Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: August 29, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: August 29, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S.
`Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, and
`Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”), requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–7 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’552 patent”) owned by DSS Technology Management,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Petitioner also timely filed a
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 4, “Mot. for Joinder”) of this proceeding with
`Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., IPR2016-00287
`(“Intel IPR2016-00287”), which is the subject of a Decision to Institute
`entered on June 8, 2016. Petitioner represents that the instant Petition “is
`identical to the petition in [Intel IPR2016-00287].”1 Mot. for Joinder 6. We
`have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the
`information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the arguments and the
`associated evidence presented in the Petition, for the reasons described
`below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–7.
`
`1 We understand Petitioner to mean identical in all substantive matters, as
`the identity of the parties is different. Petitioner also acknowledges that it
`relies on the testimony of a different expert than the expert witness in Intel
`IPR2016-00287, but states that the testimony is essentially the same. Mot.
`for Joinder 4, 6.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties In Interest
`Petitioner Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc.,
`Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC &
`Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG identifies
`itself as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 7.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that Patent Owner has asserted the ’552 patent in the
`following patent infringement cases: DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`Case No. 6:15-cv-130-JRG (E.D. Tex.); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Samsung
`Elec. Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:15-cv-690 (E.D. Tex.); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v.
`SK Hynix, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-691 (E.D. Tex.); and DSS Tech. Mgmt.,
`Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-692 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 7.
`Petitioner notes that it has filed a separate petition for inter partes
`review of claims 8–12 of the ’552 patent. Id. at 8. That proceeding has been
`designated IPR2016-01314. The ’552 patent is also the subject of Samsung
`Elec. Co., Ltd. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2016-00782, as well as
`the following instituted trial proceedings: Intel Corp. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt.,
`Inc., Cases IPR2016-00287 and IPR2016-00288; SK Hynix, Inc. v. DSS
`Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2016-00192. Id. at 7–8.
`
`C. The ’552 Patent
`The ’552 patent describes a process of semiconductor device
`fabrication and a structure of a semiconductor device having “substantially
`rectangular” lateral insulating spacers adjacent to gate electrodes. Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. The ’552 patent defines the term “substantially rectangular” to
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`mean that “a side of the spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface
`of more than 85°.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 40–42. Figure 4(D) of the ’552 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4(D) illustrates a cross-sectional view of a series of gates 415 (also
`called conducting layers or polysilicon layers) completely encapsulated in
`insulating material 420, e.g., TEOS (tetraethyl orthosilicate glass), where
`spacers 435 of the insulating material adjacent to the gates have substantially
`rectangular profiles. Id. at col. 9, ll. 9–13; col. 11, ll. 40–46. As shown in
`Figure 4(D), gates 415 are insulated from sources or drains 405 by insulating
`dielectric layers 410. See id. at col. 10, ll. 49–50. The ’552 patent describes
`a process of making high quality contacts to the sources or drains, such as
`“self-aligned” contacts, by etching structures over substrate 400 and sources
`or drains 405. Id. at col. 7, ll. 19–22; col. 8, ll. 4–6.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4(I) of the ’552 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4(I) illustrates additional structures deposited and etched over the
`structure described in Figure 4(D), such as second dielectric layer 440
`(called etch stop layer), blanket layer 450, and photoresist mask layer 455.
`Id. at col. 9, ll. 33–39; col. 11, ll. 63–65; col. 12, ll. 34–42. According to the
`’552 patent, etch stop layer 440, e.g., silicon nitride layer 440, depicted in
`Figure 4(I) is distinct or different from the underlying TEOS insulating
`layer. Id. at col. 12, ll. 10–11. The etch stop layer protects the underlying
`TEOS layer when blanket layer 450 made of BPTEOS2 is etched away to
`create contact openings 460 and 465 above source or drain 445. See id. at
`col. 12, ll. 36–42; col. 4, ll. 41–59.
