IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01376
`Patent Number 6,197,696
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`Page
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`3. 
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`’696 Overview ............................................................................................................... 6 
`II. 
`III.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................................... 7 
`“Using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask
`A. 
`pattern/patterned third insulating film] as a mask” (Claim 13) .............. 8 
`The additional negative limitation impermissibly
`1. 
`excludes preferred embodiments of the ’696 ............................ 10 
`The additional negative limitation is impermissibly
`narrower than the Phillips Standard .......................................... 14 
`The additional negative limitation is inconsistent with the
`plain and ordinary meaning, understanding of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art and Petitioner’s Expert’s prior
`publication ................................................................................. 15 
`IV.  Grill Is Not Prior Art .................................................................................................. 18 
`’696 Claim 13 is entitled to its claimed priority date of March 26,
`A. 
`1998 ................................................................................................................... 20 
`Petitioner has not shown, and cannot show, that Grill is entitled
`to the priority date of ’628 ............................................................................ 31 
`Legal Standard .......................................................................... 31 
`1. 
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that ’628 provides
`2. 
`§112¶1 support for the claimed invention of Grill ................... 32 
`Dr. Smith has failed to show that ’628 provides §112¶1
`support for the claims of Grill ................................................... 34 
`Claims 13 and 15 Are Not Rendered Obvious By Grill in View of
`Aoyama ......................................................................................................................... 47 
`A.  Modifying Grill by Aoyama would render Grill unsatisfactory
`for its intended purpose of forming a dual relief pattern ....................... 50 
`Petitioner’s Modification of Grill using Aoyama would cause
`premature and undesirable degradation of Grill’s hard mask 58
`that changes Grill’s principle of operation by eliminating Grill’s
`control over wire dimension ......................................................................... 54 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Grill teaches away from a combination with Aoyama because it
`would interfere with Grill’s goal of controlling critical dimension ..... 64 
`Grill teaches away from the combination with Aoyama
`1. 
`because its rework problem would result in damage to
`Aoyama’s carbon-based etch stop layer ................................... 65 
`Grill warns against layers of resist that are thicker over
`certain areas, which would be required by Aoyama’s
`approach .................................................................................... 71 
`VI.  Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 73 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed.Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Ariad Pharms. v. Eli Lilly,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (en banc) ........................................................... 42
`
`DePuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 5, 49, 64, 71
`
`Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 32, 33, 34, 46
`
`Facebook v. Pragmatus AV,
`582 Fed.App’x 864 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 14
`
`Harris v. Fed. Express,
`502 F.App’x 957 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 64
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed.Cir. 1984) ......................................................................... 3, 50
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 35, 42
`
`Intelligent Bio-System v. Illumina Cambridge,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ....................................................................passim
`
`InTouch Techs. v. VGO Commc'ns,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 53
`
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 73
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 50, 64
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 14
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Motorola Mobility v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`737 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 42
`
`Omega Eng’g v. Raytek,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 15
`
`On–Line Techs. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin–Elmer GmbH,
`386 F.3d 1133 (Fed.Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Plas-Pak Indus. v. Sulzer Mixpac,
`600 F.App’x 755 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ........................................................... 48, 53, 64
`
`Purdue Pharma v. Depomed,
`643 F.App’x 960 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am.,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 29
`
`Uniroyal v. Rudkin-Wiley,
`837 F.2d 1044 (Fed.Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 4
`
`W.L. Gore v. Garlock,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 72
`
`PTAB Authorities
`
`Apple v. Immersion, IPR2016-01371, Pap.7 ............................................................ 12
`
`Cisco v. Capella Photonics, IPR2014-01276, Pap.40 ............................................. 33
`
`Enfora v. M2M Solutions, IPR2015-01672, Pap.14 ................................................ 41
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. v. Canon, IPR2015-01954, Pap.9 ............................................... 4
`
`Heart Failure Techs. v. Cardiokinetix, IPR2013-00183, Pap.12 ............................ 47
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive, CBM2012-00002, Pap.66 ............................................ 18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Lupin v. Senju Pharm., IPR2015-01100, Pap.16 ....................................................... 8
`
`Palo Alto Networks v. Finjan, IPR2015-01979, Pap.62 ............................................ 4
`
`Parrot S.A. v. Drone Technologies, IPR2014-00730, Pap.27 ................................. 10
`
`Seoul Semiconductor v. Enplas, IPR2014-00879, Pap.33 ....................................... 58
`
`Unified Patents v. William Grecia, IPR2016-00602, Pap.11 .................................. 42
`
`ZTE (USA) v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst., IPR2015-00029,
`Pap.12 .................................................................................................................. 33
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .............................................................................................. 31, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. §112¶1 ................................................................................... 20, 31, 34, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ................................................................................................ 2, 73
`
`Other Authorities
`
`81 Fed.Reg. 18750, 18755 ....................................................................................... 46
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ....................................................................................... 32, 33
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1) ............................................................................................. 33
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107(a) ................................................................................................ 47
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.120 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`MPEP §802 .............................................................................................................. 34
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`N. Sclater & J. Markus, McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary
`(6th ed. 1997) (excerpted)
`R. F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics (6th ed. 1984)
`(excerpted)
`R. F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed. 1999)
`(excerpted)
`S. M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary (2004) (excerpted)
`October 7, 2016 Preliminary Constructions, Godo Kaisha IP
`Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., et al., Case. No. 2:16-cv-134
`Declaration of Seung Woo Hur
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D.
