`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
`v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01376, -01377, -01378, -01379
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`2
`
`
`
`Interconnection Technology
` Wiring Levels Have Wiring Patterns (i.e., Trenches) (A, C)
` Via Layers Have Contact Holes (i.e., Vias) (B)
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1003, FIG. 6
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, FIG. 6A
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 2–3; IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, at 2–3; IPR2016-01378, Paper 2, at 2–3; IPR2016-
`01379, Paper 2, at 2–3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dual Damascene Technology
` Dual Damascene Processes Allow Vias and Trenches to be
`Made in Same Module
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, FIG. 1L
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1006, FIG. 6(c)
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1007, FIG. 5
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1006, FIG. 9
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 4; IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, at 4; IPR2016-01378, Paper 2, at 4; IPR2016-01379,
`Paper 2, at 4.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Self-Aligned Contact Holes
` Resist Pattern Ensures Via Openings are the Designed Width
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1040, FIG. 6
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1018, FIGS. 19A, 19B
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1001, FIG. 36
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1039, FIG. 1
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 35–36, 54–55, 70–74; IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at FIG. 36; IPR2016-
`01376, EX1018, at FIGS. 19A, 19B IPR2016-01376, EX1039, at FIG. 1; IPR2016-01376, EX1040, at FIG. 6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`References and Instituted Grounds
`REFERENCES
`Application Date
`
`Inventor
`
`IPR Number
`
`Grill et al.
`Aoyama et al.
`Weztel et al.
`IPR2016-01376
`IPR2016-01377
`IPR2016-01378
`IPR2016-01379
`
`July 30, 1998*
`October 28, 1994
`August 29, 1997
`Grill, Aoyama
`Grill, Aoyama
`Grill, Aoyama
`Grill, Aoyama, Wetzel
`
`GROUNDS
`Prior Art
`
`*Grill claims priority to the filing date of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 60/071,628, filed on
`January 16, 1998.
`
`Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,140,226
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,024
`U.S. Patent No. 5,920,790
`13 and 15
`10–12
`13 and 14
`10 and 12
`
`Claims
`
`6
`
`Institution Decisions, IPR2016-01376, Paper 11, at 43; IPR2016-01377, Paper 11, at 44; IPR2016-01378,
`Paper 11, at 44; IPR2016-01379, Paper 11, at 45.
`
`
`
`Structure of the Petitions
`
`Different Layer Mappings + Different Claim Sets
`
`Claims 13 and 15
`(No Optional Layer 7)
`
`Claims 10–12
`(No Optional Layer 7)
`
`Claims 13 and 14
`
`Claims 10 and 12
`
`See, e.g., Petitions, IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 75; IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, at 83; IPR2016-01378, Paper
`2, at 68; IPR2016-01379, Paper 2, at 81.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Uncontested Issues
` Claim Construction
`
` Disclosure of Claim Limitations
`
`The parties do not dispute the language of the Board’s
`construction, only its application
`IPB does not dispute the proposed combinations satisfy all
`limitations of the challenged claims
`IPB raises no issue about Wetzel
`Patent Owner did not argue that any dependent claim is
`entitled to an earlier priority date
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition
`
`
`See generally, e.g., Petition, IPR2016-01376, Paper 2; Patent Owner’s Response, IPR2016-01376, Paper 19;
`Reply, IPR2016-01376, Paper26.
`
` Wetzel
`
` Dependent Claims
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`8
`
`
`
`Contested Issues
` Priority of Challenged Claims
`
`Whether the claims of the ’696 patent are entitled to
`
`the benefit of the Japanese ’371 application
` Whether the effective date for Grill under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(e) (pre-AIA) is the date of its provisional ’628
`application
` Motivation to Combine
` Whether there is sufficient motivation to combine Grill
`and Aoyama
`
`See generally, e.g., Petition, IPR2016-01376, Paper 2; Patent Owner’s Response, IPR2016-01376, Paper 19;
`Reply, IPR2016-01376, Paper26.
`
`9
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`10
`
`
`
`Grill Is Almost Identical to Embodiment 5 of the ’696 Patent
`Grill
`
`’696 Patent
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at FIGS. 21(a)–22(b); IPR2016-01377, EX1005, at FIGS. 5A–5D.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Grill Is Almost Identical to Embodiment 5 of the ’696 Patent
`Grill
`
`’696 Patent
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at FIGS. 22(c)–23(c); IPR2016-01377, EX1005, at FIGS. 5E–5H.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Grill Is Almost Identical to Embodiment 5
`Grill
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at FIGS. 23(d); IPR2016-01377, EX1005, at FIGS. 1J–1L.
