See
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:67–8:4 (“The [tantalum] layer must be sufficiently thick
`
`to provide a tantalum <002> crystalline orientation which enables
`
`easy wetting of the tantalum surface by the copper and depositing of a
`
`copper layer having a high <111> crystal orientation.”).
`
`FWD, pp. 10-11.
`
`The Board overlooks that Ding’s upper layer is both crystalline and pure
`
`tantalum (Ta). Additionally, the Board overlooked the totality of the teachings of
`
`Ding and Zhang, including Ding’s Objective and Zhang’s embodiments having an
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`upper surface of pure tantalum to provide better adhesion to the copper film.
`
`Zhang does not teach adding nitrogen to a top layer; rather Zhang teaches
`
`reducing/eliminating nitrogen from a top layer to improve adhesion to copper. As
`
`Zhang, like Ding, discloses the desirability of a film with an upper surface of pure
`
`Ta, a PHOSITA attempting to combine Ding and Zhang would have maintained
`
`Ding’s Objective of pure Ta with a <002> crystalline orientation.
`
`Absent the Board overlooking and misapprehending the above, a PHOSITA
`
`combining Ding and Zhang would retain Ding’s upper layer of pure Ta thick
`
`enough to provide a <002> crystalline orientation. For at least these reasons, the
`
`Board should grant rehearing and find the Challenged Claims patentable.
`
`III. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Significance That
`Zhang And Ding Teach Similar Sputter-Deposition Processes
`
`The Board also misapprehended the significance of the similarities of the
`
`sputter-deposition processes disclosed in Ding and Zhang including terminating the
`
`nitrogen flow after the tantalum nitride layer is formed. Particularly, the Board
`
`misapprehended that in both Ding’s and Zhang’s sputter-deposition processes, the
`
`flow of nitrogen is shut off; thus, as the processes continue to run, eventually a
`
`layer of pure tantalum (containing no nitrogen) will be formed after the nitrogen in
`
`the chamber is consumed. See PO Response, pp. 40-44. Because similar
`
`sputtering processes are disclosed in Zhang and Ding, similar results for Zhang’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`and Ding’s processes would have been expected.
`
`Neither Ding nor Zhang disclose how to form a crystalline metal film
`
`containing nitrogen therein on top of an amorphous metal nitride film, and the
`
`Board overlooked that there is no evidence in the record to show that it was known
`
`in the art to increase the energy in the sputtering process to -- all else being equal --
`
`achieve a crystalline layer containing nitrogen versus an amorphous layer. Record
`
`of Oral Hearing (Paper 45), 95:15-97:15; see also Ex. 2011, ¶¶167-185.
`
`Thus, the Board overlooked that following the similar sputter-deposition
`
`processes of Ding and Zhang, any combination thereof would have resulted in an
`
`upper layer of pure crystalline tantalum. Ding does not describe any nitrogen
`
`within the crystalline Ta layer. FWD, p. 17. An upper layer produced in a similar
`
`manner to that disclosed by Ding where the nitrogen flow is terminated while the
`
`sputtering process continues to run after the nitrogen in the chamber is consumed
`
`or purged would similarly result in an upper layer of pure crystalline tantalum
`
`containing no nitrogen. See Exhibit 2044, pp. 94:8-96:14 (Observation No. 8,
`
`Paper 28, p. 7, where Petitioner’s expert testified that one would know to cut off
`
`the nitrogen flow in a sputtering chamber to form a layer of pure tantalum). The
`
`Board also overlooked that Petitioner provided no evidence that adding nitrogen
`
`during Ding’s sputtering process would result in a layer of crystalline metal
`
`containing nitrogen therein. Exhibit 2011, ¶183. PO Response, p. 43.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Thus, a PHOSITA combining Ding and Zhang would have maintained
`
`Ding’s barrier/wetting layer formed of pure tantalum thick enough to provide a
`
`<002> crystalline orientation to improve adhesion to the copper and formation of
`
`a copper layer having a high <111> crystallographic content. This is especially
`
`true as Petitioner has not shown any manner of arriving at a crystalline upper layer
`
`containing nitrogen based upon the admittedly similar sputtering techniques of
`
`Ding and Zhang. Petitioner had the burden to establish that the Challenged
`
`Claims can be arrived at based upon techniques known in the prior art.
`
`The Board also overlooked/misapprehended that the ‘324 patent discloses
`
`the need for higher energy conditions (not disclosed in Ding or Zhang) to form
`
`“said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein” on
`
`a “second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride.” PO Response, pp.
`
`40- 44 (“Based on the record before the Board, the only reason for altering the
`
`sputtering processes disclosed in Ding and/or Zhang to maintain the nitrogen flow
`
`and increase the power level would be based on impermissible hindsight, i.e., the
`
`teachings of the ‘324 patent. Exhibit 2011, ¶¶184-185, see also ¶¶167-183.”).