`Transcript of Deposition of Bruce Smith on March 23, 2017
`Redline Comparing Grill (EX1005) with Grill’s Provisional
`(EX1017) Application
`Translation of Japanese Application 10-079371 to Aoi as
`Submitted in European Patent Application No. 99 105 946.0
`Declaration of Takeo Ohashi, Ph.D.
`Influence of reactor wall conditions on etch processes in
`inductively
`coupled
`fluorocarbon plasmas by M.
`Schaepkens, et al., J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 16(4), Jul/Aug 1998
`Handbook of VLSI Microlithography, Second Edition,
`Principles, Technology, and Applications, edited by John
`N. Helbert, Noyes Publications, William Andrew
`Publishing, LLC, 2001 (excerpted)
`Silicon VLSI Technology Fundamentals, Practice and
`Modeling, by James D. Plummer, et al., Prentice Hall, 2000
`(excerpted)
`
`i
`
`Exhibit
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`EX2005
`
`EX2006
`EX2007
`EX2008
`EX2009
`EX2010
`EX2011
`
`EX2012
`
`EX2013
`EX2014
`
`EX2015
`
`EX2016
`
`
`
`

`

`EX2017
`
`EX2018
`
`EX2019
`
`EX2020
`
`EX2021
`
`EX2022
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Microlithography: Science and Technology, by James R.
`Sheats and Bruce W. Smith, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1998
`(excerpted)
`Microlithography: Science and Technology, 2nd ed., by
`Kazuaki Suzuki and Bruce W. Smith, CRC Press, 2007
`(Chapter 12) (excerpted) (Smith Deposition Exhibit 3)
`Microlithography: Science and Technology, 2nd ed., by
`Kazuaki Suzuki and Bruce W. Smith, CRC Press, 2007
`(Chapter 11) (excerpted) (Smith Deposition Exhibit 9)
`Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era Vol. 1 by S. Wolf and
`R.N. Tauber (excerpted)
`Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, 4th ed., 35th
`Impression, published by Kenkyusha Ltd., 1997 (excerpted)
`Declaration of Jordan Rossen
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Pursuant to §42.120,1 Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”)
`
`
`
`submits this Response to the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Pet.”, Pap.1) of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696 (“’696”). As detailed below, because
`
`Petitioner’s evidence fails to make the required showing of obviousness on its sole
`
`instituted ground, IP Bridge respectfully submits that the Board should issue a final
`
`written decision confirming the patentability of all challenged claims of the ’696.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board instituted inter partes review on only one of the grounds urged by
`
`Petitioner: whether claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 (the “Claims”) are rendered
`
`obvious by Grill in view of Aoyama. Pap.11 (Institution Decision (“ID”)) 43. The
`
`Petition was denied as to all other grounds, and trial and this response is
`
`accordingly limited to the ground set forth above. Id.; §42.120(a). Patent Owner
`
`addresses in detail below the numerous substantive errors, omissions and
`
`shortcomings that underlie Petitioner’s sole alleged ground of invalidity for which
`
`inter partes review was instituted. 2 Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R. as context indicates, and all
`
`emphasis/annotations/color added and internal quotations/citations omitted unless
`
`noted.
