Patent Owner
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s
`Demonstrative Slides
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and
`GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc.
`v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`IPR2016-01376, -01377, -01378, -01379
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`September 12, 2017
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`IPR2016-01376
`Exhibit 2041
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Title
`Claim Construction
`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (‘696 claims 10, 13)
`Grill in View of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill Is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ’696 Are Entitled to their Foreign Priority Date
`Grill Cannot Claim Priority to its Provisional Filing Date
`Grill in View of Aoyama [and Wetzel] Does Not Render Obvious All Challenged Claims
`Proposed Combinations Render Grill Unsatisfactory for its Intended Purpose of Forming
`a Dual Relief Pattern
`Grill Teaches Away from Aoyama’s Use of Carbon Based Etch Stopper Layers
`Grill Teaches Away from Aoyama’s Use of Varying Photoresist Profile Thicknesses
`Beyond the Scope of Proper Reply and Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude
`
`Slide
`8-23
`9-23
`24-45
`25-38
`39-45
`46-57
`
`47-51
`
`52-54
`55-57
`58-60
`
`2
`
`

`

`Table of Abbreviations
`
`Abbreviation
`Challenged Claims
`P1
`P2
`P3
`P4
`Smith1
`
`Smith2
`
`Smith3
`
`Smith4
`
`POR1
`POR2
`POR3
`POR4
`
`Description
`‘696 Patent Claims 10-12, 13-15
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01376, Ex1002, Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01377, Ex1002, Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01378, Ex1002, Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01379, Ex1002, Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 19, Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 19, Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 19, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`3
`
`

`

`Table of Abbreviations
`
`Abbreviation
`Glew1
`
`Glew2
`
`Glew3
`
`Glew4
`
`Reply1
`Reply2
`Reply3
`Reply4
`SmithReply1
`
`SmithReply2
`
`SmithReply3
`
`SmithReply4
`
`Description
`IPR2016-01376, Ex2009, Expert Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01377, Ex2009, Expert Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01378, Ex2009, Expert Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01379, Ex2009, Expert Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, Petitioners’ Reply
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 26, Petitioners’ Reply
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 26, Petitioners’ Reply
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 26, Petitioners’ Reply
`IPR2016-01376, Ex1049, Rebuttal Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01377, Ex1050, Rebuttal Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01378, Ex1050, Rebuttal Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`IPR2016-01379, Ex1050, Rebuttal Declaration of Bruce Smith, Ph.D in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`4
`
`

`

`Abbreviation
`Observations1
`
`Observations2
`
`Observations3
`
`Observations4
`
`MTE1
`MTE2
`MTE3
`MTE4
`Opp1
`
`Opp2
`
`Opp3
`
`Opp4
`
`POSITA
`
`Table of Abbreviations
`Description
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Bruce Smith, Ph.D
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Bruce Smith, Ph.D
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Bruce Smith, Ph.D
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Bruce Smith, Ph.D
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 30, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 30, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 30, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 30, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 37, Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 37, Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 37, Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude Evidence
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 37, Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude Evidence
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`5
`
`

