Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01264
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,538,324
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`The Board Correctly Rejected Patent Owner’s Claim
`Constructions ......................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`“Therein” does not mean “throughout,” and nothing in the
`patent or prosecution history supports such a redefinition. ........ 3
`
`2.
`
`“Composed of” does not mean “consisting essentially of.” ....... 6
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Misconstrues Zhang and Ding as Excluding
`Nitrogen in the Top Barrier Film .......................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Zhang teaches a top tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film
`containing nitrogen, including at its surface. .............................. 7
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes the interface between the
`top and bottom films 32 and 22 in Zhang. .................................. 9
`
`Patent Owner’s expert testimony is unreliable .........................12
`
`Ding does not require forming a pure crystalline tantalum
`film to contact a copper film. ....................................................13
`
`Patent Owner Never Rebuts the Board’s Initial Finding that
`Zhang in View of Ding, With or Without Sun, Renders the
`Challenged Claims Unpatentable ........................................................15
`
`The Challenged Product Claims Do Not Require the Sputtering
`Process in the ’324 Patent, But Even if They Did, the Prior Art
`Teaches this Technique .......................................................................20
`
`Sun Does Not Teach Away From Adding Nitrogen to a Tantalum
`Film ......................................................................................................22
`
`The Epistar IPR Decision Does Not Establish a New Rule
`Requiring Experiments to Find a Challenged Claim Obvious ............25
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................26
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Epistar, Everlight, and Lite-On v. Trustees of Boston University,
`IPR2013-00298, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013) ......................................... 24
`
`In re Etter,
`756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ............................................................ 25
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor et al. v. Zond, LLC.,
`IPR2014-00781, Paper 53 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2015) ......................................... 24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (POR) attempts to distinguish the prior art based
`
`on an incorrect reading of Zhang and Ding, arguing both references teach a top
`
`layer of pure tantalum (Ta) at the surface. See, e.g., POR, 21-22. According to
`
`Patent Owner, neither reference has nitrogen in its top film, so no combination of
`
`these references can render obvious the claimed first film “containing nitrogen
`
`therein,” but this argument overlooks Zhang’s repeated disclosures of nitrogen
`
`throughout the top tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film 32, including at its surface.
`
`This fundamental error is fatal to the entirety of Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent
`
`Owner does not otherwise contest, because it cannot in view of its expert’s
`
`opinions, the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`would have been motivated to modify the diffusion barrier of Zhang in view of
`
`Ding to include a crystalline top film 32 and amorphous bottom film 22.
`
`Further, the Board already rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to narrow the
`
`claims to require nitrogen “throughout” the first film under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction (Decision, 5-7), and Patent Owner has presented no new evidence to
`
`justify changing that finding. Patent Owner also attempts to limit the claims to a
`
`particular manufacturing process. The Board rejected this approach because the
`
`challenged claims are product claims, not process claims, and regardless, the prior
`
`art of record teaches the limitations Patent Owner proposes.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`Patent Owner does not separately argue for validity of any of the challenged
`
`dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7,1 so all claims stand or fall with independent claim
`
`1. Nothing in the record should change the Board’s reasoning or conclusion that
`
`each of the challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of the ’324 patent is unpatentable
`
`over Zhang in view of Ding and also further in view of Sun.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Board Correctly Rejected Patent Owner’s Claim
`Constructions
`
`In its Decision, the Board found “the arguments and evidence presented to
`
`date” did not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the claimed “first
`
`film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein” means “a
`
`first film consisting essentially of a mixture of crystalline or polycrystalline metal
`
`with nitrogen throughout.” Decision, 7. Patent Owner provides no intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic evidence to change that finding.
`
`Patent Owner also offers no evidence for the Board to reverse its refusal to
`
`construe the “second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride” as “a
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner asserts the same argument for dependent claim 9 as for independent
`
`claims 1 and 5 (Zhang and Ding do not teach a “first film” containing “nitrogen
`
`therein”), so that argument fails for the same reasons.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`second film consisting essentially of a noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.”
