`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`