`
`13
`
`’696 Patent
`
`
`
`Aoyama Addresses the Same Problem as the ’696 Patent
`
`Aoyama, FIGS. 5B, 5D
`
`’696 Patent, Fig. 37(b)
`
`See, e.g., Petitions, IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 73; IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, at 76; IPR2016-01378, Paper
`2, at 47; IPR2016-01379, Paper 2, at 78.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Aoyama Provides the Same Solution as ’696 Patent
`
`Aoyama, FIGS. 18B, 19A
`
`’696 Patent, Figs. 25(c), 37(b)
`
`See, e.g., Petitions, IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 74; IPR2016-01377, Paper 2, at 77; IPR2016-01378, Paper
`2, at 48; IPR2016-01379, Paper 2, at 79.
`
`15
`
`
`
`PRIORITY
`PRIORITY
`
`16
`
`
`
`Priority Timeline
`
`Grill
`Provisional
`
`JP ’371
`
`Grill
`
`’696 Patent
`
`1/16/98
`
`3/26/98
`
`7/30/98
`
`3/23/99
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 19–20, 28; IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at 1 (fields 22 and 30); IPR2016-
`01376, EX1005, at 1 (fields 22 and 60).
`
`17
`
`
`
`The Burdens for Proving Priority Are Clear
`
`Once Petitioner shows a reference is prior art, the burden
`of production shifts to Patent Owner to show the
`challenged claims benefit from earlier priority
` Tech. Licensing Corp. v. VideoTek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008)
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 2–3.
`
`18
`
`
`
`The Burdens for Proving Priority Are Clear
`
`Once Petitioner shows a reference is prior art, the
`burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to show
`the challenged claims benefit from earlier priority
` Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–
`80 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`19
`
`
`
`The Burdens for Proving Priority Are Clear
`
`Once Petitioner shows a reference is prior art, the
`burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to show
`the challenged claims benefit from earlier priority.
` Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–
`80 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Identifying a Priority Document Does Not Shift Burdens
`
` Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 2–3.
`
`21
`
`
`
`The Board Follows the Same Law
`
` Core Survival, Inc. v. S&S Precision, LLC, PGR2015-
`00022, Paper 8, 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Board Follows the Same Law
`
` Core Survival, Inc. v. S&S Precision, LLC, PGR2015-
`00022, Paper 8, 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`23
`
`
`
`The Board Follows the Same Law
`
` Core Survival, Inc. v. S&S Precision, LLC, PGR2015-
`00022, Paper 8, 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`24
`
`
`
`The Board Follows the Same Law
`
` Core Survival, Inc. v. S&S Precision, LLC, PGR2015-
`00022, Paper 8, 9 & n.3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 2–3.
`
`25
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Not Entitled
`to Claim Priority to the Japanese ’371
`
`Application
`
`26
`
`
`
`The Disclosure in Japanese ’371 Does Not
`
`Support Claims 10 or 13
`
`27
`
`
`
`Board’s Claim Construction of “Using . . . as a Mask”
`Institution Decision
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 11, at 15.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Board’s Claim Construction of “Using . . . as a Mask”
`Institution Decision
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 11, at 18 & n.7.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Support: Steps 10(i) and 13(h)
`• Japanese ’371 teaches etching the intermediate layer
`to prevent it from acting as a mask
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0096
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 10
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26 at 10; IPR2016-01376, EX1014 at ¶0096; IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at
`24–26; IPR2016-01376, EX2012 at 35:12–23.
`
`30
`
`
`
`JP ’371 Teaches To Avoid Using the Intermediate Layer As a Mask
` The process is intended to proceed in this manner:
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1014, at FIG. 16(a)
`IPR2016-01376, EX1014, at FIG. 16(b)
` When there is misalignment that may expose layer 358,
`the patent says to remove the exposed part of layer 358:
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 24–26
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1014, at ¶0093, FIGS. 16(a), 16(b); IPR2016-01376, EX2012, at 34:10–19,
`FIGS. 16(a), 16(b); IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 24–26; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 10.
`
`31
`
`
`
`The Correction Prevents Layer 358 from Acting as a Mask
`
`Defines the Area for Etching
`
`Does Not Define the Area for Etching
`
`Area for Etching
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 12
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 10–12; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶29–33.
`
`32
`
`
`
`JP ’371 Says Only That Layer 359 Is a Mask For Etching Layer 355
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0093
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0096
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1014, at ¶¶0093, 0096; IPR2016-01376, EX2012, at 34:10–19, 34:10–19,
`35:12–23.
`
`33
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Support: Steps 10(j) and 13(i)
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0096
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 12
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26 at 12; IPR2016-01376, EX1014 at ¶0096; IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at
`27–28; IPR2016-01376, EX2012 at 35:12–23.
`
`34
`
`
`
`The JP ’371 Application Describes Overetch
`Only layer 359 is identified as the mask for etching layer 354.
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0093
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 13
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26 at 13; IPR2016-01376, EX1014 at ¶0093; IPR2016-01376, EX2012 at
`34:10–19; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶36.
`
`35
`
`
`
`Only One Layer Is Named As a Mask, Not Two Layers
` Example: In this example, layers 354A and 355A are both identified as
`masks for etching layer 353 because layer 355A is completely
`removed before layer 353 is patterned, making layer 354A a mask.