`

`Abbreviation
`Scope1
`
`Scope2
`
`Scope3
`
`Scope4
`
`Table of Abbreviations
`Description
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 36, Patent Owner’s Identification of Arguments Exceeding
`the Proper Scope of Reply
`IPR2016-01377, Paper 36, Patent Owner’s Identification of Arguments Exceeding
`the Proper Scope of Reply
`IPR2016-01378, Paper 36, Patent Owner’s Identification of Arguments Exceeding
`the Proper Scope of Reply
`IPR2016-01379, Paper 36, Patent Owner’s Identification of Arguments Exceeding
`the Proper Scope of Reply
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR
`IPR2016-01376
`
`IPR2016-01377
`
`IPR2016-01378
`
`IPR2016-01379
`
`Claims
`
`Instituted Obviousness Grounds:
`
`Prior Art References
`Grill in view of Aoyama (as articulated in
`the -01376 Petition)
`
`Grill in view of Aoyama (as articulated in
`the -01377 Petition)
`
`Grill in view of Aoyama (as articulated in
`the -01378 Petition)
`
`Grill in view of Aoyama and Wetzel (as
`articulated in the -01379 Petition)
`
`13, 15
`
`10-12
`
`13-14
`
`10, 12
`
`7
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`Claim Construction
`
`8
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Petitioner’s interpretation of “using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” is
`inconsistent with the specification, the law, and the understanding of a POSITA
`
`Petitioner’s Interpretation
`The construction should exclude the situation where:
`
`“a buried layer ‘define[s] areas for etching’
`whenever it has a vertical sidewall ‘in line and flush
`with an edge of overlying layer’”
`
`Reply1 at 3; Reply2 at 3; Reply3 at 3; Reply4 at 3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`“using the [designated layer[s]] to define areas for
`etching”
`
`POR1 at 7-18; POR2 at 7-18; POR3 at 7-18; POR4 at 7-18.
`
`9
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly excludes, “preferred embodiments” of the ’696 Patent
`
`“DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS”
`
`EX1001 10:19-20, 16:39-18:58, 18:59-20:49, 24:52-27:60.
`
`Modified third embodiment: “Thereafter, as shown in FIG. 16(d), the patterned organic film 354A is dry-
`etched using the mask pattern 358 and the patterned second silicon dioxide film 355A having the
`openings for forming wiring grooves as a mask, thereby forming the wiring grooves 362.”
`
`EX1001 19:50-53, Fig. 16(c)-16(d); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 10-12; Glew1 ¶52; 1377: POR2 at 10-12; Glew2 ¶52;
`1378: POR3 at 10-12; Glew3 ¶52; 1379: POR4 at 10-12; Glew4 ¶52.
`
`10
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly excludes, “preferred embodiments” of the ’696 Patent (cont.)
`
`“DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS”
`
`EX1001 10:19-20, 16:39-18:58, 18:59-20:49, 24:52-27:60.
`
`Third embodiment: “[A]s shown in FIG. 13(c), the second resist pattern 309 is removed and the patterned
`second organic-containing silicon dioxide film 305A is dry-etched using the mask pattern 308 as a mask …
`Thereafter, 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 having the openings for wiring
`grooves as a mask, thereby forming the wiring grooves 311.”
`
`*
`
`*
`
`EX1001 17:34-40, Fig. 13(b)-13(c); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 12-13; Glew1 ¶¶54-58; 1377: POR2 at 12-13; Glew2 ¶¶54-58;
`1378: POR3 at 12-13; Glew3 ¶¶54-58; 1379: POR4 at 12-13; Glew4 ¶¶54-58.
`modified from original figure
`11
`
`*
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly excludes, “preferred embodiments” of the ’696 Patent (cont.)
`
`“DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS”
`
`EX1001 10:19-20, 16:39-18:58, 18:59-20:49, 24:52-27:60.
`
`Modified fifth embodiment: “Then, 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 26:15-19, Fig. 28(b)-29(a); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 13-14; Glew1 ¶¶61-62; 1377: POR2 at 13-14; Glew2 ¶¶61-62;
`1378: POR3 at 13-14; Glew3 ¶¶61-62; 1379: POR4 at 13-14; Glew4 ¶¶61-62.
`
`12
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly excludes, “preferred embodiments” of the ’696 Patent, and
`Petitioner’s interpretation “disregard[s]” the specification
`Petitioner and its expert argue: “IPB cherry-picks three examples where the specification
`incorrectly refers to a buried layer as a ‘mask’ … ignoring at least seven contrary examples …”
`Reply1 at 8; Reply2 at 8; Reply3 at 8; Reply4 at 8.
`“In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have disregarded the misstatements
`made in the three examples IPB identified where a buried layer is called a “mask” in the
`specification. Not only do these examples contradict the common and ordinary meaning of what it
`means to act as a mask, they also contradict at least seven examples in the specification where a
`buried layer is not called a ‘mask’:”
`
`SmithReply1 ¶27; SmithReply2 ¶27; SmithReply3 ¶21; SmithReply4 ¶21;
`see also, e.g., 1376: Reply1 at 8; 1377: Reply2 at 8; 1378: Reply3 at 8; 1379: Reply4 at 8.
