`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`Date: December 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACURING COMPANY
`LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited,
`filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’324 patent”) pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Godo Kaisha IP
`Bridge 1, filed a Preliminary Response under 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we
`determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the
`Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R § 42.108. We institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner has filed a separate petition for an inter partes review of
`the ’324 patent, which petition challenges the same claims as the instant
`Petition. Pet. 46–47; Paper 4, 1; see also Case IPR2016-01264.
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’324 patent in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. l-16-cv-00290 (D. Del.) and Godo
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2-16-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.). Pet.
`45–46; Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`B. The ’324 Patent
`
`The ’324 patent “relates to a semiconductor integrated circuit
`including a copper wiring layer, and more particularly to a barrier film
`which prevents copper diffusion from such a copper wiring layer.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:7–10. A primary problem in the prior art, as noted by the ’324
`patent, is that it was difficult to make a diffusion-barrier film that effectively
`prevents copper diffusion while also being sufficiently adhesive to copper.
`Id. at 2:58–61. According to the ’324 patent, a crystalline metal film was
`known to provide “high adhesion” but poor prevention of copper diffusion.
`Id. at 3:14–20. On the other hand, it was known that an amorphous metal
`nitride film would provide a better barrier to copper diffusion since it “does
`not have the paths through which copper is diffused,” but it would suffer
`from poor adhesion to copper. Id. at 3:21–33.
`The ’324 patent describes a two-layered barrier film in which an
`amorphous metal nitride layer prevents copper diffusion and a crystalline
`metal layer containing nitrogen provides the desired adhesion. Id. at 5:1–8,
`6:6–8.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative and reproduced below.
`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,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 B1 to Ding
`(Ex. 1005) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 to Zhang (Ex. 1004). See,
`e.g., Pet. 5.
`Ding was filed December 19, 1997, and issued May 3, 2005.
`Ex. 1005, cover page, at [22] and [45]. Petitioner asserts Ding as prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 16.
`Zhang was filed December 22, 1997, and issued April 13, 1999.
`Ex. 1004, cover page, at [22] and [45]. Petitioner asserts Zhang as prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e). Pet. 16–17.
`The ’324 patent has an actual filing date of June 19, 2000, and claims
`the benefit of a foreign (Japanese) application filed June 24, 1999. Ex. 1001,
`cover page, at [22] and [30]. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took
`effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’324
`patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`and 103 are to their pre-AIA versions.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`does not dispute that Ding and Zhang are prior art to the challenged claims.
`See generally Prelim. Resp. On the record presented, Ding is prior art under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and Zhang is prior art under at least § 102(a) and (e).2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final
`written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language should be read in
`light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning.
`See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The
`ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’” (quoting Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc))).
`Petitioner does not propose an express construction for any limitation,
`although it asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation should be
`
`
`2 Neither party addresses whether the challenged claims are entitled to the
`benefit of the June 24, 1999, filing date of the Japanese application
`identified on the face of the ’324 patent (see Ex. 1001, cover page, at [30]),
`which entitlement or not would govern whether Zhang is prior art under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`applied to all claim terms. Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes express
`constructions for two limitations, as discussed below.
`
`1. “said first film being composed of crystalline metal
`containing nitrogen therein”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 5 each recite “said first film being
`composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.” Patent Owner
`proposes that this limitation be construed to mean “a first film is composed
`of a mixture of single crystalline or polycrystalline metal with nitrogen
`throughout.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner’s
`construction would require a first film that is of uniform composition. See,
`e.g., id. at 25 (arguing that the recited film must be “crystalline throughout
`the layer”).
`To supports its construction, Patent Owner argues the following:
`
`The manufacturing method disclosed in the specification for
`creating the claimed film would always result in a mixture of
`metal and nitrogen throughout the film. As the specification
`discloses, both the first and second films are formed via
`sputtering, and although the power to the sputtering chamber is
`increased to switch from making the amorphous second film to
`the crystalline first film, the level of nitrogen gas in the
`chamber is “kept constant.”
`Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:33–6:5, 6:53–7:7, 9:13–25, 18:31–35).
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive on this record, first,
`because claims 1 and 5 are directed to products, not processes.3 “The
`
`
`3 “[I]t is well established that product claims may include process steps to
`wholly or partially define the claimed product.” Application of Luck,
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
`In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Hence, the claimed
`products here—a “barrier film” in claim 1 and a “multi-layered wiring
`structure” in claim 5—are not limited to those manufactured by any
`particular method, let alone the method disclosed in the ’324 patent.
`Second, even assuming the ’324 patent implicitly describes a method
`for manufacturing that “would always result in a mixture of metal and
`nitrogen throughout the [first] film” as Patent Owner argues (see Prelim.
`Resp. 14 (emphasis added)), we do not read limitations from the
`specification into claims. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel,
`Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “[t]he danger of
`improperly importing a limitation is even greater when the purported
`limitation is based upon a term not appearing in the claim.” Id. Such is the
`case here, where Patent Owner argues for importing a limitation, not based
`upon a term appearing in the claim but upon what Patent Owner argues
`inherently results from the process described in the specification.
`In sum, the arguments and evidence presented to date do not support
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction. On the current record, no express
`construction is necessary for “said first film being composed of crystalline
`metal containing nitrogen therein.”
`
`
`476 F.2d 650, 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Patent Owner, however, does not argue
`generally that claims 1 and 5 are product-by-process claims or specifically
`that “said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen
`therein” is a product-by-process limitation.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`2. “said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 5 each recite “said second film being
`composed of amorphous metal nitride.” Patent Owner proposes that this
`limitation be construed to mean “a second film is composed of a
`noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (emphasis
`added). As acknowledged by Patent Owner, its arguments for this proposed
`construction are “similar to those set forth” for its proposed construction for
`the first film. Id. at 16. We likewise conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction with respect to the second film is not supported on the current
`record and additionally that no express construction is necessary.
`
`B. Obviousness over Ding in view of Zhang
`
`In assessing obviousness, “the scope and content of the prior art are to
`be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
`to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`resolved.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).4
`
`1. Disclosure of Ding
`
`Ding discloses “a barrier layer structure useful in forming copper
`interconnects and electrical contacts of semiconductor devices.” Ex. 1005,
`
`
`4 Additionally, secondary considerations such as “commercial success, long
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light
`to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to
`be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries
`may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. The current record,
`however, lacks such evidence.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`Abstract. The Ding inventors “discovered that tantalum nitride (TaNx) is a
`better barrier layer for copper than tantalum (Ta),” and they “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.” Id. at 3:27–37.5
`The tantalum nitride (TaNx) layer is “amorphous.” Id. at 3:39–41
`(“The TaNx layer, where x ranges from about 0.1 to about 1.5, is sufficiently
`amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into underlying silicon or
`silicon oxide surfaces.”).
`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.
`
`2. Disclosure of Zhang
`
`Zhang discloses a semiconductor device that includes a two-layered
`diffusion barrier film. For example, the Zhang Abstract states:
`
`
`5 <111> is a term that pertains to an orientation or direction of crystals.
`Ex. 1003 ¶51. The same is true for <002>, which also appears in Ding, as
`quoted below in this Decision. Id.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`A semiconductor device comprises a substrate (100), first
`conductive film (22 and 32) over the substrate (100), and a
`second conductive film (54 and 64) over the first conductive
`film (22 and 32). The first conductive film includes a refractory
`metal and nitrogen. The first conductive film has a first portion
`(22) that lies closer to the substrate and a second portion (32)
`that lies further from the substrate. The nitrogen percentage for
`the second portion (32) is lower than the nitrogen atomic
`percentage for the first portion (22). The second conductive
`film (54 and 64) includes mostly copper. The combination of
`portions (22 and 32) within the first conductive film provides a
`good diffusion barrier (first portion) and has good adhesion
`(second portion) with the second conductive film (54 and 64).
