`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01264
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF HARLAN RUSTY HARRIS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 83
`
`IP Bridge Exhibit 2011
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01264
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Harlan Rusty Harris, declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent Owner”) in
`
`Cases IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264 as a technical expert.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to study and provide my opinions concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,538,324 (“the ‘324 patent”) and the arguments and exhibits in the
`
`Petitions For Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 6,538,324 filed in
`
`Cases IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264, concerning the patentability of Claims
`
`1-3, 5-7, and 9 in the ’324 patent (“Challenged Claims”).
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions concerning the state of
`
`the relevant art prior to June 24, 1999, and the level and knowledge of one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the June 1999 time frame.
`
`4. My opinions and views set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the field of semiconductor materials, devices
`
`and process integration, as well as the materials I reviewed in this case.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`5.
`
`Based on my education, experience, knowledge of the art at the
`
`relevant time, analysis of the prior art references as understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, review of Petitioner’s arguments,
`
`review of Petitioner’s Expert Dr. Sanjay K. Banerjee’s declaration, the
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`understanding a person having ordinary skill in the art would give to the claim
`
`terms in light of the specification, it is my opinion that all of the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’324 patent are patentable over Ding in view of Zhang.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I earned a bachelor of science in Engineering Physics from Texas
`
`Tech University in 1997, a master of science in Electrical Engineering from Texas
`
`Tech University in 1999, and a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
`
`the Texas Tech University in 2003. I was a visiting Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Missouri from August 2003 to May 2004; a visiting scientist at
`
`International Sematech from May 2004 to August 2004; and a member of technical
`
`staff at Advanced Micro Devices from September 2004 to August 2008. In August
`
`2008 I became an Assistant Professor at Texas A&M University. I became an
`
`Associate Professor in September 2014. I am currently an Associate Professor at
`
`Texas A&M University in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`as well as the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
`
`7. My research specialization is in CMOS and silicon technology;
`
`materials and device integration; novel electrical and physical device and material
`
`characterization; and III-V and nanophotonics. I am a recognized international
`
`expert in silicon device and process technology at 32nm node and below, have
`
`authored over 85 publications in refereed journals and conferences. A listing of
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`my publications and research is included in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which
`
`is attached.
`
`8.
`
`I have not previously served as an expert witness in a litigation matter,
`
`although I have been retained
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at a rate
`
`of $300/hr. plus reasonable expenses. My compensation is not contingent on my
`
`opinions, on the outcome of any matter, or on any of the technical positions I
`
`explain in this declaration.
`
`10.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner, the Patent Owner or the
`
`‘324 patent.
`
`DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the Petitions For Inter Partes Review of United
`
`States Patent No. 6,538,324 filed in Cases IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264,
`
`and the Exhibits submitted in support of the Petitions.
`
`12. Specifically, I have reviewed:
`
`• Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 to Tagami et al.
`
`• Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324.
`
`• Exhibit 1003: Expert Declaration of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Banerjee.
`
`• Exhibit 1004: U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 to Zhang et al.
`
`• Exhibit 1005: U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 to Ding et al.
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`• Exhibit 1006: Holloway et al., “Tantalum as a diffusion barrier
`
`between copper and silicon: Failure mechanism and effect of
`
`nitrogen additions,” Journal of Applied Physics, 71(11), 5433-5444
`
`(1992).
`
`• Exhibit 1007: Sun et al., “Properties of reactively sputter-deposited
`
`Ta-N thin films,” Thin Solid Films, 236 (1993) 347-351.
`
`• Exhibit 1008: U.S. Patent No. 5,858,873 to Vitkavage et al.
`
`• Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 5,668,411 to Hong et al.
`
`• Exhibit 1010: Excerpt of El-Kareh, “Fundamentals of
`
`Semiconductor Processing Technologies,” Kluwer Academic
`
`Publishers (1995).
`
`• Exhibit 1015: Stavrev et al., “Crystallographic and morphological
`
`characterization of reactively sputtered Ta, Ta-N and Ta-N-O thin
`
`films,” Thin Solid Films, 307 (1997) 79-88.