`
`Decision, 7. This construction is unsupported and further unnecessary because
`
`Patent Owner does not use it to distinguish the art of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1036
`
`(Harris Tr.), 78:6-20 (admitting Zhang teaches an amorphous tantalum nitride
`
`bottom film); see also Ex. 1005, 3:39-41, Abstract (disclosing a “sufficiently
`
`amorphous” TaNx bottom film).
`
`1.
`
`“Therein” does not mean “throughout,” and nothing in the
`patent or prosecution history supports such a redefinition.
`
`The parties agree the Board should normally give claim terms their ordinary
`
`and customary meanings. POR, 9; Ex. 1036, 144:21-145:9. “Therein” should have
`
`its plain meaning because the intrinsic evidence contains no redefinition of the
`
`term. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(holding claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning”);
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a
`
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the
`
`full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution”).
`
`“Therein” does not mean “throughout.” Ex. 1034 (dictionary definition of
`
`“therein”).
`
`The Board rejected Patent Owner’s attempts to import the unclaimed
`
`limitation of containing nitrogen “throughout” based on manufacturing methods in
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`the ’324 patent because all the challenged claims are product claims not limited by
`
`disclosed processes. Decision, 5-7. Patent Owner’s expert agrees the claims do not
`
`require the processing steps from the preferred embodiments. Ex. 1036, 127:6-
`
`128:1, 121:6-12.
`
`The specification provides no reason to limit the claims to a disclosed
`
`processing method. Patent Owner cites Fig. 21 of the ’324 patent, the result of a
`
`specific RF sputtering process, as support for nitrogen “throughout” a first film
`
`“i.e., from the upper surface to the bottom of the first film” (POR, 4-8), but the
`
`specification’s explanation of the structure in that figure only describes grain
`
`boundaries that exist “throughout” a film, “that is, from an upper surface to a
`
`bottom” of the film. Ex. 1001, 2:65-3:1. As Patent Owner’s expert acknowledges,
`
`the presence of physical grain boundaries “throughout” a film has nothing to do
`
`with atomic nitrogen concentration “throughout” a film. Ex. 1036, 162:1-163:17.
`
`The specification only uses “throughout” to describe physical structures, such as
`
`recesses, holes, and grain boundaries. Ex. 1001, 2:67, 5:26, 7:49, 14:56, 20:15; see
`
`also Ex. 1036, 160:13-161:8, 164:15-165:1. It never uses “throughout” to define
`
`the concentration of nitrogen.
`
`Patent Owner also argues a POSITA would understand the differences
`
`between a crystalline metal film containing nitrogen therein, pure metal film,
`
`amorphous metal nitride film, and crystalline metal nitride film. POR, 15. This
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`argument is irrelevant as the statement, even if true, would not require any specific
`
`degree of nitrogen distribution within the claimed “first film,” let alone nitrogen
`
`throughout the film.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner cites the specification’s disclosure of a top film of a
`
`diffusion barrier with -Ta and TaN0.1 “in mixture” (POR, 7, 14 (citing Ex. 1001
`
`12:19-24, 12:62-67, 13:4-24, 13:57-63, 16:41-47)), but wrongly suggests this
`
`disclosed “mixture” refers to a solution of tantalum and nitrogen. Instead, the
`
`specification is describing a heterogeneous mixture of two different material
`
`phases containing localized regions with different properties, one containing
`
`nitrogen (TaN0.1) and the other containing only tantalum (-Ta). Ex. 2010 at 193
`
`(describing heterogeneous mixtures); Ex. 1036, 182:7-183:14, 194:20-195:6.
`
`Patent Owner cites a single statement about a “solid solution” (POR, 14 (Ex. 1001,
`
`8:24-28)), but a solid solution is a homogeneous mixture in a single solid phase. Ex.