`
`2 Should Petitioner, or any other party, in this or any other proceeding, attempt to
`
`rely upon non-instituted grounds or alleged evidence submitted by Petitioner in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`preponderance of the evidence that the combination argued by Petitioner renders
`
`obvious the specific method for forming an interconnection structure claimed in
`
`the ’696. §316(e).
`
`In particular, Grill is not prior art because at least ’696 claim 13 is entitled to
`
`the priority of ’696’s foreign priority document filing date and Petitioner has not
`
`shown and cannot show that Grill is entitled to the benefit of its provisional
`
`application filing date.3 While the Board adopted Patent Owner’s construction for
`
`“using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask pattern/patterned
`
`third insulating film] as a mask,” Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board
`
`improperly added a negative limitation excluding “a layer, positioned between an
`
`overlying layer and the layer being etched and having an edge in line and flush
`
`with an edge of the overlying layer” from being “‘used as a mask’ within the
`
`meaning of claim 13.” ID 18. Construed properly, ’696 claim 13 is entitled to the
`
`support of those non-instituted grounds, Patent Owner reserves the right to respond
`
`to such arguments, grounds and/or evidence at that time.
`
`3 Petitioner knew of and had an opportunity to brief this issue in its Petition and
`
`should not be allowed to introduce new arguments on reply in the hope that Patent
`
`Owner will not have the ability to respond. See, e.g., Intelligent Bio-System v.
`
`Illumina Cambridge, 821 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed.Cir. 2016) (upholding Board’s
`
`decision to refuse consideration of Petitioner’s arguments first presented in reply).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`benefit of ’696’s foreign priority date. In contrast, Grill’s claims rely on material
`
`added to and/or not present in the provisional to which Grill claims priority.
`
`Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would not have
`
`found it obvious to modify Grill by combining it with Aoyama to arrive at the
`
`Claims for several reasons. First, Petitioner’s proposed modification of Grill
`
`would render Grill unsatisfactory for Grill’s stated purpose of forming a “dual
`
`relief pattern” by eliminating the “dual relief pattern” from the resulting
`
`combination. See EX1005 Abstract, 1:12-15, 2:41-50, 7:16-29; EX2009 ¶¶138-
`
`147; 4 In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed.Cir. 1984); Purdue Pharma v.
`
`Depomed, 643 F.App’x 960, 963-64 (Fed.Cir. 2016). Indeed, Petitioner’s Fig.5H’
`
`shows that the “dual relief cavity” solution described in Grill and depicted in
`
`Grill’s Fig.5H is eliminated by Petitioner’s proposed alteration (both annotated
`
`below). EX2009 ¶144.
`
`
`4 This Response is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Alexander Glew, Ph.D.
`
`E.g., EX2009 ¶¶1-43.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`EX1005 Fig.5H; Pet.68. Petitioner’s proposed elimination of Grill’s “dual relief
`
`pattern” impedes Grill’s “critical dimension” control over via dimensions and
`
`frustrates Grill’s ability to achieve higher integration density of wire lines. EX1005
`
`Abstract, 1:12-15, 2:41-50, 7:16-29, 5:24-33; EX2010 13:15-14:20, 15:12-16:8,
`
`20:8-20; EX1002 ¶¶47, 158; EX2009 ¶¶138, 141-44.
`
`
`
`Second, Petitioner’s proposed modification of Grill with Aoyama would
`
`also change Grill’s principle of operation by impeding Grill’s “critical dimension”
`
`control over wire dimensions. See Gen. Plastic Indus., v. Canon, IPR2015-01954,
`
`Pap.9, 26 (“If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would
`
`change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the
`
`teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie
`
`obvious.”); Uniroyal v. Rudkin-Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed.Cir. 1988)
`
`(“antithetical principles of operation”); Palo Alto Networks v. Finjan, IPR2015-
`
`01979, Pap.62, 57. Petitioner’s proposed modification would result in a wiring
`
`groove that is wider over the via hole—limiting the integration density of wire
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`lines. EX1005 Abstract, 1:12-15, 2:41-50, 5:22-33; EX2010 13:15-14:20, 15:12-
`
`16:8, 20:8-20; EX1002 ¶¶47, 158; EX2009 ¶¶148-67.