`
`•
`
`But this is contrary to the law:
`PTAB: “Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context
`of the entire disclosure.”
`Apple v. Immersion, IPR2016-01371, Pap.7, 5 (citing In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also, e.g.,
`1376: POR1 at 12 n.11; 1377: POR2 at 12 n.11; 1378: POR3 at 12 n.11; 1379: POR4 at 12 n.11.
`Federal Circuit: ”Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 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) (citations omitted);
`see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 14; 1377: POR2 at 14; 1378: POR3 at 14; 1379: POR4 at 14.
`Federal Circuit: “As this court has explained before, ‘a claim interpretation that excludes a preferred
`embodiment from the scope of the claim `is rarely, if ever, correct.’’”
`On–Line Techs. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin–Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also, e.g., Parrot S.A. v. Drone Technologies,
`IPR2014-00730, Pap.27, 8; 1376: POR1 at 10; 1377: POR2 at 10; 1378: POR3 at 10; 1379: POR4 at 10.
`
`13
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly excludes, “preferred embodiments” of the ’696 Patent, and
`Petitioner’s interpretation “disregard[s]” the specification (cont.)
`• And Petitioner and its expert still can’t agree:
`Petitioner’s Reply
`“This leaves layer 354A exposed to act as a mask
`partway through the etch, consistent with the Board’s
`use of ‘mask.’ See Paper 11, 18 n.7. This does not
`happen with layer 355 while layer 354 is being
`etched (see above).”
`
`Cross-Examination of Patent Owner’s Expert
`Q Is film 354A being used as a mask in etching film
`353?
`
`A It says that in the specification, but 354A is not
`-- would not be part of the mask that would be
`etching 353.
`
`1376: Reply1 at 14; 1377: Reply2 at 13-14;
`1378: Reply3 at 13-14; 1379: Reply4 at 14.
`
`See also, e.g., 1376: Observations1 ¶2; 1377: Observations2 ¶2; 1378: Observations3 ¶2; 1379: Observations4 ¶2.
`
`EX2040 18:3-7.
`
`14
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly ignores, the figures of the ’696 Patent
`Petitioner and its expert argue: “In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have disregarded the misstatements made in the three examples IPB identified where a
`buried layer is called a “mask” in the specification. Not only do these examples contradict the
`common and ordinary meaning of what it means to act as a mask, they also contradict at
`least seven examples in the specification where a buried layer is not called a ‘mask’:”
`SmithReply1 ¶27; SmithReply2 ¶27; SmithReply3 ¶27; SmithReply4 ¶27; see also, e.g.,
`1376: Reply1 at 8-9; 1377: Reply2 at 8-9; 1378: Reply3 at 8-9; 1379: Reply4 at 8-9.
`
`• But Petitioner’s expert admits a layer can act as a mask even when the specification does not
`refer to the layer as a mask:
`Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Expert
`Q You said that film 505A defines the
`opening in 503 during the etch process. Is
`that right?
`
`’696 Figures
`
`A Right. The etch process is directed
`through the opening in 505A, which will act
`to mask 503 until 504A is reached. 504A is
`designed as an etch stop in -- in 512. So
`505A does act as – as the mask for 503.
`
`EX2040 20:13-20.
`
`’696 Specification
`“Then, the patterned second organic film
`505A and the first organic film 503 are
`dry-etched using the mask pattern 509 and
`the patterned first silicon dioxide film 504A
`as respective masks, thereby forming a
`patterned second organic film 505B having
`wiring grooves 511 and a patterned first
`organic film 503A having contact holes 512 as
`shown in FIG. 23(c).”
`
`EX1001 24:7-13.
`
`See also, e.g., 1376: Observations1 ¶3; 1377: Observations2 ¶3; 1378: Observations3 ¶3; 1379: Observations4 ¶3.
`
`15
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly ignores, the figures of the ’696 Patent (cont.)
`• And Petitioner’s expert again admits a layer can act as a mask even when the specification does
`not refer to the layer as a mask:
`
`Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s
`Expert
`Q Going back to my question. Is film
`605A being used as a mask in etching
`film 603?
`
`A Prior to reaching 604A, the opening in
`605 -- in 605A will act to mask etching
`until that film is removed, until that
`film is completely removed.
`
`EX2040 21:18-22:1.
`
`’696 Figures
`
`’696 Specification
`
`“Then, the patterned second organic film
`605A and the first organic film 603 are
`dry-etched using the mask pattern 608
`and the patterned silicon dioxide film
`604A as respective masks, thereby forming
`a patterned second organic film 605B
`having wiring grooves 610 and a patterned
`first organic film 603A having contact holes
`611 as shown in FIG. 32(b).”
`
`EX1001 29:6-12.
`
`See also, e.g., 1376: Observations1 ¶4; 1377: Observations2 ¶4; 1378: Observations3 ¶4; 1379: Observations4 ¶4.
`
`16
`
`

