Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