`
`
`
`Third, Petitioner’s proposed modification of Grill would be inoperable
`
`without also incorporating Aoyama’s etch stopper because the wiring groove
`
`would be widened over the via hole without Aoyama’s etch stopper film. EX1018
`
`Figs.5A-5C, 18A-18C, 16:12-16; EX2010 106:6-20; EX2009 ¶¶168-74. However,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of Grill and Aoyama does not include
`
`Aoyama’s etch stopper. E.g., Pet.56. And even if Petitioner improperly attempts
`
`to now also incorporate Aoyama’s carbon-based etch stopper to meet the “using
`
`the second resist pattern and the mask pattern as a mask” limitation, a POSITA
`
`would not have been motivated to modify Grill in this manner because Grill
`
`teaches away from the use of a carbon-based etch stopper. EX1005 2:26-32, 4:5-6,
`
`35-40; see DePuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
`
`(Fed.Cir. 2009); EX2009 ¶¶168-79. Further, a POSITA would not have been
`
`motivated to incorporate Aoyama’s wider through-hole pattern because Grill
`
`discourages the thicker resist profile that would have been required by such an
`
`incorporation. See EX1005 Fig.2A; EX2009 ¶180-84.
`
`Thus, even if Grill were prior art to the ’696, a POSITA still would not have
`
`been motivated to combine these references in the way suggested by Petitioner, nor
`
`would a POSITA have had a reasonable expectation of success. EX2009 ¶¶135-37.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`II.
`
`’696 Overview
`
`The ’696, entitled “Method for Forming Interconnection Structure,” was
`
`filed Mar. 23, 1999 and issued Mar. 6, 2001, and claims priority to Japanese
`
`Application 10-079371 (“’371”) filed Mar. 26, 1998 (EX1014). EX1001.
`
`The ’696 generally relates to “[a] method for forming an interconnection
`
`structure” through a series of steps. EX1001 Abstract. In prior methods, low
`
`dielectric constant films used during
`
`the course of fabricating a metal
`
`interconnection structure could be damaged in a process known as ashing. Id.
`
`2:41-52, 3:47-62; EX2009 ¶42. Ashing is a process used to remove polymer-based
`
`photo-lithography resists. EX1001 2:41-43; EX2009 ¶42. The ’696 applicants
`
`solved this problem by inventing a method of processing that used a hard mask and
`
`multiple resist layers to pattern a low dielectric constant film to avoid damage to
`
`the film caused by ashing. EX1001 3:55-62; EX2009 ¶¶38-43. The ’696
`
`discloses, for example, that the interconnection structure of the modified third
`
`embodiment can be formed by a method illustrated in Figures 15(a)-17(c).
`
`EX1001 18:59-20:49; EX2009 ¶43.
`
`For example, as illustrated in Figures 16(c)-16(d), annotated below, the
`
`patterned organic film 354A is dry-etched using the mask pattern 358 and the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`patterned second silicon dioxide film 355A as a mask (e.g., using, as a mask, two
`
`layers having flush edges).5 EX1001 19:50-54; EX2009 ¶¶43.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figures 16(d)-17(a), annotated below, the silicon nitride
`
`film 352 is dry-etched using the patterned first silicon dioxide film 353A as a
`
`mask. EX1001 20:9-13; EX2009 ¶43.
`
`
`
`III. Claim Construction
`For purposes of inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent...shall
`
`be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`5 As illustrated herein layers being used as a mask for a certain step are indicated in
`
`green, layers to be or having been etched for a certain step are indicated in yellow,
`
`and other layers are sometimes indicated in blue. EX2009 ¶43n.2.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`patent in which it appears.” §42.100(b). Under this standard and “absent any
`
`special definitions,” the Board shall give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention. See Lupin v. Senju Pharm., IPR2015-01100, Pap.16, 8.
`
`A.
`
`“Using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask
`pattern/patterned third insulating film] as a mask” (Claim 13)
`
`Claim 13 requires etching “using” various layers—for example, the second
`
`resist pattern and the mask pattern (step h)—“as a mask.” The BRI of this term is
`
`“using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask pattern/patterned
`
`third insulating film] to define areas for etching” as the Board recognized at
`
`Institution.6 ID 15; EX2009 ¶44.7
`
`Properly applying the BRI, Patent Owner’s construction confirms that
`
`
`6 Patent Owner also agrees with the Board that a layer positioned between an
`
`overlying layer and an underlying layer being etched also acts as a mask, within
`
`the meaning of claim 13, in an instance where the overlying layer also is removed
`
`during etching, and thus, the intermediate layer acts to shield the layer being etched.
