Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`Date: December 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACURING COMPANY
`LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`Date: December 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACURING COMPANY
`LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited,
`filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’324 patent”) pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Godo Kaisha IP
`Bridge 1, filed a Preliminary Response under 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we
`determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the
`Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R § 42.108. We institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner has filed a separate petition for an inter partes review of
`the ’324 patent, which petition challenges the same claims as the instant
`Petition. Pet. 52; Paper 4, 1; see also Case IPR2016-01249.
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’324 patent in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. l-16-cv-00290 (D. Del.) and Godo
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2-16-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.).
`Pet. 51–52; Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`B. The ’324 Patent
`
`The ’324 patent “relates to a semiconductor integrated circuit
`including a copper wiring layer, and more particularly to a barrier film
`which prevents copper diffusion from such a copper wiring layer.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:7–10. A primary problem in the prior art, as noted by the ’324
`patent, is that it was difficult to make a diffusion-barrier film that effectively
`prevents copper diffusion while also being sufficiently adhesive to copper.
`Id. at 2:58–61. According to the ’324 patent, a crystalline metal film was
`known to provide “high adhesion” but poor prevention of copper diffusion.
`Id. at 3:14–20. On the other hand, it was known that an amorphous metal
`nitride film would provide a better barrier to copper diffusion since it “does
`not have the paths through which copper is diffused,” but it would suffer
`from poor adhesion to copper. Id. at 3:21–33.
`The ’324 patent describes a two-layered barrier film in which an
`amorphous metal nitride layer prevents copper diffusion and a crystalline
`metal layer containing nitrogen provides the desired adhesion. Id. at 5:1–8,
`6:6–8.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative and reproduced below.
`1.
`A barrier film preventing diffusion of copper from
`a copper wiring layer formed on a semiconductor substrate,
`comprising a multi-layered structure of first and second films,
`said first film being composed of crystalline metal
`containing nitrogen therein,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`said second film being composed of amorphous metal
`nitride,
`said barrier film being constituted of common metal
`atomic species,
`said first film being formed on said second film,
`said first film in direct contact with said second film,
`said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content than
`that of said second film.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Basis1
`References
`Claims
`Zhang (Ex. 1004)2 and Ding (Ex. 1005)3 § 103(a)
`1–3, 5–7,
`and 9
`1–3, 5–7,
`and 9
`
`Zhang, Ding, and Sun (Ex. 1007)4
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pet. 20, 48.
`
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took
`effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’324
`patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`and 103 are to their pre-AIA versions.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 to Zhang, filed December 22, 1997, and issued
`April 13, 1999. On the record presented, Zhang is prior art under at least
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 B1, filed December 19, 1997, and issued May 3,
`2005. On the record presented, Ding is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`4 Sun et al., “Properties of reactively sputter-deposited Ta – N thin films,”
`Thin Solid Films, Vol. 236 (1993), pp. 347–351. On the record presented,
`Sun is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final
`written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language should be read in
`light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning.
`See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The
`ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’” (quoting Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc))).
`Petitioner does not propose an express construction for any limitation,
`although it asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation should be
`applied to all claim terms. Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes express
`constructions for two limitations, as discussed below.
`
`1. “said first film being composed of crystalline metal
`containing nitrogen therein”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 5 each recite “said first film being
`composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.” Patent Owner
`proposes that this limitation be construed to mean “a first film is composed
`of a mixture of single crystalline or polycrystalline metal with nitrogen
`throughout.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner’s
`construction would require a first film that is of uniform composition. See,
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`e.g., id. at 30 (arguing that the recited film must be “crystalline throughout
`the layer”).
`To supports its construction, Patent Owner argues the following:
`
`The manufacturing method disclosed in the specification for
`creating the claimed film would always result in a mixture of
`metal and nitrogen throughout the film. As the specification
`discloses, both the first and second films are formed via
`sputtering, and although the power to the sputtering chamber is
`increased to switch from making the amorphous second film to
`the crystalline first film, the level of nitrogen gas in the chamber
`is “kept constant.”
`Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:33–6:5, 6:53–7:7, 9:13–25, 18:31–35).
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive on this record, first,
`because claims 1 and 5 are directed to products, not processes.5 “The
`patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In
`re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Hence, the claimed products
`here—a “barrier film” in claim 1 and a “multi-layered wiring structure” in
`claim 5—are not limited to those manufactured by any particular method, let
`alone the method disclosed in the ’324 patent.
`Second, even assuming the ’324 patent implicitly describes a method
`for manufacturing that “would always result in a mixture of metal and
`nitrogen throughout the [first] film” as Patent Owner argues (see Prelim.
`
`
`5 “[I]t is well established that product claims may include process steps to
`wholly or partially define the claimed product.” Application of Luck, 476
`F.2d 650, 653 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Patent Owner, however, does not argue
`generally that claims 1 and 5 are product-by-process claims or specifically
`that “said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen
`therein” is a product-by-process limitation.
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`Resp. 14 (emphasis added)), we do not read limitations from the
`specification into claims. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel,
`Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “[t]he danger of
`improperly importing a limitation is even greater when the purported
`limitation is based upon a term not appearing in the claim.” Id. Such is the
`case here, where Patent Owner argues for importing a limitation, not based
`upon a term appearing in the claim but upon what Patent Owner argues
`inherently results from the process described in the specification.
`In sum, the arguments and evidence presented to date do not support
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction. On the current record, no express
`construction is necessary for “said first film being composed of crystalline
`metal containing nitrogen therein.”
`
`2. “said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride”
`Independent claims 1 and 5 each recite “said second film being
`composed of amorphous metal nitride.” Patent Owner proposes that this
`limitation be construed to mean “a second film is composed of a
`noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (emphasis
`added). As acknowledged by Patent Owner, its arguments for this proposed
`construction are “similar to those set forth” for its proposed construction for
`the first film. Id. at 16. We likewise conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction with respect to the second film is not supported on the current
`record and additionally that no express construction is necessary.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Zhang in view of Ding
`
`In assessing obviousness, “the scope and content of the prior art are to
`be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
`to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`resolved.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).6
`
`1. Disclosure of Zhang
`Zhang discloses a semiconductor device that includes a two-layered
`diffusion barrier film. The Zhang Abstract states:
`
`A semiconductor device comprises a substrate (100), first
`conductive film (22 and 32) over the substrate (100), and a
`second conductive film (54 and 64) over the first conductive film
`(22 and 32). The first conductive film includes a refractory metal
`and nitrogen. The first conductive film has a first portion (22)
`that lies closer to the substrate and a second portion (32) that lies
`further from the substrate. The nitrogen percentage for the
`second portion (32) is lower than the nitrogen atomic percentage
`for the first portion (22). The second conductive film (54 and
`64) includes mostly copper. The combination of portions (22 and
`32) within the first conductive film provides a good diffusion
`barrier (first portion) and has good adhesion (second portion)
`with the second conductive film (54 and 64).
`Ex. 1004, Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`
`6 Additionally, secondary considerations such as “commercial success, long
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light
`to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to
`be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries
`may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. The current record,
`however, lacks such evidence.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`In at least one embodiment, the “refractory metal” in each layer of the
`Zhang barrier film is tantalum, such that the barrier film consists of “a
`tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film 32 that overlies the tantalum nitride film
`22.” Id. at 3:14–23. Zhang does not mention whether either layer is
`amorphous or crystalline.