`Ex. 1004, Abstract (emphasis added).
`In at least one embodiment, the “refractory metal” in each layer of the
`Zhang barrier film is tantalum, such that the barrier film consists of “a
`tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film 32 that overlies the tantalum nitride film
`22.” Id. at 3:14–23.
`
`3. Application of Ding and Zhang to the Challenged Claims
`
`a)
`Independent Claims 1 and 5
`Independent claims 1 and 5 are of extremely similar scope. Our
`analysis of claim 1 pertains equally to claim 5.
`In challenging claim 1, Petitioner relies on Ding as teaching all of the
`claimed subject matter except the requirement that the first film (i.e., the
`crystalline metal layer) contain nitrogen therein. Pet. 18 (“Ding teaches
`every element of claim 1 of the ’324 patent, except it does not expressly
`state the top tantalum film of the barrier contains nitrogen therein.”).
`Petitioner sufficiently maps specific teachings of Ding to each limitation of
`claim 1, save the limitation specifying that the first (crystalline metal) film
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`“contain[] nitrogen therein.” Id. at 17–18, 35–37; see also id. at 12–13, 16
`(similarly identifying relevant teachings of Ding).
`Patent Owner argues that Ding does not teach “said first film being
`composed of crystalline metal” or “said second film being composed of
`amorphous metal nitride.” Prelim. Resp. 25–26. Both arguments, however,
`are premised on Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for those
`limitations, which we do not adopt. Id. More specifically, Patent Owner
`argues that the Petition lacks evidence demonstrating that the explicitly
`described compositions of the asserted Ding layers exist “throughout” those
`layers. Id. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate with the
`scope of the limitations which, as discussed above, do not require a mixture
`of crystalline metal with nitrogen throughout or a noncrystalline metal
`nitride throughout.
`To meet the only limitation of claim 1 missing from Ding—that the
`first (crystalline metal) film contain nitrogen therein—Petitioner relies on
`Zhang in two separate manners.
`First, Petitioner argues that, in light of Zhang, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer
`contains nitrogen, despite Ding not mentioning explicitly that it does.
`Pet. 18–22. In particular, Petitioner argues that Ding uses a “similar sputter-
`deposition process as Zhang” to form its two-layered barrier structure, which
`would similarly include nitrogen, left over from the formation of the
`amorphous tantalum nitride layer, in at least a bottom-most portion of the
`crystalline tantalum layer. Id. at 19–21. Despite Petitioner framing these
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`arguments as a two-reference obviousness challenge, they are more properly
`characterized as an assertion of inherent anticipation.
`
`If the prior art reference [here, Ding] does not expressly
`set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still
`may anticipate if that element is inherent in its disclosure. To
`establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence [here, Zhang] must
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
`present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would
`be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency,
`however, may not be established by probabilities or
`possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from
`a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and
`citations omitted). Petitioner’s evidence, however, does not demonstrate
`sufficiently that nitrogen necessarily exists within Ding’s crystalline
`tantalum film. Indeed, Petitioner concedes as much stating that “[t]he
`sputter-deposition process described in Ding suggests the top tantalum layer
`may contain a small content of nitrogen.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner did not assert a ground under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and even if it had,
`there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that
`claim 1 (or any other challenged claim) is anticipated inherently by Ding as
`evidenced by Zhang.
`The second manner in which Petitioner relies on Zhang is to combine
`its teachings with that of Ding to yield a barrier film within the scope of
`claim 1. Pet. 22–34. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have employed Zhang’s teaching of including some nitrogen in the
`second-formed layer of its barrier film (and in an amount less than the
`nitrogen content of the first-formed layer) to modify Ding, such that its
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`crystalline tantalum layer would contain nitrogen (and in an amount less
`than its tantalum nitride layer). Id. Petitioner argues that such a
`combination of teachings would have been obvious because it would have
`achieved beneficial predictable results, and it could have achieved them
`through known techniques. Id. at 23. As to Petitioner’s known-techniques
`assertion, Zhang teaches how to include nitrogen, in a lesser amount, in a
`second-formed layer of a two-layered barrier film. See Ex. 1004, 3:37–62,
`Fig. 4.