`
`See ID 18, n.7; EX2009 ¶44.
`
`7 Petitioner had an opportunity to brief this issue in its Petition and chose not to do
`
`so, and should not be allowed to introduce new arguments on constructions on
`
`reply. See, e.g., Intelligent Bio-System, 821 F.3d at 1369-70; n.3, supra.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`“using” something “as a mask” during etching means using it to define areas for
`
`etching, as confirmed by the use of the term throughout the ’696, which discloses
`
`numerous examples of structures being used as masks to define areas for etching.
`
`See, e.g., EX1001 22:47-24:19, 24:54-26:34, 26:52-27:60, 27:62-29:20, 29:62-
`
`31:26, 31:49-32:9, Figs.21-37; EX2009 ¶¶45-46. 8 Contemporaneous dictionary
`
`definitions further support Patent Owner’s construction. See, e.g., EX2001 3;
`
`EX2002 3; EX2003 4; EX2004 3; EX2009 ¶47.
`
`In construing the term “using the [designated layer] as a mask” at Institution,
`
`however, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board also incorrectly added
`
`an additional negative limitation that “a layer, positioned between an overlying
`
`layer and the layer being etched and having an edge in line and flush with an edge
`
`of the overlying layer” is not “‘used as a mask’ within the meaning of claim 13”
`
`
`8 For example, in the context of Figures 25(c) and 27(b), ’696 teaches how both the
`
`second resist pattern and the mask pattern are used to define areas for etching: the
`
`underlying layer is patterned (etched) where the openings of the resist pattern and
`
`the openings of the mask pattern overlap. See, e.g., EX1001 8:1-6, 7:62-8:7, 25:52-
`
`57, 26:63-27:3, 27:19-60, 31:60-67, Figs.25(c), 27(b), 34(b), 37(a)-(b); EX2009
`
`¶46.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`(hereinafter,
`
`the “additional negative
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`limitation”). ID 18. 9 Patent Owner
`
`respectfully submits that this additional negative limitation is improper at least
`
`because it: (1) excludes three preferred embodiments of the ’696, (2) makes the
`
`term narrower than the Phillips construction, and (3) is inconsistent with the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art and Petitioner’s expert’s prior
`
`publication. EX2009 ¶49.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the term “using the [designated
`
`layer] as a mask” be properly construed as “using the [designated layer] to define
`
`areas for etching,” without the negative limitation added at Institution. EX2009 ¶48.
`
`1.
`
`The additional negative limitation impermissibly excludes
`preferred embodiments of the ’696
`
`The Federal Circuit has made it clear that claims should be interpreted in
`
`such a way as to not exclude a preferred embodiment. See, e.g., On–Line Techs. v.
`
`Bodenseewerk Perkin–Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed.Cir. 2004)
`
`(“exclud[ing] a preferred embodiment…‘is rarely, if ever, correct’”); Parrot S.A. v.
`
`Drone Technologies, IPR2014-00730, Pap.27, 8. The additional negative limitation
`
`improperly excludes three preferred embodiments (i.e., the third embodiment, a
`
`
`9 Note that the Board has replaced the middle terms “[first resist pattern/second
`
`resist pattern and the mask pattern/patterned third insulating film]” with
`
`“[designated layer].” ID 15.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`modified version of the third embodiment, and a modified version of a fifth
`
`embodiment) because they each require using an overlying layer and an
`
`intermediate layer together as a mask, where the intermediate layer has an edge
`
`that is in line and flush with an edge of the overlying layer. See, e.g., EX1001
`
`10:19-20, 16:39-48, 18:59-20:49, 24:52-27:60; Ex2009 ¶¶50-62.10
`
`As illustrated in Figures 16(c) and 16(d), the modified version of the third
`
`embodiment discloses that “the patterned organic film 354A is dry-etched using
`
`the mask pattern 358 and the patterned second silicon dioxide film 355A…as a
`
`mask….” EX1001 19:50-54.11 Notably, layer 355A has an edge that is in line and
`
`10 These interpretations are further confirmed by the ’371, to which ’696 claims
`
`priority. See EX2013 ¶¶1-17; EX1013 ¶¶[0080], [0094], [0095]; EX2012 30:7-23,
`
`34:20-35:11; EX2009 ¶¶59-60. Notably, Petitioner’s translation misinterprets
`
`paragraphs [0094]-[0095] to mean “masks’ instead of “a mask” in a manner
`
`inconsistent with the rest of the Petitioner’s translation. Compare EX1014
`
`¶¶[0080], [0094], [0095] with EX2012 30:7-23, 34:20-35:11; EX2013 ¶¶8-17; see
`
`also EX2013 ¶¶18-22 (discussing Petitioner’s mistranslation of the phrase “first
`
`resist pattern and the second resist pattern as the mask” to be “or” instead of “and”
`
`in EX1013 ¶[0025]); EX2021 1335; EX2012 4:18-5:4, 13:19-14:5.