`
`Notwithstanding the ‘324 patent disclosure, Petitioner failed to present any
`
`evidence that a PHOSITA would have known how to form a crystalline metal
`
`layer containing nitrogen following formation of an amorphous nitride layer.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`The Board misapprehended that Patent Owner’s method arguments pertain
`
`to the structure recited in the Challenged Claims. If a method for producing a
`
`claimed product is not known, the claimed product cannot be obvious. For at least
`
`these reasons, the Board should grant rehearing.
`
`IV. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Evidence And
`Arguments Regarding Allegedly Predictable Results
`
`
`
`The Board overlooked/misapprehended Patent Owner’s argument that a
`
`PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure tantalum layer for any
`
`reason asserted by Petitioner without the benefit of impermissible hindsight and the
`
`teachings of the ‘324 patent. PO Response, p. 47. The Board misapprehended the
`
`importance of forming a layer of pure tantalum thick enough to provide a <002>
`
`crystalline orientation to achieve Ding’s Objective, and that a PHOSITA would
`
`not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure tantalum layer because of the unknown
`
`potential change in properties that could deleteriously affect the subsequent copper
`
`properties. PO Response, p. 48. Thus, regardless of whether nitrogen added to a
`
`layer of pure tantalum hypothetically might make the layer more easily removable
`
`by CMP, or inhibit diffusion, or reduce resistivity, there is no evidence describing
`
`what would happen if nitrogen were added during Ding’s sputtering process to
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`form a pure tantalum layer,2 or that the result would be a layer containing
`
`crystalline metal and nitrogen therein. Ex. 2011, ¶183; PO Response, p. 43. In sum,
`
`the Board overlooked/misapprehended that a PHOSITA would not have modified
`
`Ding in view of Zhang to obtain the claimed inventions. PO Response, pp. 38-40.
`
`A. Chemical Mechanical Polishing (“CMP”)
`
`The Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s argument that at the outset, a
`
`PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure Ta layer simply to make
`
`the layer more easily removable by CMP because TaN lacks the adhesion benefits
`
`of pure Ta and does not provide the desired degree of {111} crystal orientation in
`
`an overlying copper layer. A PHOSITA would not increase the nitrogen content
`
`with the goal of improving CMP removability because of the unknown potential
`
`change in properties that would deleteriously affect the subsequent copper
`
`properties. Ex.2011, ¶¶195-197; PO Response, p. 48.
`
`The Board further misapprehended Exs. 1003, 1019, and 1021 regarding
`
`CMP, as this evidence is speculative and inconsequential. Petitioner’s expert
`
`equivocates in opining that adding nitrogen to Ding’s top Ta layer “may” or
`
`
`2 Tantalum sputtered in the presence of even low concentrations of nitrogen on to
`
`an existing amorphous film will continue to form amorphous TaN. Ex.2011, ¶¶
`
`151, 160, 161; Ex.1030, 4:63-5:6, 3:1-5; PO Response, p. 39.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`“might” make the layer more easily removable by CMP. Ex.1003 ¶¶142, 143.
`
`Further, Ex.1019 is cited for the proposition that “the polishing rate of Ta is lower
`
`than that of TaN.” Id. However, Ding discloses Ta is crystalline and TaN is
`
`amorphous. TaN is mechanically softer than Ta, thus more easily removable by
`
`CMP. See PO Response, p. 48. Also, Petitioner’s expert does not discuss Ex.1021.
`
`The Board gave Petitioner’s arguments and evidence more credit than deserved.
`
`Additionally, the Board overlooked the testimony that CMP selectivity is a
`
`final consideration, with crystalline structure being a more important factor so a
`
`PHOSITA would not change Ding’s pure crystalline Ta structure simply to
`
`facilitate CMP. Ex.2037, ¶¶ 83(t), 83(u). Thus, the Board misapprehended
`
`Petitioner’s evidence regarding CMP which refutes the Board’s findings.
`
`B. Inhibit Diffusion
`
`
`
`The Board stated that “Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang
`
`teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum.” FWD. p. 25. The Board
`
`misapprehended that Patent Owner did not argue that Zhang exclusively taught an
`
`upper surface of pure Ta. Rather, Patent Owner argued that Zhang taught the
`
`desirability of an upper surface of pure Ta. PO Response, p. 22 (“Both Ding and
`
`Zhang teach the desirability of forming a film having a surface of pure tantalum,
`
`i.e., with no nitrogen.”); see also pp. 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 50.