`

`•
`
`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by, and Petitioner’s interpretation
`improperly ignores, the specification of the ’696 Patent
`The ’696 specification describes, but does not depict, using mask pattern 509 “as a mask”:
`’696 Specification
`’696 Figures
`“Then, as shown in FIG. 22(b), a second resist pattern 510,
`having openings for forming contact holes, is formed by
`lithography on the mask pattern 509. Thereafter, the second
`silicon dioxide film 506 is dry-etched using the second resist
`pattern 510 and the mask pattern 509 as a mask, thereby
`forming a patterned second silicon dioxide film 506A having
`openings for forming contact holes as shown in FIG. 22(c).”
`EX1001 Figs. 22(b)-(c).
`EX1001 23:39-46.
`See also, e.g., 1376: Reply1 at 8; SmithReply1 ¶23; 1377: Reply2 at 8; SmithReply2 ¶23;
`1378: Reply3 at 8; SmithReply3 ¶23; 1379: Reply4 at 8; SmithReply4 ¶23.
`Petitioner’s expert argued: “The statement in IPB’s Preliminary Response that ‘there are other cross-
`sections in which the second resist pattern and the mask pattern, shown in one cross-section in
`Figures 22(b) and 22(c), either have edges lined up and flush with one another that are used to etch
`the second silicon dioxide film (EX1001 at 17:50-62, 19:63-20:8), or are ‘offset’ such that the second resist
`pattern and the mask pattern are both used to define areas for etching” (Paper 6 at 42) is untrue, as even
`Dr. Glew admits. Glew Deposition at 97:12–99:21.’”
`
`SmithReply1 ¶24; SmithReply2 ¶24; SmithReply3 ¶24; SmithReply4 ¶24;
`see also e.g., 1376: Reply1 at 8; 1377: Reply2 at 8; 1378: Reply3 at 8; 1379: Reply4 at 8.
`• But Petitioner’s expert admitted during cross-examination (while discussing Grill):
`Q So other cross-sections going into the page might look different than what's shown in these figures,
`depending on where that cross-section was taken?
`A Sure.
`
`EX2040 53:2-53:6.
`See also, e.g., EX1047 98:21-99:2 (Glew testifying regarding what is shown in “Figure 22-B and C”);
`17
`1376: Observations1 ¶11; 1377: Observations2 ¶11; 1378: Observations3 ¶11; 1379: Observations4 ¶11.
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Petitioner’s interpretation of “using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” is
`impermissibly narrower than the district court construction under Phillips
`Federal Circuit: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or
`broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower. Thus, the
`Board's construction cannot be the broadest reasonable one.”
`
`Facebook v. Pragmatus AV, 582 Fed.App’x 864, 868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 14-15; 1377: POR2 at
`14-15; 1378: POR3 at 14-15; 1379: POR4 at 14-15.
`
`Petitioner’s Interpretation
`The construction should exclude the situation where:
`
`“a buried layer a buried layer ‘define[s] areas for
`etching’ whenever it has a vertical sidewall ‘in line
`and flush with an edge of overlying layer’”
`
`District Court’s Phillips Construction
`“using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern
`and the mask pattern/patterned third insulating film]
`to define areas for etching”
`
`EX3002 22; see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 14-15; 1377: POR1 14-15; 1378:
`POR1 14-15; 1379: POR1 14-15.
`
`Reply1 at 3; Reply2 at 3; Reply3 at 3; Reply4 at 3.