`
`• Exhibit 1017: Duan et al., “Magnetic Property and Microstructure
`
`Dependence of CoCrTa/Cr Media on Substrate Temperature and
`
`Bias,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 28, No. 5, September
`
`1992.
`
`• Exhibit 1019: Moussavi et al., “Comparison of Barrier Materials and
`
`Deposition Processes for Copper Integration,” Proceedings of the
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`IEEE 1998 International Interconnect Technology Conference, pp.
`
`295-97 (1998).
`
`• Exhibit 1021: Wijekoon et al., “Development of a Production
`
`Worthy Copper CMP Process,” 1998 IEEE/SEMI Advanced
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, pp. 354-63 (1998).
`
`• Exhibit 1023: Wang et al., “Barrier Properties of Very Thin Ta and
`
`TaN layers Against Copper Diffusion,” J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol.
`
`145, No. 7, pp. 2538-45.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Pursuant
`
`To 37 C.F.R. §42.107 and the Exhibits submitted in support thereof filed in Cases
`
`IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264, i.e., Exhibit 2001: 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); Exhibit 2002: U.S. Patent Application No. 08/995,108,
`
`Amendment “A” Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111, dated February 1, 2000; Exhibit 2003:
`
`“Amorphous.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30, 2016.
`
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ amorphous; Exhibit 2004: “Nitride.”
`
`Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30, 2016. http://www.merriam-
`
`webster.com/dictionary/nitride; Exhibit 2008: Guralnik, D. B., ed. “Amorphous.”
`
`Def. 4. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. Modern desk
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`ed. Prentice Hall Press, 1979. Print; Exhibit 2009: Grant, J., ed. “Nitride.” Hackh’s
`
`Chemical Dictionary. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1969. Print; Exhibit 2010: Sienko,
`
`M.J., Plane, R.A. Chemistry. 2d ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1961, pp. 193-195.
`
`Print; Exhibit 2014: JP H08-139092A; Exhibit 2015: English translation of JP
`
`H08-139092A; Exhibit 2016: JP H08-250596A; Exhibit 2017: English translation
`
`of JP H08-250596A; Exhibit 2018: JP H08-274098A; Exhibit 2019: English
`
`translation of JP H08-274098A; Exhibit 2020: JP H09-64044A; Exhibit 2021;
`
`English translation of JP H09-64044A; Exhibit 2022: JP H09-293690A; Exhibit
`
`2023: English translation of JP H09-293690A; Exhibit 2024: JP H10-125627A;
`
`Exhibit 2025: English translation of JP H10-125627A; Exhibit 2026: JP H10-
`
`256256A; Exhibit 2027: English translation of JP H10-256256A; Exhibit 2028: JP
`
`H10-330938A; Exhibit 2029: English translation of JP H10-330938A; Exhibit
`
`2030: JP H11-67686A; Exhibit 2031: English translation of JP H11-67686A;
`
`Exhibit 2032: 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; Exhibit 2033: K. Kwon et al., “Characteristics
`
`of Ta As An Underlayer for Cu Interconnects.” Advanced Metallization and
`
`Interconnect Systems for ULSI Applications in 1997, 1998, pp. 711-716; Exhibit
`
`2034: N. Awaya, “Semiconductor World.” Feb. 1998, pp. 91-96 (“Awaya”);
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2035: English translation of Awaya; and, Exhibit 2036: Grant, J., ed.
`
`“Solid Solution.” Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1969. Print.
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed the Decisions on Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 in Cases IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264.
`
`15.
`
`I have also reviewed the Patent Owner’s Responses filed in Cases
`
`IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-01264.
`
`THE LAW OF OBVIOUSNESS
`
`16.
`
`I am not a lawyer and have not been requested to provide any
`
`opinions on the law. As a technical expert providing opinions on whether the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘324 patent are patentable, I understand that I am to
`
`follow and apply the current laws pertaining to obviousness.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that the law governing obviousness in this IPR
`
`proceeding (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)), states that a “patent may not be obtained
`
`although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`
`section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`
`manner in which the invention was made.”
