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 LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................. iv
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................. vii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ............................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................. 1
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘324 PATENT ..................................................................................... 3
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Claims Terms Are To Be Given Their Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation In Light Of The Specification ...................................... 8
`
`The Board Stated “No Express Construction Is Necessary” ..............10
`
`The Term “Composed” As Recited In Claims 1 and 5 Should
`Be Construed To Mean “Consisting Essentially Of.” ........................11
`
`“First Film Being Composed Of Crystalline Metal Containing
`Nitrogen Therein” Should Be Construed To Mean “A First Film
`Consisting Essentially Of A Mixture Of Crystalline Or
`Polycrystalline Metal With Nitrogen Throughout.” ...........................13
`
`“Second Film Being Composed Of Amorphous Metal Nitride”
`Should Be Construed To Mean “A Second Film Consisting
`Essentially Of A Non-crystalline Metal Nitride.” ..............................15
`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Use Of The Disputed Claim Terms ..................17
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................18
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS .........................................................................................18
`
`VIII. ARGUMENT..............................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of Argument .....................................................................21
`
`Prior Art ............................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 (“Ding”) ........................................23
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 (“Zhang”) ......................................27
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 5 Are Patentable Over Ding In View
`Of Zhang...........................................................................................31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ding And Zhang Both Teach A Layer Of Pure Metal
`Over A Layer Of Metal Nitride ...............................................31
`
`A PHOSITA Would Not Have Modified Ding In View
`Of Zhang To Add Nitrogen To Ding’s Pure Tantalum
`Layer ......................................................................................38
`
`Ding And Zhang Disclose Similar Sputter-Deposition
`Techniques ..............................................................................40
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Ding In View Of
`Zhang Renders Obvious A Film Consisting Essentially
`Of A Mixture Of Crystalline Metal With Nitrogen
`Throughout .............................................................................44
`
`D.
`
`The Other Exhibits Cited In The Petition Would Not Have
`Motivated A PHOSITA To Modify Ding In View Of Zhang To
`Have A “First Film Being Composed Of Crystalline Metal
`Containing Nitrogen Therein” ...........................................................46
`
`1.
`
`The “Predictable Advantages” Asserted By Petitioner
`Would Not Have Motivated A PHOSITA To Modify
`Ding In View Of Zhang To Arrive At The Claimed
`Invention .................................................................................47
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to
`Ding’s layer of pure tantalum because it would not
`be more easily removable by polishing .........................47
`A PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to
`Ding’s layer of pure tantalum to block grain
`boundary diffusion paths ...............................................49
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`c.
`
`A PHOSITA would not have added nitrogen to
`Ding’s layer of pure tantalum to reduce resistivity ........50
`A PHOSITA Modifying Ding In View Of Zhang By
`Applying Known Techniques To Yield Predictable
`Results Would Not Render The Challenged Claims
`Unpatentable ...........................................................................52
`
`E.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 Are Patentable Over Ding In
`View Of Zhang .................................................................................54
`
`F.
`
`Dependent Claim 9 Is Patentable Over Ding In View Of Zhang .......54
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................55
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company,
`239 F.3d 1239, 57 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2001).................................... 12, 15
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .........................................................................19
`
`Atlas Powder v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,
`750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................13
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................11
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`No. IPR2013-00043, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2013) ................................10
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Epistar, Everlight, and Lite-On v. Trustees Of Boston University,
`IPR2013-00298, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2013) ..............................45
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)............................................................................................18
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .........................................................................19
`
`In re Bertsch,
`132 F.2d 1014 (CCPA 1942) ..........................................................................12
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................19
`
`In re Garnero,
`412 F.2d 276 (C.C.P.A. 1969).........................................................................12
`
`In re Herz,
`537 F.2d 549 (CCPA 1976) ...................................................................... 12, 15
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Janakirama-Rao,
`317 F.2d 951 (CCPA 1963) ............................................................................13
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................19
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 9
`
`In Re: Nuvasive, Inc.,
`Appeal Nos. 2015-1672, 2015-1673 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................11
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................20
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States,
`702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................19
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................20
`
`PPG Indus. v. GuardianIndustry Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 12, 13
`
`Reese v. Hurst,
`661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .......................................................................12
`
`SAS Institute Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................20
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................19
`
`Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.,
`850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................... 12, 13
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................................................................................. 1, 22
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MPEP, 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2012] ................................................12
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.23(a) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 2001:
`
`
`Exhibit 2002:
`
`
`Exhibit 2003:
`
`
`Exhibit 2004:
`
`
`Exhibit 2005:
`
`Exhibit 2006:
`
`Exhibit 2007:
`
`Exhibit 2008:
`
`
`Exhibit 2009:
`
`
`Exhibit 2010:
`
`
`Exhibit 2011:
`
`Exhibit 2012:
`
`Exhibit 2013:
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Chang, C.C., Chen, J.S. and Hsu, W.S., “Failure Mechanism of
`Amorphous and Crystalline Ta-N Films in the Cu/Ta
`N/Ta/SiO2 Structure.” Journal of The Electrochemical Society,
`151(11), pp.G746-G750 (2004).