`
`18
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Petitioner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the understanding of a POSITA
`• Claims 10 and 13 of the ’696 patent require, inter alia:
`“dry-etching the [fourth/third] insulating film using the second resist pattern and the mask pattern as a
`mask, thereby patterning the [fourth/third] insulating film to have the openings for forming contact
`holes;”
`EX1001 34:25-28, 35: 13-16.
`
`• Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Glew testified:
`“A [POSITA] would have understood that in an etching process, etchant
`does not flow in a perfectly vertical direction” and “in an anisotropic
`process, there is some amount of etchant that flows in a horizontal
`direction impacting against sidewalls of a pattern. Thus, a mask’s
`function is not only to define areas for etching by blocking the
`etchant at the mask’s top surface, but also to define areas for etching
`by blocking the etchant through its side surface.”
`Glew1 ¶¶63-64; Glew2 ¶¶63-64; Glew3 ¶¶63-64; Glew4 ¶¶63-64.
`“One example of an orientation where two layers act as a mask is when
`edges of the two layers line up—i.e., are “flush”—and an etchant
`extends down to a layer that underlies the two layers. In such an
`orientation, an interlayer material (the layer that is underlying the
`top layer) acts as a mask if at least some part of a side surface of
`the interlayer is exposed such that it substantially blocks the
`etchant from reaching certain areas, thereby defining an area for
`etching.”
`
`Glew1 ¶65; Glew2 ¶65; Glew3 ¶65; Glew4 ¶65. Glew1 ¶66; Glew2 ¶66; Glew3 ¶66; Glew4 ¶66.
`
`See also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 15-17; 1377: POR2 at 15-17; 1378: POR3 at 15-17; 1379: POR4 at 15-17.
`
`19
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Petitioner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the understanding of a POSITA (cont.)
`
`• As Dr. Glew testified, Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with the extrinsic evidence:
`“Contemporaneous dictionary definitions further support
`[Patent Owner’s] construction of ‘using the [designated layer[s]] as a
`mask.’ See, e.g., EX2001, 3 (defining masking as ‘[a]pplying a covering or
`coating on a semiconductor surface to provide a masked area for
`selective deposition or etching’); EX2002, 3 (defining a mask as ‘[a]
`device ... used to shield selected portions of a base during a deposition
`process,’ and a ‘template used to etch circuit patterns on semiconductor
`wafers’); EX2003, 4; EX2004, 3 (defining a mask as ‘[a]n object, stencil,
`or other device which is applied or placed upon a surface, so as to
`permit the selective passing of particles, beams, rays, substances, and so
`on, to form any desired patterns,’ and the use of said object ‘to
`selectively shield portions of semiconductor wafers, or other
`materials, during manufacturing’).”
`
`“A person or ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Layer
`1 and Layer 2 together act as ‘a pattern of opaque material used to
`shield selected areas of a surface (as of a semiconductor).’ EX3001
`(Merriam Webster Dictionary) 1.”
`Glew1 ¶¶47 (citing EX2002 3; EX2003 4; EX2004 4), 67 (citing EX3001 1);
`Glew2 ¶¶47 (citing EX2002 3; EX2003 4; EX2004 4), 67 (citing EX3001 1);