`
`2036 at 3 (definition of solid solution); Ex. 1036, 188:13-17; Ex. 1038 (Banerjee
`
`Dec.), ¶¶ 31-34. The solid solution in the specification refers to the TaN0.1 phase
`
`alone. Id., ¶¶ 37-38. In contrast, the specification refers to the entire top film as a
`
`“mixture” and not a “solid solution” because the film contains multiple phases
`
`(Ta and TaN0.1). Ex. 1001, 13:21-24; Ex. 1002 at 220. Because one of the phases
`
`in the top film contains only tantalum, the specification does not require nitrogen
`
`throughout the top film.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`Thus, the ’324 patent does not require nitrogen “throughout” the first film
`
`which is a heterogeneous mixture with localized -Ta regions containing only
`
`tantalum. Ex. 1036, 192:5-10 (conceding the specification does not disclose
`
`whether -Ta in the disclosed embodiment contains any nitrogen). Nothing Patent
`
`Owner offers requires nitrogen “throughout” the top film.
`
`2.
`
`“Composed of” does not mean “consisting essentially of.”
`
`The Patent Owner gave no authority for construing “composed of” as
`
`“consisting essentially of.” POR, 12. The case it cites, AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal
`
`IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001), contrasts “composed of” with
`
`“consisting of,” and explains the transitional phrase “composed of” “must be
`
`interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim
`
`language is intended.”
`
`The specification of the ’324 patent supports a broad interpretation of
`
`“composed of” by allowing the “first film” to include regions of tantalum metal
`
`(-Ta) that are not “consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen
`
`therein.” Ex. 1001, 13:20-23 (disclosing “the crystalline metal film 16 is composed
`
`of crystalline -Ta and crystalline TaN0.1 in mixture”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Misconstrues Zhang and Ding as Excluding
`Nitrogen in the Top Barrier Film
`
`1.
`
`Zhang teaches a top tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film
`containing nitrogen, including at its surface.
`
`Patent Owner argues Zhang and Ding both fail to teach any nitrogen in their
`
`top films or throughout those films as its construction requires2 (see, e.g., POR, 21-
`
`22), and mistakenly asserts Zhang discloses an upper tantalum film 32 with no
`
`nitrogen content at its upper surface or in its entirety (see id. 34, 38, and 41-44).
`
`On the contrary, the top film 32 in Zhang is a tantalum-rich tantalum “nitride” film
`
`32 (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:14-16), which means it is a film containing nitrogen.
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to characterize this film as a pure tantalum film and
`
`disregard the word “nitride” is disingenuous. Ex. 1036, 62:17-63:5; see also Ex.
`
`1004, Abstract (disclosing, “The nitrogen percentage for the second portion (32) is
`
`lower than the nitrogen atomic percentage for the first portion (22)”).
`
`Zhang consistently describes the top nitride film 32 as containing nitrogen at
`
`its upper surface in contact with a copper layer. For example, Zhang discloses, “By
`
`keeping the nitrogen concentration at the surface that contacts copper relatively
`
`low, better adhesion can be achieved.” Id. 5:57-59. “Low” does not mean only
`
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s expert provided no opinions where nitrogen is not required
`
`“throughout” the claimed first film. Ex. 1036, 151:3-152:2.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`“zero.” Zhang also discloses, “At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum
`
`may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper
`
`adhesion is particularly problematic.” Id. 3:59-62; see also Ex. 1036, 33:13-22
`
`(testifying Zhang at col. 3, lines 59-62 refers to the upper surface of top film 32).
`
`Zhang also includes claim 7 that teaches forming the top film 32 using a constant
`
`flow of nitrogen, i.e., to incorporate nitrogen throughout the film, unlike its
`
`dependent claim 9 where the nitrogen gas is “reduced to zero” when forming film
`
`32. Ex. 1004, 6:47-54, 6:58-60; Ex. 1036, 176:11-177:21.
`
`Zhang never discloses the upper surface of the top film 32 contains no
`
`nitrogen and, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion (see, e.g., POR, 34, 38, and 41-
`
`44), nowhere teaches a desire to form a top film of pure tantalum. Instead, Zhang’s
`
`Fig. 4 illustrates the top film is not pure tantalum, as the tantalum atomic percent
`
`never reaches 100% at the upper surface (i.e., at a distance of zero). See Ex. 1032;
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. Zhang discloses a top tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film 32,
`
`meaning one containing nitrogen, with the upper surface of the film containing a
`
`lower nitrogen content than the other portions of film. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 3:57-62.
