Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012641
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motion for joinder in Case IPR2017-00920 was
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012641
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s motion for joinder in Case IPR2017-00920 was
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Board Misapprehended Patent Owner’s Arguments That Any
`Combination Of Zhang And Ding Would Retain A Pure Ta Surface ............. 1
`
`The Board Overlooked The Significance Of Having A Surface Of
`Pure Tantalum Thick Enough To Provide The <002> Crystalline
`Orientation ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`III. The Board Overlooked That Zhang’s And Ding’s Sputter-Deposition
`Processes Provide Similar Results ................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Zhang Discloses A Top Film Of “Tantalum-Rich Tantalum Nitride” ..........12
`
`V.
`
`The Board Ignored Express Recitations In Substitute Claims 11 And
`12 in Patent Owner’s Motion To Amend ......................................................14
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`The Final Written Decision (“FWD”)(Paper 46) 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 (1) Zhang in view of Ding; and, (2) Zhang in view of
`
`Ding in further view of Sun.2 The Board dismissed Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend as moot. FWD (Paper 46), p. 29.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked and misapprehended
`
`pertinent disclosure in Zhang and Ding, and Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`
`their proposed combination, and respectfully requests rehearing.
`
`
`
`The Board Misapprehended Patent Owner’s Arguments That Any
`Combination Of Zhang And Ding Would Retain A Pure Ta Surface
`
`I.
`
`
`
`The Board summarized Patent Owner’s arguments as follows:
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments, reproduced above, are premised on: (1)
`
`Zhang exclusively teaching an upper surface of pure tantalum and (2)
`
`the claims requiring nitrogen throughout the first film. Both premises
`
`are erroneous. Zhang teaches nitrogen in the tantalum-rich tantalum
`
`nitride film, including at its upper surface. See Ex. 1004, 3:53–62.
`
`And, the claims require nitrogen in the first film, but not throughout
`
`the first film. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments fail to rebut
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness arguments, which are identified above and
`
`which we find persuasive.
`
`FWD (Paper 46), p. 25 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner did
`
`
`2 Sun is not relevant to any of the matters discussed in this Request for Rehearing.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`not argue that Zhang exclusively taught an upper surface of pure tantalum. Rather,
`
`Patent Owner argued that Zhang taught the desirability of an upper surface of pure
`
`tantalum (emphasis added in each quote): “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.’” PO Response (Paper 14), p. 24;
`
`“A PHOSITA would have understood Zhang to teach the desirability of forming a
`
`film having an upper surface of pure tantalum to provide better adhesion to the
`
`copper film.” PO Response, p. 27; “Second, as both Zhang and Ding teach the
`
`desirability of having a pure tantalum film on which to form a copper layer…” PO
`
`Response, p. 34; “Both Zhang and Ding disclose the desirability of having a pure
`
`metal layer on which to form a copper layer.” PO Response, p. 35; “A PHOSITA
`
`reading Zhang would readily recognize that Zhang, like Ding, discloses the
`
`desirability of a layer of pure tantalum over a layer of tantalum nitride.” PO
`
`Response, p. 37; “As both Ding and Zhang teach the desirability of a layer of pure
`
`tantalum over a layer of tantalum nitride, a PHOSITA would have recognized the
`
`nearly identical nature of both films in Ding and Zhang, and would thus not have
`
`been motivated to modify Ding in view of Zhang to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter (but for impermissible hindsight).” PO Response, p. 39; Zhang and Ding
`
`individually teach the desirability of having a layer of pure tantalum on which to
`
`form a layer of copper.” Id.; “Both Zhang and Ding teach the desirability of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`forming a film having a surface of pure tantalum to contact a copper film.” PO
`
`Response, p. 21; “As both Zhang and Ding disclose the desirability of layers
`
`having an upper surface composed of pure tantalum, i.e., containing no nitrogen, a
`
`PHOSITA combining Zhang and Ding would result with layers having an upper
`
`surface composed of pure tantalum.” PO Response, p. 51.
`
`With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Zhang teaching the
`
`desirability of an upper surface of pure tantalum, the Board further overlooked (1)
`
`the embodiment in Zhang of an entire top film that does not contain nitrogen; and,
`
`(2) embodiments in Zhang with an upper surface that does not include nitrogen.