`Glew3 ¶¶47 (citing EX2002 3; EX2003 4; EX2004 4), 67 (citing EX3001 1);
`Glew4 ¶¶47 (citing EX2002 3; EX2003 4; EX2004 4), 67 (citing EX3001 1).
`See also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 9, 15-17; 1377: POR2 at 9, 15-17; 1378: POR3 at 9, 15-17; 1379: POR4 at 9, 15-17.
`
`Glew1 ¶66; Glew2 ¶66; Glew3 ¶66; Glew4 ¶66.
`
`20
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Both Petitioner’s expert and Dr. Glew agree that dry etching (e.g., reactive ion
`etching) includes lateral flow of etchant and lateral removal
`Petitioner and its expert purport to: “disagree with IPB and Dr. Glew when they
`speculate that a buried layer might be mask because of particles traveling laterally. One
`of the fundamental requirements for a successful dual damascene technology is the ability to
`perform highly anisotropic etches that faithfully reproduce specified patterns. The etches at
`issue here are highly directional, with minimal lateral deviation.”
`SmithReply1 ¶11; SmithReply2 ¶11; SmithReply3 ¶11; SmithReply4 ¶1; see also, e.g.,
`1376: Reply1 at 4-5; 1377: Reply2 at 4-5; 1378: Reply3 at 4-5; 1379: Reply1 at 4-5.
`
`• But, Petitioner’s expert testified:
`
`“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that reactive ion etching (RIE) is a dry etch.”
`
`Smith1 ¶199; Smith2 ¶229; Smith3 ¶194; Smith4 ¶231; see also, e.g., 1376: P1 at 46, 63; Smith1 ¶231; 1377: P2 at 53 n.4, 54, 66; Smith2 ¶269;
`1378: P3 at 39, 39 n.3; 1379: P4 at 63, 63 n.6; Smith4 ¶270.
`
`• And on cross examination, Petitioner’s expert agreed that RIE has “lateral flow of etchant” and
`“lateral removal”
`
`21
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Both Petitioner’s expert and Dr. Glew agree that dry etching (e.g., reactive ion
`etching) includes lateral flow of etchant and lateral removal (cont.)
`• On cross examination, Petitioner’s expert agreed that RIE has “lateral flow of etchant” and
`“lateral removal” (cont.)
`Q Can there be lateral flow of etchant in reactive ion etching?
`
`A The balance between the chemical and physical etching of an RIE process could allow for a -- could allow
`for chemical species to result in an anisotropy. In that case that would be a lateral effect, a lateral
`removal, which could be from the flow of -- or the motion of chemical species.
`
`EX2040 32:16-33:1; see also, e.g., 1376: Observations1 ¶5; 1377: Observations2 ¶5; 1378: Observations3 ¶5; 1379: Observations4 ¶5.
`
`Q We discussed before how there are both neutral and ionic species present in reactive ion etching. Is that
`correct?
`A That's right.
`
`And those neutral species will cause lateral removal. Is that correct?
`A They will -- well, it's not that simple. It's not one thing does one -- one species does one thing and
`another does another. It's the combination of the chemically reactive and chemically neutral species,
`it's the combination of the chemical etch and the physical etch, that result in things like the anisotropy
`of an RIE process.
`
`…Q
`
`Q So is it your testimony that both the neutral and ionic components contribute to lateral removal?
`A Yes, they work together. They work, as I said in my report, synergistically.
`
`EX2040 36:22-37:3, 37:18-38:9; see also, e.g., 1376: Observations1 ¶6; 1377: Observations2 ¶6; 1378: Observations3 ¶6; 1379: Observations4 ¶6.
`
`22
`
`