`
`Additionally, the Board overlooked Dr. Harris’ testimony that a PHOSITA
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure Ta layer simply to inhibit copper
`
`diffusion because of potential deleterious change in properties of the subsequent
`
`copper properties. Ex.2011, ¶¶199-204; PO Response, pp. 49-50. The Board also
`
`overlooked Dr. Harris’ unrebutted testimony that a PHOSITA would have
`
`recognized that the deposition conditions disclosed in Wang (Ex.1023) are “even
`
`more favorable than those of Ding and Zhang to form amorphous TaN.” Ex.2037,
`
`¶ 83(o). Thus, Wang (Ex.1023) does not support the Board’s findings in the FWD.
`
`In sum, the Board overlooked/misapprehended the evidence of record
`
`regarding inhibiting diffusion which in total refutes the Board’s findings.
`
`C. Resistivity
`
`The Board overlooked/misapprehended evidence and arguments concerning
`
`why a PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure Ta layer to reduce
`
`resistivity. First, the Board overlooked evidence that Ex. 1015, p.81 (Table 1)
`
`indicates that the addition of nitrogen did not reduce resistivity, but actually
`
`increased the resistivity. PO Response p. 51.
`
`The Board further overlooked that Exs. 1006 and 1007 disclose that even a
`
`small amount of nitrogen actively introduced as N2 flow would produce a
`
`substantial concentration of nitrogen in the film, and have a deleterious effect on
`
`the resistivity of pure tantalum. PO Response, p. 51. Moreover, the Board
`
`overlooked that Sun discloses adding nitrogen to pure Ta increases its resistivity:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`“resistivity of … Ta-N films always exceeds that of pure Ta films…” Ex.1007, p.
`
`12, Fig. 6; PO Response, p. 51; see also Ex.2011, ¶210; Ex.2037 ¶83(r).
`
`
`
`Additionally, the Board misapprehended that the quoted testimony of Dr.
`
`Harris (FWD, p. 26) discusses the ‘324 patent, not the prior art. See Harris Tr., Ex.
`
`1036, 124:3-14. The Board also overlooked that Petitioner improperly relied on
`
`the ‘324 patent for motivation to add nitrogen to a tantalum film. Observation Nos.
`
`12 and 13 (Paper 28). In sum, the Board overlooked/misapprehended that the
`
`evidence of record regarding resistivity refutes the Board’s findings.
`
`Accordingly, the Board overlooked/misapprehended Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments/evidence why nitrogen would not have been added to Ding’s pure Ta
`
`layer to improve CMP characteristics (Ex. 2011, ¶¶190-198; PO Response, pp. 47-
`
`49); why a PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure Ta layer to
`
`inhibit diffusion (Ex. 2011, ¶¶199-204; PO Response, pp. 49-50); and why a
`
`PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to Ding’s pure Ta layer to reduce
`
`resistivity (Ex.1015, p.81 (Table 1), Ex.1007, p.12, Fig. 6; Ex.2011, ¶210;
`
`Ex.2037, ¶83(r); PO Response, p. 51). Thus, the Board
`
`overlooked/misapprehended the evidence regarding allegedly predictable results.
`
`V.
`
`Substitute Claims 11 And 12 Are Patentable
`
`In addition to the matters overlooked/misapprehended above, the Board
`
`overlooked the patentability of Substitute Claim 11 that expressly recites nitrogen
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`being present throughout the first film, and Substitute Claim 12 that expressly
`
`recites wherein said first film contains nitrogen in a portion being in contact with
`
`said copper film, i.e., that the upper surface of the film contains nitrogen. The
`
`Board also overlooked/misapprehended features explicitly recited in the Substitute
`
`Claims. For example, footnote 6 of the FWD states: “Because the challenged
`
`claims do not require nitrogen ‘throughout’ the first film, Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments in that regard are inapposite and not furthered addressed in this
`
`Decision.” FWD, pp. 12-13, n. 6. This statement shows that the Board overlooked
`
`that Substitute Claim 11 requires nitrogen throughout the first film and that
`
`Substitute Claim 12 requires the upper surface of the film contain nitrogen. Each
`
`and every feature of the Substitute Claims should be addressed.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board grant rehearing and, for the
`
`reasons set forth above, find the Challenged Claims patentable, or in the
`
`alternative, find proposed Substitute Claims 11 and 12 patentable.
`
`Dated: January 19, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`Email: mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`IP Bridge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{R50501 03369564.DOC}
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`was served by electronic mail on this 19th day of January, 2018, upon Counsel for
`
`Petitioners, as follows:
`
`E. Robert Yoches (bob.yoches@finnegan.com);
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com);
`Joshua L. Goldberg (joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com);
`TSMC-IPB-PTAB@finnegan.com;
`David Tennant (dtennant@whitecase.com);
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings (setienne@whitecase.com);
`Allen Wang (allen.wang@whitecase.com);
`wcptab@whitecase.com; and
`WCGlobalFoundriesIPR1Team@whitecase.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`Email: mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`IP Bridge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