`
`This does not mean the surface can have no nitrogen.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert admitted the upper surface of Zhang’s top film 32
`
`contains some nitrogen. See Ex. 1036, 40:1-6 (“Zhang discloses that there may be
`
`a 5 percent nitrogen only at -- as an upper boundary”); see also, 42:2-9 (“the
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`person skilled in the art would understand that that means extremely low,
`
`approaching zero”), 42:15-21 (“I can't say that with a high degree of certainty,
`
`absolutely no nitrogen . . .”), 54:14-20.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes the interface between the
`top and bottom films 32 and 22 in Zhang.
`
`Having no evidence to support its arguments, Patent Owner asserts a
`
`POSITA, “[u]sing characterization techniques known at the time,” would not have
`
`viewed the middle dotted line in Fig. 4 of Zhang as the location of an interface
`
`between distinct films. POR, 37. Patent Owner instead argues the dotted line in Fig.
`
`4 is merely a “time stamp” indicating the termination of nitrogen flow. Id. Relying
`
`on its Annotated Fig. 4, Patent Owner asserts a POSITA would have recognized
`
`the interface between the top and bottom films “lies at the point where the nitrogen
`
`concentration reaches zero . . . where the layer of pure tantalum (shown in red)
`
`meets the layer of amorphous tantalum nitride (shown in blue).” Id., 38-39.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`These arguments conflict with the specification. Zhang discloses forming the
`
`top film 32 when “the nitrogen-containing gas is terminated.” Ex. 1004, 3:37-47
`
`(“In forming film 32, the nitrogen-containing gas is terminated . . . .”). Thus,
`
`Zhang discloses the dotted line in Fig. 4, when nitrogen gas is turned off, is the
`
`start of “forming film 32,” which contradicts Patent Owner’s unsupported
`
`characterization about the dotted line.
`
`Zhang also suggests the thickness of the top and bottom films 32 and 22
`
`would be the same if the times needed to form the films are the same. Id. 4:1-7.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, film 32 begins to form when nitrogen
`
`content starts to decrease, corresponding to the middle dotted line in Fig. 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s assertions contradict its other arguments. Patent Owner,
`
`when arguing against the motivation to modify Ding in view of Zhang in a related
`
`proceeding, asserts that if “some residual nitrogen may be present in the system
`
`during deposition of” the top film, a POSITA “would have recognized that
`
`insufficient nitrogen would be present to make any changes to the material
`
`properties of the tantalum.” IPR2016-01249, Paper 14, 51. But, in referring to the
`
`annotated Zhang Fig. 4, Patent Owner asserts that residual nitrogen (i.e., nitrogen
`
`content shown at a distance between approximately 100 and 175 angstroms in the
`
`blue layer) would change the film’s material properties to turn a portion of the top
`
`film into amorphous tantalum nitride.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`Patent Owner also argues a POSITA would not have viewed the dotted line
`
`in Zhang’s Fig. 4 as the interface of two films “because the material characteristics
`
`of the film(s) at a point immediately on either side of that dotted line would be
`
`substantially identical, i.e., within the determination abilities of characterization
`
`techniques . . . .” POR, 38. But the same reasoning applies equally at the interface
`
`between the red and blue layers proposed by Patent Owner, since the material
`
`characteristics “immediately” to the left or right of the interface would be the same.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner finally argues a POSITA would have recognized the actual
`