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/995,108, Amendment “A”
`Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111, dated February 1, 2000.
`
`“Amorphous.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30,
`2016. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amorphous.
`
`“Nitride.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30,
`2016. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nitride.
`
`Expunged
`
`Expunged
`
`Expunged
`
`Guralnik, D. B., ed. “Amorphous.” Def. 4. Webster’s New
`World Dictionary of the American Language. Modern desk ed.
`Prentice Hall Press, 1979. Print.
`
`Grant, J., ed. “Nitride.” Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary. 4th ed.
`McGraw-Hill, 1969. Print.
`
`Sienko, M.J., Plane, R.A. Chemistry. 2d ed. New York,
`McGraw-Hill, 1961, pp. 193-195. Print.
`
`Declaration of Harlan Rusty Harris, Ph.D.
`
`MPEP, 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2012].
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum And Order, November 9,
`2016, pp. 31-32 (Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom
`Limited et al., USDC EDTEX 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP).
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 2014:
`
`Exhibit 2015:
`
`Exhibit 2016:
`
`Exhibit 2017:
`
`Exhibit 2018:
`
`Exhibit 2019:
`
`Exhibit 2020:
`
`Exhibit 2021:
`
`Exhibit 2022:
`
`Exhibit 2023:
`
`Exhibit 2024:
`
`Exhibit 2025:
`
`Exhibit 2026:
`
`Exhibit 2027:
`
`Exhibit 2028:
`
`Exhibit 2029:
`
`Exhibit 2030:
`
`Exhibit 2031:
`
`Exhibit 2032:
`
`
`
`JP H08-139092A.
`
`English translation of JP H08-139092A.
`
`JP H08-250596A.
`
`English translation of JP H08-250596A.
`
`JP H08-274098A.
`
`English translation of JP H08-274098A.
`
`JP H09-64044A.
`
`English translation of JP H09-64044A.
`
`JP H09-293690A.
`
`English translation of JP H09-293690A.
`
`JP H10-125627A.
`
`English translation of JP H10-125627A.
`
`JP H10-256256A.
`
`English translation of JP H10-256256A.
`
`JP H10-330938A.
`
`English translation of JP H10-330938A.
`
`JP H11-67686A.
`
`English translation of JP H11-67686A.
`
`D. Denning, et al., “An Inlaid CVD Cu Based Integration for
`Sub 0.25mum Technology.” 1998 Symposium on VLSI
`Technology Digest of Technical Papers, 1998, pp. 22-23.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 2033:
`
`
`Exhibit 2034:
`
`
`Exhibit 2035:
`
`Exhibit 2036:
`
`
`Exhibit 2037:
`
`
`Exhibit 2038:
`
`Exhibit 2039:
`
`Exhibit 2040:
`
`Exhibit 2041:
`
`Exhibit 2042:
`
`
`
`K. Kwon et al., “Characteristics of Ta As An Underlayer for Cu
`Interconnects.” Advanced Metallization and Interconnect
`Systems for ULSIApplications in 1997, 1998, pp. 711-716.
`
`N. Awaya, “Semiconductor World.” Feb. 1998, pp. 91-96
`(“Awaya”).