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I have been additionally informed that when considering obviousness,
`
`I should determine the scope and content of the prior art, determine the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue, and determine the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art. I should also consider any evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that in an obviousness determination, I must
`
`avoid analyzing the prior art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, I must cast
`
`the mind back to the time the invention was made and occupy the mind of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art who is presented only with the references, and who
`
`is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is not proved obvious merely
`
`by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior
`
`art. Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary
`
`skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art
`
`elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that for an obviousness analysis, it can be
`
`important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
`
`does, and that an assertion of obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`8
`
`Page 9 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been informed that that the prior art must be considered in
`
`its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the
`
`invention in suit.
`
`A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD IN
`THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that an obviousness determination is made from
`
`the perspective of person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains.
`
`24. A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the relevant
`
`time period would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials,
`
`Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of
`
`experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor
`
`equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`in both Si and SiO2. Exhibit 1001, 1:21-25. For these reasons, it was determined
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`26. 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. Exhibit 1001, 3:1-4. Barriers composed
`
`of amorphous particles had did not adhere well to copper. Exhibit 1001, 29-33.
`
`27. Fig. 1 of the ‘324 patent depicts “a multi-layered barrier structure 3
`
`comprised of the titanium film 1 and the thin titanium nitride film 2.” Exhibit
`
`1001, 2:49-51.
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`28. The ‘324 patent discloses an improved diffusion-barrier over the prior
`
`
`
`art diffusion barriers.
`
`THE ‘324 PATENT
`
`29. 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.
`
`30. The ‘324 patent teaches that an improved diffusion-barrier can be
`
`created by first forming an amorphous metal nitride film, and then forming a
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein on the amorphous metal nitride
`
`film. Exhibit 1001, 5:1-8.
`
`31. The ‘324 patent discloses that increasing the RF power while
`
`maintaining the nitrogen/argon gas ratio will change the film’s structural
`
`characteristics from amorphous to crystalline metal film containing nitrogen
`
`therein. Exhibit 1001, 12:58-67.
`
`32. 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.
`
`33. Fig. 21 of the ‘324 patent (depicted below) shows a claimed
`
`embodiment having a first film (18)1 composed of crystalline metal containing
`
`nitrogen therein, and a second film (15) composed of amorphous metal nitride.
`
`Exhibit 1001, 8:24-29; 13:15-23.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` In Fig. 21, the crystalline metal film containing nitrogen is labelled element
`
`18 but is referred to in the specification as element 16. Exhibit 1001, 13:15-23.
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34. 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 amorphous metal TaN film.” Exhibit 1001, 8:24-28.
`
`35. 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;
`
`as, glass.” Exhibit 2036.
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`36. The crystalline metal containing nitrogen in solid solution is depicted
`
`in Fig. 21 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 1001, Fig. 21. These properties are important, as will be described
`
`later.
`
`37. 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.” Exhibit 1001, 6:32-36.
`
`38. The ‘324 patent discloses: “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.” Exhibit 1001, 6:37-40.
`
`39. The ‘324 patent discloses: “In the diffusion-barrier film in accordance
`
`with the present invention, an amorphous metal film containing nitrogen therein
`
`lies under a crystalline metal 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.” Exhibit 1001, 6:41-52.
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`40. 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. Exhibit 1001, 12:11-41. Additionally, the ‘324 patent provides
`
`specific data that distinguishes these distinct films.
`
`41. The ‘324 patent also teaches that a tantalum nitride film can be
`
`amorphous or crystalline, and can vary in composition and resistivity. See Exhibit
`
`1001, 12:11-41, 12:62-63, Figs. 12 and 15; 12:29-31, Fig. 13. Fig. 13 of the ‘324
`
`patent depicts crystalline Ta2N5 (113) or (041) and Ta3N5 (132) or (042).
`
`42. 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. See Exhibit 1001,12:15-32.
`
`43. 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. Exhibit 1001, 12:20-21.
`
`44. This 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. Exhibit 1001, 8:24-28.
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`45. This understanding is also 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 Exhibit 1001, 6:63-7:12.
`
`46. 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. Exhibit
`
`1001, 12:58-67; Figs. 9-15.
`
`47. 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.