`
`2. Disclosure of Ding
`Ding discloses “a barrier layer structure useful in forming copper
`interconnects and electrical contacts of semiconductor devices.” Ex. 1005,
`Abstract. The Ding inventors “discovered that tantalum nitride (TaNx) is a
`better barrier layer for copper than tantalum (Ta),” and they “developed a
`barrier layer structure comprising a layer of Ta overlying a layer of TaNx,
`which provides both a barrier to the diffusion of a copper layer deposited
`thereover, and enables the formation of a copper layer having a high <111>
`crystallographic content, so that copper electromigration resistance is
`increased.” Id. at 3:27–37.7
`The tantalum nitride (TaNx) layer is “amorphous.” Id. at 3:39–41
`(“The TaNx layer, where x ranges from about 0.1 to about 1.5, is sufficiently
`amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into underlying silicon or
`silicon oxide surfaces.”).
`The tantalum (Ta) layer is crystalline. Id. at 7:67–8:4 (“The
`[tantalum] layer must be sufficiently thick to provide a tantalum <002>
`
`
`7 <111> is a term that pertains to an orientation or direction of crystals.
`Ex. 1003 ¶51. The same is true for <002>, which also appears in Ding, as
`quoted below in this Decision. Id.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`crystalline orientation which enables easy wetting of the tantalum surface by
`the copper and depositing of a copper layer having a high <111> crystal
`orientation.”). Ding does not describe any nitrogen within the tantalum
`layer.
`
`3. Application of Zhang and Ding to the Challenged Claims
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 5
`a)
`Independent claims 1 and 5 are of extremely similar scope. Our
`analysis of claim 1 pertains equally to claim 5.
`In challenging claim 1, Petitioner relies on Zhang as teaching all of
`the claimed subject matter “except it does not expressly mention the
`crystalline or amorphous nature of the films 22 and 32 in the diffusion
`barrier.” Pet. 14. Petitioner sufficiently maps specific teachings of Zhang to
`each limitation of claim 1, save the limitations specifying that the first film
`is crystalline and the second film is amorphous. Id. at 20–23, 34–38; see
`also id. at 13–14, 17 (similarly identifying relevant teachings of Zhang). To
`meet these additional limitations, Petitioner relies on Ding’s explicit
`teaching of a two-layered barrier film with a bottom layer being amorphous
`tantalum nitride and a top layer being crystalline tantalum. Petitioner argues
`that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to
`use crystalline and amorphous top and bottom films for the films 32 and 22
`in Zhang’s barrier structure, in view of Ding, to achieve the same advantages
`acknowledged in each of these prior-art references.” Id. at 25–26 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶92–96). We agree with this statement by Petitioner but only as it
`pertains to Ding. As discussed below, Ding acknowledges the advantages of
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`crystalline and amorphous layers. Zhang, however, does not even discuss
`crystalline and amorphous layers, let alone their advantages.8
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge is deficient for
`multiple reasons. First, Patent Owner argues that the asserted prior art does
`not teach “said first film being composed of crystalline metal” or “said
`second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride,” as recited by both
`claims 1 and 5. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 30–31, 46, 48–49. These arguments,
`however, are premised on Patent Owner’s proposed constructions of the
`limitations, which we do not adopt. See id. at 30 (“The Petition has not
`provided any evidence which establishes that Ding’s Ta layer is crystalline
`throughout the layer.”), 31 (“There is insufficient disclosure in Ding to
`determine what portion(s) of the layer would be amorphous, and
`specifically, insufficient disclosure to determine whether the TaNx layer
`contains amorphous metal nitride throughout the layer.”), 46 (“In sum, Ding
`does not disclose a film containing amorphous metal nitride throughout the
`layer, and . . . a combination of Zhang and Ding would not result in the
`claimed subject matter, i.e., a ‘second film being composed of amorphous
`metal nitride.’”), 48–49 (“Thus, any combination of Zhang and Ding does
`
`
`8 In fact, Petitioner alternatively argues that, in light of Ding, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that Zhang’s bottom layer is
`amorphous and its top layer is crystalline, despite Zhang not explicitly
`describing the layers as such. Pet. 26–30. We need not address this
`alternative argument at this time, as we determine that Petitioner’s
`arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
`Zhang in view of Ding to meet the threshold for instituting an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`not disclose and would not render obvious a ‘first film being composed of
`crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,’ which when properly
`construed requires a film containing a mixture crystalline metal and nitrogen
`throughout.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments are not
`commensurate with the scope of the limitations which, as discussed above,
`do not require a mixture of crystalline metal with nitrogen throughout or a
`noncrystalline metal nitride throughout.