`
`See PO Response, pp. 24-26. Even Petitioner acknowledges that Zhang discloses
`
`an embodiment that has an upper surface which is “substantially pure tantalum”:
`
`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.” Ex. 1004,
`
`3:54-57, FIG. 4. [footnote omitted].
`
`Petition (Paper 2), p. 16.
`
`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);
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 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, ¶¶94-95.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 24-25.
`
`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. This process forms a film with a surface of pure tantalum. Id.,
`
`3:44-46; see also Fig. 4. 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. Thus, a PHOSITA reading
`
`Zhang would understand the desirability of forming film 32 with a
`
`surface of pure tantalum. Exhibit 2011, ¶¶98-100.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 25-26.
`
`
`
`
`
`By overlooking these embodiments with pure tantalum in the top film (as
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`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. 34-40.
`
`The Board ignored the embodiments in Zhang that desired no nitrogen in the
`
`top film or the upper surface of the top film, and focused instead on embodiments
`
`with a top film of tantalum rich tantalum nitride (TaN) which would be expected
`
`to be amorphous and not crystalline. Exhibit 2011, ¶¶172-173, PO Response, p.
`
`43; Exhibit 2011, ¶219, PO Response, pp. 53-54. Using impermissible hindsight,
`
`the Board selected a Zhang embodiment containing nitrogen in the tantalum-rich
`
`tantalum nitride film, rather than a Zhang embodiment containing no nitrogen (or
`
`no nitrogen in the upper surface) to combine with Ding’s embodiments containing
`
`no nitrogen (or no nitrogen in the upper surface), i.e., a layer of crystalline pure
`
`tantalum. 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`any nitrogen within the tantalum layer (i.e., within the asserted “first film”).
`
`FWD (Paper 46), pp. 21-22 (emphasis added). And 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. Ex.1004, 3:50-62, FWD, p. 19. Had the
`
`Board not misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments and had not overlooked/
`
`misapprehended Zhang’s pertinent embodiments (i.e., containing no nitrogen or no
`
`nitrogen in the upper surface) 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 The Significance Of Having A Surface Of Pure
`Tantalum Thick Enough To Provide The <002> Crystalline Orientation
`
`The Board overlooked and misapprehended that any combination of Ding
`
`and Zhang would retain 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`the formation of a copper layer having a high <111> crystallographic content, so
`
`that copper electromigration resistance is increased.’ Id. at 3:27–37.” FWD (Paper
`
`46), p. 21. The Board also correctly states that “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.’)” and “Ding does not describe any nitrogen within the
`
`tantalum layer (i.e., within the asserted ‘first film’).” FWD (Paper 46), pp. 21-22.
`
`However, the Board overlooked and misapprehended Patent Owner’s
`
`argument 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. The
`
`Board states:
`
`Similarly, Petitioner notes that Ding “also discloses the desirability of
`
`using a crystalline metal film ‘having a tantalum <002> crystalline
`
`orientation’ as a top film in the two-layer diffusion barrier because the
`
`crystalline orientation ‘enables easy wetting of the tantalum surface
`
`by the copper and depositing of a copper layer having a high <111>
`
`crystal orientation.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:1–4).
`
`FWD (Paper 46), pp. 23-24.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`The Board overlooks that Ding’s upper tantalum (Ta) layer is both
`
`crystalline and pure. Additionally the Board ignored the embodiments in Zhang
`
`that desired no nitrogen in the top film or the upper surface of the top film. In view
`
`of these Zhang embodiments, a PHOSITA attempting to combine Ding and Zhang
`
`would have maintained 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.
`
`Additionally, the Board overlooked the testimony of Petitioner’s expert that
`
`adding nitrogen to a crystalline layer of pure tantalum is going to mess up the
`
`crystalline structure and impact the adhesion properties. Ex. 2044, pp. 101:3-
`
`102:7, Observation No. 11 (Paper 28, p.9).
`
`Had the Board not overlooked and misapprehended that a PHOSITA
`
`combining Ding and Zhang would retain Ding’s disclosed upper layer of pure
`
`tantalum thick enough to provide a <002> crystalline orientation, the Board
`
`should have found the Challenged Claims patentable. For at least these additional
`
`reasons, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should grant rehearing.