`
`See Exhibit 1001,12:42-49; 13:4-63.
`
`48. 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.” Exhibit 1001, 8:24-28.
`
`16
`
`Page 17 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘324 PATENT
`
`49. As stated earlier, I have been informed that Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of
`
`the ’324 patent are the claims challenged in Cases IPR2016-01249 and IPR2016-
`
`01264.
`
`50. 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.
`
`Exhibit 1001,18:56-19:3.
`
`51. Claim 2 of the ‘324 patent recites: “The barrier film as set forth in
`
`claim 1, wherein said second film has a thickness in the range of 80 angstroms to
`
`150 angstroms both inclusive.” Exhibit 1001, 19:4-6.
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Claim 3 of the ‘324 patent recites: “The barrier film as set forth in
`
`claim 1, wherein said first film has a thickness in the range of 60 angstroms to 300
`
`angstroms both inclusive.” Exhibit 1001, 19:7-9.
`
`53. Claim 5 of the ‘324 patent recites:
`
`5. A multi-layered wiring structure comprising a barrier film which
`
`prevents diffusion of copper from a copper wiring layer formed on a
`
`semiconductor substrate,
`
`said barrier film having 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.
`
`Exhibit 1001, 19:13-20:5.
`
`18
`
`Page 19 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`54. Claim 6 of the ‘324 patent recites: “The multi-layered wiring structure
`
`as set forth in claim 5, wherein said second film has a thickness in the range of 80
`
`angstroms to 150 angstroms both inclusive.” Exhibit 1001, 20:6-8.
`
`55. Claim 7 of the ‘324 patent recites: “The multi-layered wiring structure
`
`as set forth in claim 5, wherein said first film has a thickness in the range of 60
`
`angstroms to 300 angstroms both inclusive.” Exhibit 1001, 20:9-11.
`
`56. Claim 9 of the ‘324 patent recites: “The multi-layered wiring structure
`
`as set forth in claim 5, further comprising a copper film formed on said first film.”
`
`Exhibit 1001, 20:17-22.
`
`57. 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.” Paper 6, pp. 13-
`
`15.
`
`58. Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`should be applied to all claim terms. Petition, p. 11.
`
`59.
`
`I have been informed that in an IPR proceeding, claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent. In other words, claim terms generally are
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`60.
`
`I have been informed that under the BRI standard, the term
`
`“composed” as used in the challenged claims should be construed to mean
`
`“consisting essentially of.”
`
`61.
`
`I have been informed that 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.
`
`62. A PHOSITA would understand that the term “composed” as recited in
`
`claims 1 and 5 of the ‘324 patent to mean “consisting essentially of.”
`
`63.
`
`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.”
`
`64. 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
`
`20
`
`Page 21 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`nitrogen therein” as a film composed of metal and nitrogen “in mixture.” Exhibit
`
`1001, 12:19-24; see also 12:62-67; 13:4-24; 13:57-63; 16:41-47.
`
`65. For example, in Fig. 21, the claimed crystalline metal film containing
`
`nitrogen therein is depicted and described as a “solid solution.” Exhibit 1001, 8:24-
`
`28; Exhibit 2010; Exhibit 2036.
`
`66. The crystalline metal containing nitrogen in solid solution is present
`
`throughout film 18, i.e., from the upper surface to the bottom of the first film.
`
`Exhibit 1001, Fig. 21.
`
`67. A PHOSITA would understand the differences between crystalline
`
`metal film containing nitrogen therein and (1) pure metal film, (2) amorphous
`
`metal nitride film, and (3) crystalline metal nitride film.
`
`68. Furthermore, as recited in the claims of the ‘324 patent, a PHOSITA
`
`having read the ‘324 patent would understand that the proper interpretation of “a
`
`crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein” does not mean pure metal film,
`
`amorphous metal nitride film, or crystalline metal nitride film.
`
`69. Because the ‘324 patent describes the first film as “crystalline metal
`
`film containing nitrogen therein” as a mixture or a solid solution, a PHOSITA
`
`would understand that the film contains crystalline metal and nitrogen from the top
`
`of the upper surface to the bottom of the first film.