`interface in Zhang lies where the nitrogen concentration goes to zero. Id., 39. But it
`
`is not clear from Zhang Fig. 4 whether the nitrogen percentage of the top film goes
`
`to zero (see Section II(B)(1) above), and Patent Owner’s position means no
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`interface between top and bottom films 32 and 22 exists if any nitrogen is at the
`
`surface. In any event, no matter how Patent Owner mischaracterizes Fig. 4, it does
`
`not change the fact that Zhang’s written disclosure teaches nitrogen at the upper
`
`surface of film 32.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert testimony is unreliable
`
`Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of Zhang required its expert to take
`
`unreasonable positions including:
`
`(1) testifying the tantalum-rich tantalum “nitride” film 32 in Zhang contains
`
`no nitrogen (Ex. 1036, 62:17-19);
`
`(2) characterizing Zhang’s description of “less than 5 percent nitrogen” at
`
`the upper surface of film 32 in col. 3, lines 59-61 as a “mistake” (id. 41:3-7);
`
`(3) interpreting Zhang’s disclosure of “approximately zero” percent nitrogen
`
`in col. 3, lines 53-54 as “always equal to zero” (id., 46:5-8);
`
`(4) asserting Zhang’s disclosure of “essentially no nitrogen atoms” in col. 3,
`
`lines 54-57 means “zero” nitrogen (id., 58:21-59:10);
`
`(5) arguing first that Zhang’s disclosure in col. 5, lines 57-59 of “relatively
`
`low” nitrogen concentration at the upper surface of film 32 contacting copper
`
`cannot contain 4% nitrogen because that value would be undetectable, but then
`
`conceding 4% nitrogen at the surface may be detectable (id. 41:18-45:7);and
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`(6) characterizing Zhang’s Fig. 4 as an inaccurate “cartoon,” despite relying
`
`on this figure to allege the location of an interface between Zhang’s top and bottom
`
`films (id., 89:21-90:15). Petitioner invites the Board to reject the opinions of Patent
`
`Owner’s expert as his opinions conflict with Zhang’s disclosure so many times.
`
`4.
`
`Ding does not require forming a pure crystalline tantalum
`film to contact a copper film.
`
`Although Patent Owner asserts Ding requires a “pure” Ta film to provide
`
`easy wetting by the layer of copper (POR, 28), Patent Owner’s expert conceded the
`
`crystallinity of Ding’s top tantalum film, rather than its purity, is what improves
`
`formation of the copper layer. See Ex. 1036, 82:22-83:7 (“A. Yes. So Ding does, of
`
`course, describe [as quoted in para. 112 of Ex. 2011] that the tantalum surface
`
`should be a <002> crystalline orientation in order to improve the adhesion and
`
`formation of the <111> copper”).
`
`Patent Owner cites Ding at 8:1-4 and Fig. 2 (See, e.g., POR, 28, 34), but
`
`these portions of the reference merely require the crystalline Ta layer be
`
`“sufficiently thick” for enabling easy wetting of the Ta surface by copper. See Ex.
`
`1005, 7:66-8:4 (“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”). Even Patent Owner’s expert agrees this portion in Ding refers to
`
`thickness, and does not state a requirement for a pure Ta layer. Ex. 1036, 220:15-
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`221:15 (testifying “[t]hat particular sentence [Ding, 8:1-4] is talking about the
`
`requirement of the thickness”).
`
`Ding never addresses purity levels its top Ta film, and Patent Owner never
`
`explains how FIG. 2 of Ding relates to purity of the tantalum film rather than the
`
`need for a minimum thickness. See Ex. 1005, 4:59-62. Patent Owner’s citations to
`
`Ding’s Abstract and 3:27-3 (POR, 28, 36) also do not discuss the purity level of the
`
`tantalum top layer. Ding only requires its tantalum film to have a certain thickness
`
`for enabling easy wetting by the copper layer with a high crystal orientation. Id.,
`
`2:52-55, 3:12-18, 8:1-4, 8:18-22, Fig. 2; Ex. 1036, 220:15-221:15.