`

`“using the [designated layer[s]] as a mask” (’696 claims 10, 13)
`Petitioner’s interpretation is inconsistent with Petitioner’s expert’s
`prior publications
`• Petitioner’s expert’s textbook published in 1998 (EX2017) and 2007 (EX2018) states:
`Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Expert
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Textbook
`Q. So the multilayer resist that we're talking about here containing
`the imaging layer, the intermediate etch-stop layer, and the
`planarizing layer, what -- what does it etch?
`A. … After all is said and done, after the exposed developed and the
`two plasma reactive-ion etch steps, then that layer is defined to etch
`something underneath that. So in the diagram, that very bottom
`horizontal line would be whatever that substrate thin film
`material is. That then would be etched using this process.
`So this doesn't address what would be etched underneath that hasn't
`been etched yet. This is just defining that multiple layer --
`multiple layer resist.
`
`EX2010 64:5-65:8; see also, e.g.,
`1376: POR1 at 17-18; Glew1 ¶¶71-72; 1377: POR2 at 17-18; Glew2 ¶¶71-72;
`1378: POR3 at 17-18; Glew3 ¶¶71-72; 1379: POR4 at 17-18; Glew4 ¶¶71-72.
`
`EX2017 0060; EX2018 0018; see also, e.g., 1376: POR1
`at 17-18; Glew1 ¶¶71-72; 1377: POR2 at 17-18; Glew2
`¶¶71-72; 1378: POR3 at 17-18; Glew3 ¶¶71-72;
`1379: POR4 at 17-18; Glew4 ¶¶71-72.
`
`• Other textbooks similarly describe:
`“Multi-layer processing techniques, where layers of radiation sensitive (top), non-photosensitive organic,
`and/or inorganic materials sandwiched together [] become the total patterning layer…”
`EX2015 0007; see also, e.g., EX2027 0113; 1376: POR1 at 18; Glew1 ¶¶69, 73; Opp1 at 8-9; 1377: POR2 at 18; Glew2 ¶¶69, 73; Opp2 at 8-9;
`1378: POR3 at 18; Glew3 ¶¶69, 73; Opp3 at 8-9; 1379: POR4 at 18; Glew4 ¶¶69, 73; Opp4 at 8-9.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Grill in View of Aoyama [and Wetzel]:
`Grill Is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`
`24
`
`

`

`Grill in view of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ‘696 patent are fully supported by the ’696 Foreign
`Priority Document and are entitled to a priority date of March 26, 1998
`
`Claim 10
`A method for forming an
`interconnection structure,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`Claim 13
`A method for forming an
`interconnection
`structure, comprising the
`steps of:
`
`Foreign Priority Document (JP ’371) (EX1014)
`
`a) forming a first
`insulating film over
`lower-level metal
`interconnects;
`
`See EX1014 ¶¶[0089]-[0090], Fig.17(c);
`see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 21; Glew1 ¶78; 1377: POR2 at 21; Glew2 ¶78;
`1378: POR3 at 21; Glew3 ¶78; 1379: POR4 at 21; Glew4 ¶78.
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0090], Fig.15(a); see also, e.g., 1377: POR2 at 21; Glew2 ¶79;
`1379: POR4 at 21; Glew4 ¶79.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Grill in view of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ‘696 patent are fully supported by the ’696 Foreign
`Priority Document and are entitled to a priority date of March 26, 1998 (cont.)
`
`Claim 10
`b) forming a second
`insulating film, having a
`different composition
`than that of the first
`insulating film, over the
`first insulating film;
`
`Claim 13
`a) forming a first
`insulating film over
`lower-level metal
`interconnects;
`
`c) forming a third
`insulating film, having a
`different composition
`than that of the second
`insulating film, over the
`second insulating film;
`
`b) forming a second
`insulating film, having a
`different composition
`than that of the first
`insulating film, over the
`first insulating film;
`
`Foreign Priority Document (JP ’371) (EX1014)
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0090], Fig.15(a); see also, e.g.,
`1376: POR1 at 21; Glew1 ¶79; 1377: POR2 at 21-22; Glew2 ¶80;
`1378: POR3 at 21; Glew3 ¶79; 1379: POR4 at 21-22; Glew4 ¶80.
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0090], Fig.15(a); see also, e.g.,
`1376: POR1 at 21-22; Glew1 ¶80; 1377: POR2 at 22; Glew2 ¶81;
`1378: POR3 at 21-22; Glew3 ¶80; 1379: POR4 at 22; Glew4 ¶81.
`
`26
`
`