`A second etch is then performed to remove etch stop layer 440
`covering source or drain 445 in contact openings 460 and 465. Id. at col. 12,
`ll. 48–52; col. 7, ll. 43–45. The ’552 patent describes that the second etch is
`“almost completely anisotropic,” which means that the etchant etches in the
`
`
`2 BPTEOS is an acronym for borophosphosilicate tetraethyl orthosilicate
`glass. See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 6–7.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`vertical direction, or perpendicular relative to the substrate surface. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 45–48; col. 12, ll. 55–58. Hence, the etch removes the etch stop
`material covering the area of the contact openings or contact regions 460 and
`465, but does not significantly etch the etch stop material adjacent to the
`spacer portions 435. Id. at col. 7, ll. 53–55; col. 12, ll. 58–61. Figures 4(J)
`and 4(K) of the ’552 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figures 4(J) and 4(K) illustrate the structure of the semiconductor device of
`the ’552 patent after the second etch for removing the etch stop layer from
`the contact regions 460 and 465 is completed. As shown in Figures 4(J) and
`4(K), due to the anisotropic or vertical nature of the second etch, only a
`small portion, i.e., portion 475, of the TEOS spacer portion 435 is removed
`during the etch. Id. at col. 13, ll. 6–9. Of primary significance, according to
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`the ’552 patent, the spacer portion 435 of the TEOS insulating layer 420
`retains its substantially rectangular profile, in contrast to the conventional
`prior art method which transforms a substantially rectangular spacer into a
`sloped spacer. Id. at col. 13, ll. 9–10; col. 7, ll. 48–51; col. 5, ll. 4–14.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced
`below:
`1. A structure, comprising:
`(a) a conductive layer disposed over a substrate;
`(b) a first insulating layer on the conductive layer:
`(c) a contact region in said first insulating layer;
`(d) at least one insulating spacer in the contact region adjacent
`to the first insulating layer; and
`(e) an etch stop material over said first insulating layer and
`adjacent to the insulating spacer, the etch stop material being a
`different material from the insulating spacer,
`wherein a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to
`the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle
`of more than 85°.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 9–10):
`
`Claim(s) Challenged Statutory Basis
`
`Ground
`
`1, 2, 4–7
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Anticipated by Heath3
`
`
`3 Ex. 1003, U.S. Patent No. 4,686,000 (Aug. 11, 1987) (“Heath”).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged Statutory Basis
`
`3
`
`1, 2, 4–7
`
`3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Ground
`
`Obvious over Heath, Hawley,4 and
`Chappell5
`
`Obvious over Heath and Dennison6
`
`Obvious over Heath, Dennison,
`Hawley, and Chappell
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`Petitioner states that the instant Petition is substantially identical to the
`petition in Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., which
`was filed December 8, 2015 and assigned Case No. IPR2016-00287 (Intel
`IPR2016-00287). Pet. 1. Based on the claims identified in the Petition and
`on the representations in Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, we understand
`Petitioner to represent that the instant Petition is identical in substance to the
`petition filed in Intel IPR2016-00287, in which Intel challenged claims 1–7
`of the ’552 patent. Id.; Mot. for Joinder 6. Petitioner also acknowledges
`that it relies on the testimony of a different expert than the expert witness in
`Intel IPR2016-00287, but states that the testimony is essentially the same.
`Mot. for Joinder 4, 6. Thus, we understand that Petitioner challenges the
`
`
`4 Ex. 1004, European Patent Application No. 0592078 A1 (Apr. 13, 1994)
`(“Hawley”).
`5 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,541,427 (July 30, 1996) (“Chappell”).
`6 Ex. 1006, U.S. Patent No. 5,338,700 (Aug. 16, 1994) (“Dennison”).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`claims of the ’552 patent on the same grounds on which we instituted inter
`partes review in Intel IPR2016-00287.
`We incorporate by reference our decision in Intel IPR2016-00287 and
`institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the same grounds, for the
`same reasons.
`
`III. SUMMARY
`For the reasons discussed above, on the current record we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`will prevail in the following challenges to patentability:
`Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Heath; and
`Claim 3 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
`Heath, Hawley, and Chappell.
`Any discussion of facts in this Decision are made only for the
`purposes of institution and are not dispositive of any issue related to any
`ground on which we institute review. The Board has not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any of the challenged claims. The
`Board’s final determination will be based on the record as fully developed
`during trial.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to claims 1–7 of the ʼ552 patent on the following
`grounds:
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`
`1. Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Heath; and
`2. Claim 3 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
`Heath, Hawley, and Chappell;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`alleged in the Petition for any claim is authorized for this inter partes
`review;
`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
`commencing on the entry date of this Decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial will be conducted in accordance
`with the Scheduling Order entered in Intel IPR2016-00287.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01311
`Patent 6,784,552 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`David M. O’Dell
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Andriy Lytvyn
`Anton J. Hopen
`Nicholas Pfeifer
`Smith & Hopen, P.A.
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