`
`21
`
`Page 22 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`70. A PHOSITA would interpret the claim limitation “said first film being
`
`composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” to mean “a first film
`
`consisting essentially of a mixture of crystalline or polycrystalline metal with
`
`nitrogen throughout.”
`
`71. The term “amorphous” should be construed to mean “non-
`
`crystalline.” Exhibit 2003; Exhibit 2008;
`
`72. The term “nitride” should be construed to mean “a compound
`
`containing nitrogen.” Exhibits 2004; Exhibit 2009.
`
`73.
`
`I have been informed that Petitioner objected to Exhibits 2003 and
`
`2004 as “irrelevant because they were not in the prior art as of the U.S. filing date
`
`(June 19, 2000) or the foreign priority filing date (June 24, 1999) of the ‘324
`
`patent.” I have been informed that Petitioner further objected to Exhibits 2003 and
`
`2004 because “Patent Owner has not established that these definitions were
`
`available to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the U.S. or claimed foreign-
`
`priority filing dates of the ‘324 patent, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have referred to either of these definitions to interpret any terminology in
`
`the ‘324 patent in the relevant time period.” I am not a lawyer, but I can state with
`
`certainty that the definitions of “amorphous” and “nitride” as used in the ‘324
`
`patent have not changed since 1999, and had the same meaning in 1999 as they do
`
`today.
`
`22
`
`Page 23 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`74. Applying the BRI standard, a PHOSITA would understand the claim
`
`limitation “said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride,” recited
`
`in Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘324 patent, to mean “a film consisting essentially of
`
`noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.”
`
`75. A film consisting essentially of amorphous metal nitride would be
`
`limited to amorphous metal nitride and materials that do not materially affect the
`
`basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.
`
`76. The specification and claims of the patent clearly distinguish between
`
`crystalline and amorphous materials and their different characteristics in a barrier
`
`film. Exhibit 1001, 13:51-64; 18:56-19:3; 19:13-20:5.
`
`77. A second film consisting essentially of amorphous metal nitride
`
`requires amorphous metal nitride throughout, and not merely a portion or portions
`
`of the film. E.g., see Exhibit 1001, Fig. 21.
`
`78. A PHOSITA would not consider a film with only a portion (or
`
`portions) of amorphous metal nitride to be a film consisting essentially of
`
`amorphous metal nitride as recited in the claims of the ‘324 patent.
`
`79. Sufficiently amorphous” would be understood by a PHOSITA as not
`
`necessarily amorphous throughout, potentially containing non-amorphous
`
`crystallites. A PHOSITA would understand that a film with a mixture of
`
`23
`
`Page 24 of 83
`
`
`
`
`
`amorphous portions and non-amorphous portions throughout would still be
`
`considered “sufficiently amorphous.”
`
`80. A PHOSITA would understand that a film with only amorphous
`
`portions and not amorphous throughout to be considered “sufficiently amorphous.”
`
`81. Applying the BRI standard, a PHOSITA would understand the claim
`
`limitation “said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride” to mean
`
`“a film consisting essentially of noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.”
`
`82. A film “composed” of amorphous metal nitride would be understood
`
`by a PHOSITA to mean a film consisting essentially of a noncrystalline metal
`
`nitride throughout, and would preclude the presence of significant amounts of
`
`crystalline material(s) and/or non-nitride material(s) which could materially affect
`
`the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention.
`
`83. Petitioner’s Expert’s use of the claim terms appears consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. For example, Petitioner’s Expert states
`
`that “the ‘324 patent claims a two-layer diffusion barrier comprising overlaying
`
`crystalline and amorphous films with different nitrogen contents.” Exhibit 1003,
`
`¶68 (emphasis added); see also ¶42 (“the claims require the crystalline layer of
`
`the diffusion barrier to contain less nitrogen than the amorphous layer”)(emphasis
`
`added); ¶42 (“the two-layer diffusion barrier, combining known crystalline and
`
`amorphous barrier layers, disclosed and claimed in the 324 patent…”)(emphasis
`
`24
`
`Page 25 of 83
`
`
`
`
`