`Second, Patent Owner asserts that the Petition lacks adequate
`reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`the teachings of Zhang and Ding. Prelim. Resp. 37–40. Patent Owner,
`however, does not address, let alone rebut, the reasoning provided in the
`Petition. See id. We find Petitioner’s reasoning adequate, at this stage of the
`proceeding, to support its conclusion that the combination of asserted prior
`art teachings would have been obvious. See Pet. 24–34. First, Petitioner
`points out that Zhang and Ding teach similar two-layer diffusion barriers.
`Id. at 24. Second, Petitioner identifies explicit teachings from Ding that
`would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the
`respective layers of Zhang amorphous and crystalline. Id. at 24–30. For
`example, Petitioner notes that Ding “discloses the desirability of using an
`amorphous TaNx layer as the bottom layer, so the TaNx is ‘sufficiently
`amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into underlying silicon or
`silicon oxide surfaces.’” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:39–41 (Petitioner’s
`emphasis)). Similarly, Petitioner notes that Ding “also discloses the
`desirability of using a crystalline metal film ‘having a tantalum <002>
`crystalline orientation’ as a top film in the two-layer diffusion barrier
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`because the crystalline orientation ‘enables easy wetting of the tantalum
`surface by the copper and depositing of a copper layer having a high <111>
`crystal orientation.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:1–4).
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Zhang in view of Ding.
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 99
`b)
`Dependent claims 2 and 6 depend from claims 1 and 5, respectively.
`Claims 2 and 6 additionally recite that “said second film has a thickness in
`the range of 80 angstroms to 150 angstroms both inclusive.” To meet this
`limitation, Petitioner argues that Zhang teaches, albeit indirectly, a bottom
`film having a thickness ranging from 5 to 250 angstroms and “typically”
`within a narrower range of 50 to 150 angstroms. Pet. 39–40 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 4:1–10, Fig. 4); see also id. at 46 (stating that, for claim 6,
`Petitioner relies on its claim 2 argument). Petitioner’s argument is supported
`by the disclosure of Zhang, which, in relevant part, states:
`
`In one particular embodiment, the time period when the
`nitrogen-containing gas flows and biasing is off (film 22) is
`approximately equal to the time period when the nitrogen
`containing gas flow is terminated and the biasing is on (film 32).
`However, time periods may be different. In some embodiments,
`the tantalum nitride film 22 is thicker than the tantalum-rich
`tantalum nitride film 32. The combined thickness of the two
`films 32 and 22 is in a range of approximately 10 to 500
`angstroms and typically is in a range of approximately 100 to 300
`angstroms.
`
`
`9 In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`additional limitations recited by the challenged dependent claims are taught
`by the asserted prior art.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:1–10. Petitioner argues that Zhang’s teaching of approximately
`equal time periods with respect to the formation of film 22 and film 32
`suggests that those films would be formed of approximately equal
`thicknesses. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner, thus, halves the disclosed ranges that
`apply to the combined thicknesses of both films. Id. at 40. On the current
`record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments as to how a person of
`ordinary skill would have understood what is described with respect to the
`thickness of the individual films. As such, the claimed range (80–150
`angstroms) falls within the “typical” range that is taught by Zhang (50–150
`angstroms), and, indeed, shares a maximum value (150 angstroms) with it.10
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 2 and 6 would have been obvious over Zhang in view of Ding.
`Dependent claims 3 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 5, respectively.