`As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively
`argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to
`the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding. First, Petitioner argues that the
`presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more
`easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing, which removal by
`polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019,
`12–13; 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of
`nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some
`additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–
`146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of
`nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity,
`which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC
`delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). We
`have considered Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the alleged reasons to
`combine Ding and Zhang, but find Petitioner’s reasoning sufficient at this
`stage of the proceeding.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang.
`b)
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 96
`Dependent claims 2 and 6 depend from claims 1 and 5, respectively.
`Claims 2 and 6 additionally recite that “said second film has a thickness in
`the range of 80 angstroms to 150 angstroms both inclusive.” To meet this
`limitation, Petitioner notes that Ding teaches that the amorphous tantalum
`
`layer “has a thickness ‘ranging from greater than about 10 (cid:1344) to about
`300 (cid:1344).’” Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:33–347), 44 (stating that, for claim 6,
`
`Petitioner relies on its claim 2 arguments). Thus, the claimed range falls
`within the entire range taught by the prior art. Petitioner argues, with
`supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`known how to choose an appropriate thickness and would be informed by
`Zhang, which “teaches a ‘typical’ combined thickness of the top and bottom
`films 32 and 22 in the range of 100 to 300 angstroms.” Id. at 40 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 4:7–10); see also Ex. 1004, 4:7–10 (“The combined thickness of
`the two films 32 and 22 is in a range of approximately 10 to 500 angstroms
`
`
`6 In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`additional limitations recited by the challenged dependent claims are taught
`by the asserted prior art.
`7 The quoted phrase appears in Ding at column 4, lines 33–34. The Petition
`erroneously cites instead to the Abstract, which states virtually the same
`thing using non-identical language. Compare Ex. 1005, Abstract (“the TaNx
`
`layer thickness ranges from about 10 (cid:1344) to about 300 (cid:1344)”), with id. at 4:33–34
`(“layer of TaNx having a thickness ranging from greater than about 10 (cid:1344) to
`about 300 (cid:1344)”).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`and typically is in a range of approximately 100 to 300 angstroms.”). There
`is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 2
`and 6 would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang.
`Dependent claims 3 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 5, respectively.
`Claims 3 and 7 additionally recite that “said first film has a thickness in the
`range of 60 angstroms to 300 angstroms both inclusive.” To meet this
`limitation, Petitioner notes that Ding teaches that the crystalline tantalum
`
`layer “has a thickness ‘ranging from about 5 (cid:1344) to about 500 (cid:1344), wherein the
`thickness is preferably greater than about 20 (cid:1344).’” Id. at 41 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:52–55), 44 (stating that, for claim 7, Petitioner relies on its
`claim 3 arguments). Thus, the claimed range falls within the entire range
`taught by the prior art. Moreover, Petitioner points to specific Ding
`embodiments in which the thickness is within the claimed range. Id. at 41;
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:66–9:4 (disclosing thicknesses of 114 (cid:1344), 170 (cid:1344), and 227 (cid:1344)).
`
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that
`claims 3 and 7 would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang.
`Claim 9 recites: “The multi-layered wiring structure as set forth in
`claim 5, further comprising a copper film formed on said first film.”
`Petitioner argues that Ding “discloses the multi-layered wiring structure
`(‘copper interconnect structure’) further includes a copper film (copper
`layer) formed on the first film (the [crystalline] Ta layer) in the diffusion
`barrier.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:5–7, 4:14–24, 4:66, 7:38–50, 8:2–3).
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that
`claim 9 would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`We have considered the information presented in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response and determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in
`the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 is hereby
`instituted on the ground that they are asserted to be unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ding in view Zhang;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`alleged in the Petition for any claim is authorized for this inter partes
`review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Stephen Kabakoff
`Joshua Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Michael Fink
`Neil Greenblum
`Arnold Turk
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`