`
`English translation of Awaya.
`
`Grant, J., ed. “Solid Solution.” Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary.
`4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1969. Print.
`
`Declaration of Harlan Rusty Harris, Ph.D. In Support Of Patent
`Owner’s Motion To Amend.
`
`Declaration of Rumiko Whitehead.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,346,745 to Nogami et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,156,647 to Hogan.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,139,699 to Chiang et al.
`
`Min, K. H. et al., “Comparative study of tantalum and tantalum
`nitrides (Ta2N and TaN) as a diffusion barrier for Cu
`metallization.” Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B:
`Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing,
`Measurement, and Phenomena, 14(5), pp. 3263-3269 (1996).
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent Owner”) respectfully
`
`asserts that Petitioner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`
`(“Petitioner”) has failed to prove that claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 (“challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 (Exhibit 1001, “the ‘324 Patent”) are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 (“Ding”)
`
`(Exhibit 1005) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 (“Zhang”)(Exhibit 1004).
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner did not submit a statement of material facts in its IPR petition. As
`
`such, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.23(a), and no facts are
`
`admitted.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board confirm the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims, and if not, grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and confirm
`
`the patentability of the amended claims.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`In the late 1990s, there was a desire to use copper wiring layers in the
`
`manufacture of semiconductor devices. Exhibit 1001, 1:16. Copper, however, acts
`
`as a charge conduction point in silicon (Si), drifts through Si and silicon dioxide
`
`(SiO2) due to a voltage applied across these materials, and has a high diffusion rate
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`in both Si and SiO2. Exhibit 1001, 1:21-25. For these reasons, it was determined
`
`that copper can be used, but it must be thoroughly and completely encapsulated in
`
`another material that was suitably high in conductivity (albeit not as high as
`
`copper) and acted as a barrier for the diffusion of copper downward into either
`
`SiO2 or Si. Furthermore, in order to provide the appropriate amount of
`
`conductivity while also being reliable as a conductor in chip products, it was found
`
`that copper must be crystalline with a particular crystal orientation. Therefore, the
`
`material on which the copper was deposited must also foster the formation of the
`
`crystalline copper. These two properties are in tension with each other as,
`
`normally, a material that prevents diffusion is the opposite of crystalline, otherwise
`
`known as amorphous. Exhibit 2011, ¶25.
`
`The ‘324 patent describes prior art attempts which formed unsatisfactory
`
`copper diffusion-barriers. E.g., see Exhibit 1001, Fig. 2, 2:62-64 (depicting a
`
`single layer metal film composed of crystallized pillar structures); Fig. 3, 3:21-23
`
`(depicting single layer metal film composed of amorphous particles). Barriers
`
`composed of crystallized pillar structures did not provide sufficient barrier
`
`characteristics to prevent copper diffusion. Id., 3:1-4. Barriers composed of
`
`amorphous particles did not adhere well to copper. Id., 29-33; Exhibit 2011, ¶26.
`
`Fig. 1 depicts “a multi-layered barrier structure 3 comprised of the titanium film 1
`
`and the thin titanium nitride film 2.” Id., 2:49-51; Exhibit 2011, ¶27.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The ‘324 patent discloses an improved diffusion-barrier over the prior art
`
`
`
`diffusion barriers. Exhibit 2011, ¶28.
`
`V. THE ‘324 PATENT
`
`The ‘324 patent discloses a multi-layered barrier film that prevents copper
`
`diffusion and sufficiently adheres to copper. The barrier film has first and second
`
`films wherein the first film is composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen
`
`therein, and the second film is composed of amorphous metal nitride. The barrier
`
`film is constituted of common metal atomic species, the first film is formed on the
`
`second film and in direct contact with the second film, and the first film contains
`
`nitrogen in a smaller content than that of the second film. Exhibit 1001, 18:65-
`
`19:3; Exhibit 2011, ¶29.