`Claims 3 and 7 additionally recite that “said first film has a thickness in the
`range of 60 angstroms to 300 angstroms both inclusive.” To meet this
`limitation, Petitioner notes that Zhang teaches an embodiment in which the
`top film (32) has a thickness of about 175 angstroms. Id. at 43 (citing
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 4), 46 (stating that, for claim 7, Petitioner relies on its claim 3
`argument). Figure 4 of Zhang is “an illustration of a plot illustrating the
`change in concentration of various elements with depth from the substrate
`surface after forming the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film [i.e., after
`forming both layers of the Zhang barrier structure].” Ex. 1004, 1:66–2:2.
`
`
`10 Additionally, Petitioner notes that Ding teaches a bottom film having “a
`
`thickness ‘from about 10 Å to about 300 Å.’” Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1005,
`
`4:34).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`According to Petitioner, and not disputed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary
`Response, the vertical dashed lines in Figure 4 signify the boundaries of the
`two films. Pet. 43. Thus, each film is 175 angstroms in the embodiment of
`Figure 4. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Zhang teaches
`a first film with a thickness within the claimed range of 60–300 angstroms.11
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 3 and 7 would have been obvious over Zhang in view of Ding.
`Claim 9 recites: “The multi-layered wiring structure as set forth in
`claim 5, further comprising a copper film formed on said first film.”
`Petitioner argues that Zhang discloses that the semi-conductor device further
`includes a copper film. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, as “disclosing
`that the second conductive film 54 and 64 ‘includes mostly copper’”; and
`citing id. at 4:20–23 as disclosing that “‘[a]fter the copper seed film 54 has
`been deposited, an electroplated copper film 64 is then formed over all the
`substrate as shown in FIG. 6.’”).12
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claim 9 would have been obvious over Zhang in view of Ding.
`
`C. Obviousness over Zhang in view of Ding and Sun
`1. Disclosure of Sun
`Sun is an article titled “Properties of reactively sputter-deposited Ta-N
`
`
`11 Additionally, Petitioner notes that Ding teaches a top film “having a
`thickness ‘from about 5 Å to about 300Å.’” Pet. 43 (quoting Ex. 1005,
`4:36).
`12 Additionally, Petitioner notes that Ding “discloses a copper film formed
`on its first film.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:66–5:3, 7:38–40, 8:1–4).
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`thin films.” Ex. 1007. It discloses that, as “an impurity in polycrystalline
`transition metal films, nitrogen . . . restrict[s] diffusion and increase[s] the
`barrier effectiveness of those films, presumably by decorating the extended
`defects that act as fast diffusion paths in polycrystalline metallic films.”
`Ex. 1007, 347. Sun further discloses that “[i]n substantial atomic
`concentrations, nitrogen can also promote the formation of amorphous
`metallic alloys with most early transition metals.” Id. “The resulting films
`tend to combine the advantages of the high inertness of the respective metal
`nitrides with the absence of fast diffusion paths as they exist in
`polycrystalline films.” Id.
`
`2. Application of Zhang, Ding, and Sun to the Challenged Claims
`Petitioner relies on Sun as evidence, in addition to Ding, that it would
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make Zhang’s
`tantalum nitride film amorphous. Pet. 49. This is so, Petitioner argues,
`because Sun teaches that nitrogen can promote the formation of amorphous
`metallic alloys, and amorphous films make better barriers “because the
`amorphous film is ‘absen[t] of fast diffusion paths.’” Id. at 51 (quoting
`Ex. 1007, 347). We find Petitioner’s reasoning persuasive based on the
`current record.
`There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 would have been obvious over Zhang in view of
`Ding and Sun.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`We have considered the information presented in the Petition and
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`Preliminary Response and determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in
`the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 B1 is hereby instituted on the following
`grounds:
`claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Zhang in view of Ding; and
`claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Zhang in view of Ding in further view of Sun;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`alleged in the Petition for any claim is authorized for this inter partes
`review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`Patent 6,538,324 B1
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Stephen E. Kabakoff
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Michael Fink
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`Neil Greenblum
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`Arnold Turk
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`18
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
