Case IPR2016-01264 for
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
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