`
`The ‘324 patent teaches that an improved diffusion-barrier can be created by
`
`first forming an amorphous metal nitride film, and then forming a crystalline metal
`
`film containing nitrogen therein on the amorphous metal nitride film. The ‘324
`
`patent discloses that increasing the RF power while maintaining the nitrogen/argon
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`gas ratio will change the film’s structural characteristics from amorphous to
`
`crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein. Id., 12:58-67. As such, the
`
`multi-layered barrier film taught by the ‘324 patent does not have a pure metal
`
`surface, but rather has a crystalline metal layer containing nitrogen throughout the
`
`film, including the surface which contacts a copper layer. This is very different
`
`from the prior art films that stop the nitrogen flow to form a layer with a pure metal
`
`surface. Exhibit 2011, ¶¶30-32.
`
`Fig. 21 of the ‘324 patent (depicted below) shows an embodiment having a
`
`first film (18)1 composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein, and a
`
`second film (15) composed of amorphous metal nitride. Id., 8:24-29; 13:15-23.
`
`
`
`Fig. 21 (depicted above) is a cross-sectional view of a diffusion-barrier film
`
`“comprised of a crystalline Ta film containing nitrogen in solid solution and an
`
`
`
`1 In Fig. 21, the crystalline metal film containing nitrogen is labelled element
`
`18 but is referred to in the specification as element 16. Id., 13:15-23.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`amorphous metal TaN film.” Id., 8:24-28 (emphasis added).2 The crystalline
`
`metal containing nitrogen in solid solution is depicted as present throughout the
`
`film 18, i.e., from the upper surface to the bottom of the first film. Film 15 is
`
`depicted as amorphous throughout the second film. Exhibit 2011, ¶¶33-36.
`
`The ‘324 patent discloses that “[i]n the diffusion-barrier film in accordance
`
`with the present invention, a copper film makes direct contact with a crystalline
`
`metal film containing nitrogen therein, ensuring high adhesion therebetween and
`
`high crystallinity of a copper film.” Id., 6:32-36. “In addition, since the metal film
`
`contains nitrogen therein, copper diffusion into a semiconductor device can be
`
`prevented more effectively than a metal film having pure crystals.” Id., 6:37-40.
`
`“In the diffusion-barrier film in accordance with the present invention, an
`
`amorphous metal film containing nitrogen therein lies under a crystalline metal
`
`
`
`2 A solution is a “homogeneous mixture of two or more components, while a
`
`“solid solution” is a solid material “in which one component is randomly dispersed
`
`on an atomic or molecular scale throughout another material.” Exhibit 2010. A
`
`solid solution is crystalline, although “…there is no particular order as to which
`
`lattice points are occupied by which kinds of atoms.” Exhibit 2010. A dictionary
`
`defines “solid solution” as a “homogenous, solid mixture of substance.” Exhibit
`
`2036; Exhibit 2011, ¶35.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`film containing nitrogen therein. Hence, it is possible to effectively prevent copper
`
`diffusion, and to ensure high adhesion with an underlying insulating film such as a
`
`silicon dioxide film. That is, by forming a copper wiring layer on the diffusion-
`
`barrier film in accordance with the present invention, it is possible to not only
`
`ensure high crystallinity and high adhesion of a copper wiring layer, but also to
`
`prevent copper diffusion.” Id., 6:41-52; Exhibit 2011, ¶¶37-39.
`
`Additionally, the ‘324 patent distinguishes between and uses different
`
`terminology when referring to crystalline metal films; crystalline metal films
`
`containing nitrogen therein; amorphous metal nitride films; and crystalline metal
`
`nitride films. Id., 12:11-41. The ‘324 patent also teaches that a tantalum nitride
`
`film can be amorphous or crystalline, and can vary in composition and resistivity.
`
`See Id., 12:11-41, 12:62-63, Figs. 12 and 15; 12:29-31, Fig. 13.3 Exhibit 2011,
`
`¶¶40-41.