`
`Ding does not teach the desirability of a pure Ta film, as Patent Owner
`
`suggests, but just uses “pure” to distinguish a single-layer barrier (tantalum layer)
`
`from a multi-layer barrier including metal nitride (tantalum nitride layer and a
`
`tantalum layer). See Ex. 1005, 9:47-49 (disclosing “a layer of pure Ta does not
`
`provide a diffusion barrier which performs as well as the TaNx/Ta barrier layer
`
`structure”), 4:6-11 (disclosing 70% crystallographic copper is obtained in Ding’s
`
`two-layer structure compared to a “pure” Ta barrier layer), 10:1-3 (contrasting
`
`TaN/Ta barrier with a “pure” Ta layer). Patent Owner’s expert agrees. Ex. 1036,
`
`97:6-98:16.
`
`This is consistent with Ding’s prosecution history, which explains Ding’s
`
`claimed barrier requires only one tantalum layer (i.e., a pure tantalum layer), unlike
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`the prior art, which further discloses an optional titanium layer for its barrier
`
`structure. Ex. 2002, 18-19 (“The Hindman et al. disclosure further contrasts with
`
`applicants’ teachings which clearly require the use of a pure tantalum layer directly
`
`underlying a deposited copper layer. Hindman et al. states the use of a titanium
`
`layer directly underlying the aluminum layer is optional . . . .”). Consistent with its
`
`specification, Ding’s prosecution history also contains statements requiring the top
`
`tantalum layer to have a certain thickness to enable easy wetting of its surface by
`
`copper. Id., 19 (“[Ding’s] [c]laims 8-17, which are rejected in view of Hindman et
`
`al. require a tantalum layer having a thickness falling within a particular range.”);
`
`id. (“[Hindman has] no requirement that such a titanium layer have any particular
`
`thickness”). The prosecution history never requires Ding’s tantalum film to be
`
`“pure” Ta in terms of atomic percentage.
`
`Ding does not require an atomically pure tantalum film to contact a copper
`
`layer. See Ex. 1033, 1:47-57 (referring to Ding’s patent application and teaching
`
`that Ding’s top film may contain a “small amount of nitrogen (typically less than
`
`about 15 atomic percent)” at its surface).
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Never Rebuts the Board’s Initial Finding that
`Zhang in View of Ding, With or Without Sun, Renders the
`Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`
`The Board found Zhang meets every claim element of the challenged ’324
`
`patent claims, except for no express mention of the crystalline or amorphous nature
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`of the films 22 and 32 in the diffusion barrier. Decision, 10. The Board agreed it
`
`would have been obvious to make Zhang’s top film 32 crystalline and bottom film
`
`22 amorphous in view of the crystalline/amorphous two-film diffusion barrier Ding
`
`taught, which is directed to the same problems and solution as the ’324 patent and
`
`Zhang. Id. The Board also concluded that Patent Owner did not address or rebut
`
`the reasoning for modifying Zhang in view of Ding. Decision, 12.
`
`Patent Owner still does not address or rebut Petitioner’s reasoning. Indeed,
`
`Patent Owner’s expert conceded a POSITA for the ’324 patent would have
`
`understood Zhang discloses an amorphous tantalum nitride bottom film 22 in its
`
`diffusion barrier structure:
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant time would have recognized that the
`
`bottom film 22 in Zhang consisted of amorphous
`
`tantalum nitride?
`
`A. A person skilled in the art would have understood,
`
`especially based on the description in Zhang, that the
`
`goal of that bottom film was an amorphous tantalum
`
`nitride structure.
`
`Q. Well, you say a goal of that bottom film. Given the
`
`teachings in Zhang, would a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art have understood at the relevant time that the
`
`bottom tantalum nitride film 22 was an amorphous
`
`tantalum nitride film?
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
` A. They would have understood that that was an
`
`amorphous structure tantalum nitride.
`
`Ex. 1036, 78:6-20; see also Ex. 1005, Abstract (disclosing a bottom “TaNx layer …
`
`is sufficiently amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into the underlying
`
`substrate”).
`
`Patent Owner’s expert also testified a POSITA would have recognized
`
`Zhang had a goal to form a crystalline top film to improve its adhesion to copper.
`
`Q. Now, referring back to your annotated figure 4 on page
`
`41 of your 1264 declaration, is it your opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`would have recognized that the upper surface of the top
`
`film 32 in Zhang was crystalline?