`
`III. The Board Overlooked That Zhang’s And Ding’s Sputter-Deposition
`Processes Provide Similar Results
`
`The Board also overlooked and misapprehended the significance of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`similarities of the sputter-deposition processes disclosed in Ding and Zhang, and
`
`how both Ding and Zhang teach terminating the nitrogen flow after the tantalum
`
`nitride layer is formed. In particular, the Board overlooked and misapprehended
`
`that in both Ding’s and Zhang’s sputter-deposition processes the flow of nitrogen
`
`is shut off; thus, as the process continues 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. 46-50.
`
`As the Board acknowledges, “Specifically, Petitioner notes that Zhang and
`
`Ding teach similar sputter-deposition processes for forming the top and bottom
`
`films. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:21–50; Ex. 1005, 6:63–7:29; Ex. 1003 ¶98);
`
`see also PO Resp. 46 (Patent Owner acknowledging that ‘Zhang and Ding disclose
`
`similar sputtering processes.’).” FWD (Paper 46), p. 24. Because similar
`
`sputtering processes are disclosed in Zhang and Ding, similar results for Zhang’s
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`The Board also overlooked Dr. Harris’ testimony that “[a]lthough Zhang’s
`
`sputtering process could create a film composed of pure tantalum, given the other
`
`conditions of Zhang’s sputtering process, including the low power levels, the
`
`presence of nitrogen would not result in a film composed of crystalline metal and
`
`nitrogen therein, but instead would result in amorphous tantalum nitride. Exhibits
`
`1004 and 1005.” Ex. 2011, ¶219, PO Response, pp. 53-54.
`
`Thus, the Board should have recognized that following the sputter-
`
`deposition process of Ding and the similar sputter-deposition processes of Zhang,
`
`Ding as well as any combination of Ding and Zhang, would have resulted in an
`
`upper layer of pure crystalline tantalum (Ta). Ding does not describe any nitrogen
`
`within the crystalline Ta layer. FWD (Paper 46), pp. 21-22. An upper layer
`
`produced in a manner or similar manner to that disclosed by Ding wherein nitrogen
`
`flow is terminated while the sputtering process continues to run after the nitrogen
`
`in the chamber is consumed or purged would result in an upper layer of pure
`
`crystalline tantalum (containing no nitrogen). See PO Response, pp. 46-50; see
`
`also 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 showing
`
`what would happen if nitrogen were added during Ding’s sputtering process to
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`form a pure Ta layer, or that the result would be a layer containing crystalline
`
`metal and nitrogen therein. Exhibit 2011, ¶205, PO Response, p. 50.
`
`
`
`The Board further overlooked Patent Owner’s argument that a PHOSITA
`
`would readily have recognized the similarities of the sputtering processes and
`
`would unlikely have further pursued modifying Zhang in view of Ding:
`
`Substituting Ding’s upper film of pure tantalum for Zhang’s upper
`
`film would result in essentially the same embodiment disclosed by
`
`Zhang where film 32 is pure tantalum, i.e., the embodiment where
`
`after film 22 is formed, the nitrogen flow is terminated, the chamber is
`
`evacuated to remove the nitrogen gas, and the sputtering process is
`
`continued with only the inert gas to form pure tantalum. Exhibit 1004,
`
`3:62-64. A PHOSITA would readily have recognized the similarities
`
`and would unlikely have further pursued modifying Zhang in view of
`
`Ding.... Exhibit 2011, ¶¶137-139.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 34-35.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`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 nor 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.
`
`46-50 (“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, ¶206.”). 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.
`
`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. Zhang Discloses A Top Film Of “Tantalum-Rich Tantalum Nitride”
`
`The Board also overlooked/misapprehended the significance of Zhang’s top
`
`film being formed of tantalum-rich tantalum nitride (TaN). A tantalum-rich
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`tantalum nitride film (TaN) is still a tantalum nitride film (TaN). Thus, even if for
`
`the sake of argument, Zhang is deemed to disclose an upper film containing
`
`nitrogen throughout, given the conditions of Zhang’s sputtering process, including
`
`the low power levels, the presence of nitrogen would not result in a film composed
`
`of crystalline metal and nitrogen therein, but instead would result in amorphous
`
`tantalum nitride. PO Response (Paper 14), pp. 53-54; Exhibit 2011, ¶219. There is
`
`no teaching in the record of a crystalline TaN film over an amorphous TaN film, or
`
`how to form the same.