`
`A PHOSITA reading the ‘324 patent would have understood a crystalline
`
`metal film containing nitrogen therein to be distinct from pure crystalline metal
`
`films (not containing nitrogen), from amorphous metal nitride films and from
`
`crystalline metal nitride films. A PHOSITA would have understood a “crystalline
`
`metal film containing nitrogen therein” as disclosed in the ‘324 patent as a film
`
`composed of crystalline metal and nitrogen in mixture. Id., 12:20-21. This
`
`
`3 Fig. 13 depicts Ta2N5 (113) or (041) and Ta3N5 (132) or (042).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`understanding is supported by the disclosure that the “crystalline metal film
`
`containing nitrogen therein” is in “solid solution,” i.e., homogenous, such that the
`
`crystalline metal and nitrogen are present throughout the film, i.e., from the upper
`
`surface to the bottom of the film. Id., 8:24-28. Indeed, this understanding is
`
`supported by the entire disclosure of the ‘324 patent which discloses that the
`
`“nitrogen in plasma gas being kept constant” when forming the amorphous and
`
`crystalline layers. See Id., 6:63-7:12; Exhibit 2011, ¶¶42-45.
`
`Thus, the ‘324 patent teaches that increasing the RF power while
`
`maintaining the nitrogen gas ratio will change the film’s structural characteristics
`
`from amorphous to crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein. Id., 12:58-
`
`67; Figs. 9-15. A PHOSITA would have understood a film that is produced with
`
`“nitrogen in plasma gas being kept constant” would have nitrogen present
`
`throughout the “crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein” so that a film
`
`“composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein” would be understood
`
`to contain nitrogen throughout the film, i.e., from the surface contacting the
`
`amorphous metal nitride layer to the surface contacting the copper wiring layer.
`
`This is reinforced by the description of Fig. 21 of the cross-section view of the
`
`diffusion barrier film that is formed by the constant nitrogen process of the ‘324
`
`patent being described as a crystalline tantalum film containing nitrogen in “solid
`
`solution.” Id., 8:24-28; Exhibit 2011, ¶¶46-48.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘324 patent recites:
`
`1. A barrier film preventing diffusion of copper from a copper wiring
`
`layer formed on a semiconductor substrate, comprising a multi-
`
`layered structure of first and second films,
`
`said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing
`
`nitrogen therein,
`
`said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride,
`
`said barrier film being constituted of common metal atomic
`
`species,
`
`said first film being formed on said second film,
`
`said first film in direct contact with said second film,
`
`said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content than that
`
`of said second film.
`
`Patent Owner proposed in its Preliminary Response (Paper 6) constructions
`
`for the following limitations recited in claims 1 and 5: (1) a “first film being
`
`composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” and (2) a “said second
`
`film being composed of amorphous metal nitride.” Petitioner asserted that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) should be applied to all claim terms.
`
`A. Claims Terms Are To Be Given Their Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation In Light Of The Specification
`
`In an IPR proceeding, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`(2016); SAS Institute Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Under the BRI standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Claims, however, must be construed reasonably in
`
`light of the specification and the patent’s prosecution history:
`
`Rather, “claims should always be read in light of the
`
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” Suitco,
`
`603 F.3d at 1260. The PTO should also consult the patent’s
`
`prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been
`
`brought back to the agency for a second review. See Tempo
`
`Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`
`record evidence,” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011), and “must be consistent with the one that those
`
`skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353,
`
`1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A construction that is “unreasonably
`
`broad” and which does not “reasonably reflect the plain
`
`language and disclosure” will not pass muster. Suitco, 603 F.3d
`
`at 1260.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
`
`Federal Circuit has emphasized that in IPR proceedings the claims must be
`
`reasonably interpreted in light of the specification:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`While we have endorsed the Board’s use of the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard in IPR proceedings, we also
`
`take care to not read “reasonable” out of the standard. This is to
`
`say that “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence, and must be consistent
`
`with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”
`
`SAS, 825 F.3d at 1348.
`
`
`
`A construction that is “unreasonably broad” and which does not “reasonably
`
`reflect the plain language and disclosure” will not pass muster. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`789 F.3d at 1298.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Stated “No Express Construction Is Necessary”
`
`The Board did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for the
`
`claim limitations: (1) a “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing
`
`nitrogen therein,” and (2) a “said second film being composed of amorphous metal
`
`nitride.” The Board stated that “no express construction is necessary” for either
`
`limitation. Decision, pp.7-8.