`
`11 Petitioner’s expert’s only explanation for this clear language was an unsupported
`
`assertion that it was somehow “not consistent” with the rest of the ’696. EX2010
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`flush with an edge of overlying layer 358. Ex2009 ¶52.
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, as shown in the following illustrations based on Figures 13(b)-
`
`13(c), the third embodiment discloses that “the patterned low-dielectric-constant
`
`SOG film 304A is dry-etched using the mask pattern 308 and the patterned
`
`second organic-containing silicon dioxide film 305A…as a mask….” EX1001
`
`17:34-40.12 Notably, layer 305A also has an edge that is in line and flush with an
`
`
`46:21-47:18. Contrary to Dr. Smith’s analysis, the specification must be
`
`considered “in the context of the entire disclosure”—it is improper to simply
`
`ignore passages as Petitioner has done. See Apple v. Immersion, IPR2016-01371,
`
`Pap.7, 5.
`
`12 Starting from Fig.13(b), ’696 discloses that resist pattern 309 is removed as
`
`shown in illustration Fig.13(b)’ (EX1001 17:30-31), 305A is dry-etched using 308
`
`as a mask as shown in illustration Fig.13(b)’’ (id. 17:31-35), and then 304A is dry-
`
`etched using 305A and 308 “as a mask” as shown in Fig.13(c) (id. 17:35-40).
`
`Ex2009 ¶¶55-57.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`edge of overlying layer 308. Ex2009 ¶¶54-57.13
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, as illustrated in Figures 28(b) and 29(a), the modified version of
`
`the fifth embodiment discloses that “the patterned second organic film 555A is
`
`dry-etched using the mask pattern 559 and the patterned second silicon dioxide
`
`film 556B as a mask….” EX1001 26:15-29. Notably, layer 556B also has an edge
`
`that is in line and flush with an edge of overlying layer 559. Ex2009 ¶¶58-61.14
`
`13 Figures indicated with a ’, ’’, or ’’’ or –[ ] herein have been modified from their
`
`original appearance to reflect other disclosures as discussed herein. Ex2009 ¶55 n.5.
`
`14 The modified fifth embodiment provides 3D-perspective views in Figures 28(b)
`
`and 29(a) that illustrate using an intermediate layer 556B and an overlying layer
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`As the Board acknowledged at Institution (ID 12), “even under the [BRI],
`
`the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence, and must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would
`
`reach.” Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed.Cir. 2015). But the
`
`additional negative limitation imposed at Institution impermissibly excludes at
`
`least these three preferred embodiments of the ’696.15 EX2009 ¶62.
`
`2.
`
`The additional negative limitation is impermissibly
`narrower than the Phillips Standard
`The BRI “cannot be narrower” than the construction under Phillips. See
`
`Facebook v. Pragmatus AV, 582 Fed.App’x 864, 868-69 (Fed.Cir. 2014)
`
`(nonprecedential). The Eastern District of Texas has construed this term to mean
`
`559 having flush edges together as a mask in both dimensions. EX1001 23:40-46;
`
`EX2009 ¶61.
`
`15 There also has been no disclaimer of these preferred embodiments in either the
`
`specification or file history. See generally EX1001; EX1012.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`“using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask pattern/patterned
`
`third insulating film] to define areas for etching” under the narrower Phillips
`
`standard. See EX3002 22. The additional negative limitation under the BRI
`
`improperly further limits the District Court’s construction. The additional negative
`
`limitation improperly incorporates into the claim language a “negative limitation
`
`[that] finds no anchor in the explicit claim language,” Omega Eng’g v. Raytek, 334
`
`F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed.Cir. 2003); EX2009 ¶¶48-49, and—while purporting to
`
`apply BRI—further narrows the District Court’s Phillips constructi