`
`As discussed above, Ding’s entire teaching is to deposit a layer of pure
`
`tantalum (Ta) over a layer of tantalum nitride (TaN), the layer of pure tantalum
`
`being thick enough to provide a <002> crystalline orientation on the surface of the
`
`film to improve adhesion and form a copper layer having a high <111>
`
`crystallographic content. See Ding Fig. 2, PO Response, pp. 27-31; Record of Oral
`
`Hearing (Paper 45), pp. 34-44. Depositing a layer of pure tantalum (Ta) over a
`
`layer of tantalum nitride (TaN) as taught by Ding achieves both the desired
`
`improvement in adhesion and promotes formation of a copper layer having a high
`
`<111> crystallographic content. Ding does not teach to crystallize a TaN film.
`
`Accordingly, had the Board not overlooked/misapprehended these teachings,
`
`it would have concluded that a PHOSITA modifying Zhang in view of Ding would
`
`have followed Ding’s teachings and formed a pure crystalline layer of Ta over
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Zhang’s tantalum-rich tantalum nitride layer, or at the very least formed
`
`Zhang’s tantalum-rich tantalum nitride layer with an upper surface of pure
`
`tantalum sufficiently thick to provide a <002> crystalline orientation on the surface
`
`to achieve Ding’s desired improvement in adhesion and promoting formation of a
`
`copper layer having a high <111> crystallographic content. For this additional
`
`reason, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should grant rehearing
`
`and find the Challenged Claims patentable.
`
`V. The Board Ignored Express Recitations In Substitute Claims 11 And 12
`in Patent Owner’s Motion To Amend
`
`As stated above, the Board summarized Patent Owner’s arguments:
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments, reproduced above, are premised on: (1)
`
`Zhang exclusively teaching an upper surface of pure tantalum and (2)
`
`the claims requiring nitrogen throughout the first film. Both premises
`
`are erroneous. Zhang teaches nitrogen in the tantalum-rich tantalum
`
`nitride film, including at its upper surface. See Ex. 1004, 3:53–62.
`
`And, the claims require nitrogen in the first film, but not
`
`throughout the first film. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`fail to rebut Petitioner’s obviousness arguments, which are identified
`
`above and which we find persuasive.
`
`FWD (Paper 46), p. 25 (emphasis added).
`
`Although Patent Owner disagrees with the Board’s statement as to what the
`
`claims require, the Board’s statement that “the claims require nitrogen in the first
`
`film, but not throughout the first film” ignores proposed Substitute Claim 11 that
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`expressly recites nitrogen throughout the first film, and Substitute Claim 12 that
`
`expressly recites that the first film contain nitrogen in a portion being in contact
`
`with the copper film.
`
`In view of Ding’s teaching of a 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, and that a PHOSITA combining Ding and
`
`Zhang would retain Ding’s upper layer of pure Ta thick enough to provide a
`
`<002> crystalline orientation, the Board should have found Substitute Claims 11
`
`and 12 patentable. Thus, for all of the reasons of record (including those reasons
`
`overlooked or misapprehended above), a PHOSITA combining Ding and Zhang
`
`would not have arrived at the Substitute Claims. For these additional reasons,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should grant rehearing.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`In sum, the Board overlooked/misapprehended pertinent disclosure in Zhang
`
`and Ding, and Patent Owner’s arguments regarding a proposed combination of
`
`Zhang and Ding. Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to
`
`grant rehearing and find the Challenged Claims patentable, or in the alternative,
`
`find proposed Substitute Claims 11 and 12 patentable.
`
`Dated: January 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{R50502 03366055.DOC}
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01249 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`was served by electronic mail on this 19th day of January, 2018, upon Counsel for
`
`Petitioners, as follows:
`
`E. Robert Yoches (bob.yoches@finnegan.com);
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com);
`Joshua L. Goldberg (joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com);
`TSMC-IPB-PTAB@finnegan.com;
`David Tennant (dtennant@whitecase.com);
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings (setienne@whitecase.com);
`Allen Wang (allen.wang@whitecase.com);
`wcptab@whitecase.com; and
`WCGlobalFoundriesIPR1Team@whitecase.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`Email: mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`IP Bridge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