`
`A. They would have recognized that the upper film, the
`
`upper surface of film 32 [in Zhang] was crystalline.
`
`Q. So a person of ordinary skill of the art at the relevant
`
`time would have understood that Zhang teaches a barrier
`
`film with an amorphous tantalum nitride bottom film 22
`
`and a crystalline top film 32, is that correct?
`
`A. They would have understood. I need to be very clear here.
`
`They would have understood that the goal of the top
`
`surface of the film, the film 32 is crystalline in
`
`preparation for copper deposition.
`
`Ex. 1036, 79:9-80:3; see also id. 74:1-2 (“A. The purpose of the top of film 32 [in
`
`Zhang] is to improve the adhesion of copper that is deposited”).
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`While Patent Owner’s expert attempts to qualify his testimony by limiting
`
`crystallinity to the “top” or “upper” surface of Zhang’s film 32, it is of no moment.
`
`As discussed above, Zhang discloses the upper surface of film 32 contains nitrogen.
`
`Ex. 1004 3:59-62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at
`
`least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion
`
`is particularly problematic”); 5:57-59 (“By keeping the nitrogen concentration at
`
`the surface that contacts copper relatively low, better adhesion can be achieved”).
`
`Patent Owner’s expert admitted he could not state, “with a high degree of certainty,
`
`absolutely no nitrogen” at the surface of Zhang’s film 32. Ex. 1036, 42:15-21.
`
`Finally, in agreement with the Petition and the Decision, Patent Owner’s
`
`expert admitted a POSITA would have understood that to improve adhesion to
`
`copper the top film in Ding is crystalline, similar to the goal of Zhang’s top film 32.
`
`Q. So do you agree that Ding teaches a two-layer copper
`
`diffusion barrier with a bottom film that is amorphous
`
`tantalum nitride and a crystalline top film comprising
`
`tantalum?
`
`A. So this is an important point that one learns from both
`
`Ding and Zhang in concert, and that is that Zhang
`
`specifically does not teach a crystalline layer, while as I
`
`mentioned before, that top surface would, in order to
`
`achieve copper, put a good copper layer of copper
`
`adhesion. A person of skill in the art would understand
`
`that that top surface [in Zhang] would be improved if it
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`were crystalline in nature. Zhang does not teach
`
`crystalline. However, Ding does teach that the top
`
`surface, or that the top material would have the <002>
`
`crystalline orientation.
`
`Ex. 1036, 81:13-82:7; see also Ex. 1005, 8:1-4.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that modifying the two-layer barrier film of
`
`Zhang in view of Ding would have used well-known techniques, such as sputtering,
`
`to create the top and bottom films in the diffusion barrier. See, e.g., POR, 46
`
`(“Zhang and Ding disclose similar sputtering processes”). Nor does Patent Owner
`
`dispute that both Zhang and Ding are directed to similar two-layer barrier
`
`structures for improving adhesion to copper and electromigration resistance in the
`
`top film, and blocking diffusion of copper in the bottom film. Ex. 1004, Abstract;
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract; Ex. 1036, 71:20-72:10.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zhang to incorporate the
`
`advantages of amorphous and crystalline phases in the bottom and top layers that
`
`Ding teaches to prevent diffusion of copper (via the amorphous layer) and improve
`
`adhesion to copper (via the crystalline layer), goals of both references. See, e.g.,
`
`Petition, 12-13; Ex. 1004, 5:48-62; Ex. 1005, 3:32-37; see also Ex. 1003, ¶ 93.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner’s expert concedes as much. Ex. 1036, 81:13-82:7.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`D. The Challenged Product Claims Do Not Require the Sputtering
`Process in the ’324 Patent, But Even if They Did, the Prior Art
`Teaches this Technique
`
`Although the Board rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to import process
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims, Patent Owner tries to advance
`
`this argument in a different way by arguing Zhang and Ding do not teach the same
`
`sputtering process as the ’324 patent. See, e.g., POR, 22, 45. Patent Owner argues
`
`Zhang and Ding turn off nitrogen gas