`
`Claim construction is a step in the Board’s analysis “for determining
`
`whether to institute a trial.” Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., No. IPR2013-
`
`00043, Paper 14, at 4 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2013). Whether or not the Board agreed
`
`with Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, because the meanings of the
`
`claim terms are in dispute, the Board should have construed the disputed claim
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`terms to provide Patent Owner “notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the
`
`grounds of rejection.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015); In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1672, 2015-1673 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`
`p.8.
`
`As the Board determined that “no express construction is necessary” of the
`
`disputed claim terms, Patent Owner has no guidance as to how the Board
`
`understands and has applied the disputed claim terms. Patent Owner maintains that
`
`the Board’s determination that “no express construction is necessary” of the
`
`disputed claim terms under the BRI standard and rejecting Patent Owners’
`
`proposed constructions does not reasonably reflect the plain language and
`
`disclosure. As discussed herein, express construction of the disputed claims is
`
`necessary, and when properly construed, are narrower than how the Board appears
`
`to understand and apply the disputed claim terms.
`
`C. The Term “Composed” As Recited In Claims 1 and 5 Should Be
`Construed To Mean “Consisting Essentially Of.”
`
`Claims 1 and 5 recite (1) “said first film being composed of crystalline
`
`metal containing nitrogen therein,” and (2) “said second film being composed of
`
`amorphous metal nitride.” Exhibit 1001, 18:61-64 (emphasis added). Under the
`
`BRI standard, the term “composed” as used in the challenged claims should be
`
`construed to mean “consisting essentially of.” See AFG Industries, Inc. v.
`
`Cardinal IG Company, 239 F.3d 1239, 1245, 57 USPQ2d 1776, 1780-81 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`2001) (based on specification and other evidence, “composed of” interpreted in
`
`same manner as “consisting essentially of”); see also In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014,
`
`1019-20 (CCPA 1942); MPEP, 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2012](Exhibit
`
`2012).4
`
`The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim
`
`to the specified materials “and those that do not materially affect the basic and
`
`novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52
`
`(CCPA 1976); see also AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245; PPG Indus. v. GuardianIndustry
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco,
`
`Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 666 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1229
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (C.C.P.A. 1969). “A
`
`‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims
`
`that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in
`
`
`
`4 Additionally, although not binding on the PTAB, the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas has construed “composed” recited in Claims 1 and
`
`5 of the ‘324 patent to mean “consisting essentially of.” Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`v. Broadcom Limited et al., USDC EDTEX 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP, Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum And Order, November 9, 2016, pp. 31-32 (Exhibit
`
`2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Atlas Powder v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,
`
`750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951 (CCPA
`
`1963); Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`A PHOSITA would understand that the term “composed” as recited in
`
`claims 1 and 5 of the ‘324 patent to mean “consisting essentially of.” Exhibit
`
`2011, ¶¶49-62.
`
`D.
`
`“First Film Being Composed Of Crystalline Metal Containing
`Nitrogen Therein” Should Be Construed To Mean “A First Film
`Consisting Essentially Of A Mixture Of Crystalline Or
`Polycrystalline Metal With Nitrogen Throughout.”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 5 recite “said first film being composed of
`
`crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.” A PHOSITA would understand this
`
`claim to mean “a first film consisting essentially of a mixture of crystalline or
`
`polycrystalline metal with nitrogen throughout.” Exhibit 2011, ¶63.
`
`The ‘324 patent specification differentiates “crystalline metal film
`
`containing nitrogen therein” (Exhibit 1001, 12:19-23) from pure crystalline metal
`
`film (Exhibit 1001, 12:15-18), from amorphous metal nitride film (Exhibit 1001,
`
`12:24-28), and from crystalline metal nitride film. (Exhibit 1001, 12:29-31). The
`
`‘324 patent specification consistently describes a “crystalline metal film containing
`
`nitrogen therein” as a film composed of metal and nitrogen “in mixture.” Exhibit
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`1001, 12:19-24; see also 12:62-67; 13:4-24; 13:57-63; 16:41-47; Exhibit 2011,
`
`¶64.
`
`As depicted i