`

`Grill in view of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ‘696 patent are fully supported by the ’696 Foreign
`Priority Document and are entitled to a priority date of March 26, 1998 (cont.)
`
`Claim 10
`d) forming a fourth
`insulating film, having a
`different composition
`than that of the third
`insulating film, over the
`third insulating film;
`
`Claim 13
`c) forming a third
`insulating film, having a
`different composition
`than that of the second
`insulating film, over the
`second insulating film;
`
`e) forming a thin film
`over the fourth insulating
`film;
`
`d) forming a thin film
`over the third insulating
`film;
`
`Foreign Priority Document (JP ’371) (EX1014)
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0090], Fig.15(a); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 22; Glew1 ¶81;
`1377: POR2 at 22-23; Glew2 ¶82; 1378: POR3 at 22; Glew3 ¶81;
`1379: POR4 at 22-23; Glew4 ¶82.
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0090], Fig.15(a); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 23; Glew1 ¶82;
`1377: POR2 at 23; Glew2 ¶83; 1378: POR3 at 22; Glew3 ¶82;
`1379: POR4 at 23; Glew4 ¶83.
`
`27
`
`

`

`Grill in view of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ‘696 patent are fully supported by the ’696 Foreign
`Priority Document and are entitled to a priority date of March 26, 1998 (cont.)
`
`Claim 10
`f) forming a first resist
`pattern on the thin film,
`the first resist pattern
`having openings for
`forming wiring grooves;
`
`Claim 13
`e) forming a first resist
`pattern on the thin film,
`the first resist pattern
`having openings for
`forming wiring grooves;
`
`g) etching the thin film
`using the first resist
`pattern as a mask,
`thereby forming a mask
`pattern out of the thin
`film to have the openings
`for forming wiring
`grooves;
`
`f) etching the thin film
`using the first resist
`pattern as a mask,
`thereby forming a mask
`pattern out of the thin
`film to have the
`openings for forming
`wiring grooves;
`
`Foreign Priority Document (JP ’371) (EX1014)
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0092], Fig.15(b); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 23; Glew1 ¶83;
`1377: POR2 at 23; Glew2 ¶84; 1378: POR3 at 23; Glew3 ¶83;
`1379: POR4 at 23; Glew4 ¶84.
`
`See EX1014 ¶[0092], Fig.15(c); see also, e.g., 1376: POR1 at 23; Glew1 ¶84;
`1377: POR2 at 23-24; Glew2 ¶85; 1378: POR3 at 23; Glew3 ¶84;
`1379: POR4 at 23-24; Glew4 ¶85.
`
`28
`
`

`

`Grill in view of Aoyama [and Wetzel]: Grill is Not Prior Art to the ’696 Patent
`Claims 10 and 13 of the ‘696 patent are fully supported by the ’696 Foreign
`Priority Document and are entitled to a priority date of March 26, 1998 (cont.)
`
`Claim 10
`h) removing the first
`resist pattern and then
`forming a second resist
`pattern on the fourth
`insulating film and the
`mask pattern, the second
`resist pattern having
`openings for forming
`contact holes;
`
`Claim 13
`g) removing the first
`resist pattern and then
`forming a second resist
`pattern on the third
`insulating film and the
`mask pattern, the second
`resist pattern having
`openings for forming
`contact holes;
`
`Foreign Priority Document (JP ’371) (EX1014)
`
`See EX