`
`JP ’371 Application, ¶0094
`
`50 nm SiO2
`1,000 nm SiO2
`
`JP ’371 Application, Fig. 16(b)
`
`JP ’371 Application, Fig. 16(c)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 13; IPR2016-01376, EX1014 at ¶¶0090, 0093, 0094; IPR2016-
`01376, EX2012 at 33:20–21, 33:23–24, 34:10–27; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶36; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`35, at 2–3; IPR2016-01376, EX2040, at 57:22–60:3.
`
`36
`
`
`
`Embodiments of the ’696 Patent
`
`37
`
` The ’696 patent contains the following:
` First Embodiment (EX1001 at 10:23–14:56, FIGS. 1(a)–8(c))
` Second Embodiment (EX1001 at 14:57–16:38, FIGS. 9(a)–11(c))
` Third Embodiment (EX1001 at 16:40–18:58, FIGS. 12(a)–14(c))
` Modified Example of Third Embodiment (EX1001 at 18:60–
`20:49, FIGS. 15(a)–17(c))
` Fourth Embodiment (EX1001 at 20:51–22:44, FIGS. 18(a)–20(c))
` Claims 1–9 (EX1001 at 32:11–33:67)
` Fifth Embodiment (EX1001 at 22:45–24:51, FIGS. 21(a)–23(d))
` Modified Example of Fifth Embodiment (EX1001 at 24:53–
`27:60, FIGS. 24(a)–29(b))
` Sixth Embodiment (EX1001 at 27:62–29:60, FIGS. 30(a)–32(c))
` Modified Example of Sixth Embodiment (EX1001 at 29:62–
`32:9, FIGS. 33(a)–35(c))
` Claims 10–15 (EX1001 at 34:1–36:18)
`Support for claims 10 and 13
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 20–21. Compare also, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001, with IPR2016-
`01376, EX1014 and IPR2016-01376, EX2012.
`
`
`
`The Board’s Construction is Proper
`
`38
`
`
`
`Summary of the Specification’s Inconsistencies
` Patent Owner Identified Three Examples of an
`Intermediate Layer With a Flush Sidewall Being Called a
`“Mask”
`
` Petitioner Identified Seven Examples of an Intermediate
`Layer With a Flush Sidewall not Being Called a “Mask”
`
`’696 Patent at 17:30–40, FIGS. 13(b), 13(c)
`’696 Patent at 19:40–49, FIGS. 16(c), 16(d)
`’696 Patent at 26:22–29, FIGS. 28(b), 29(a) (not in JP ’371)
`’696 Patent at 11:51–55, FIGS. 2(c), 3(a)
`’696 Patent at 13:37–41, FIGS. 6(a), 6(b)
`’696 Patent at 14:41–45, FIGS. 8(a), 8(b)
`’696 Patent at 16:7–11, FIGS. 10(c), 11(a)
`’696 Patent at 17:20–29, FIGS. 13(a), 13(b)
`’696 Patent at 19:33–40, FIGS. 16(a), 16(b)
`’696 Patent at 21:33–39, FIGS. 18(c), 19(a)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶ 20–28; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 8–9.
`
`39
`
`
`
`’696 Patent Error in Identifying a Mask
`At Least One Incorrect Description: Layer 509 is not a “mask”
`
`’696 Patent, 23:40–46
`
`’696 Patent, Fig. 22(b)
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001 at 23:40–46, FIGS. 22(b), 22(c); IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶ 23–26;
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 13–14.
`
`’696 Patent, Fig. 22(c)
`
`40
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Agrees Layer 509 Is Not a Mask
`Dr. Glew’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1047, at 95:4–96:21
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 8; IPR2016-01376, Paper 35, at 11–12; IPR2016-01376, EX1047, at
`95:10–99:21.
`
`41
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Agrees Layer 509 Is Not a Mask
`
`Dr. Glew’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1047, at 98:21–99:9
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1047, at 99:10–21
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1047, at 95:10–99:21.
`
`42
`
`
`
`’696 Patent Error in Identifying a Mask
`At Least One Incorrect Description: Layer 509 is not a “mask”
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1049 at ¶25
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1001 at 23:40–46, FIGS. 22(b), 22(c); IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶25.
`
`43
`
`
`
`The Experts Agree Layer 509 Is Not a Mask
`Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1049 at ¶26
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶26.
`
`44
`
`
`
`Inconsistent Disclosures Do Not Alter Plain Meaning
`
` These Inconsistencies Do Not Justify Modifying the
`Board’s Claim Construction
`
` Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“The patentee cannot rely on its own use of inconsistent and
`confusing language in the specification to support a broad claim
`construction which is otherwise foreclosed.”).
` Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agro Sciences LLC, 728 F.3d 1324, 1328–29
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The patent and its history, however, do not clearly indicate
`that the patent uses the language at issue without its accepted scientific
`descriptive meaning. On the contrary, Bayer’s usage in the intrinsic record is
`at the very best inconsistent. Much of it actually reinforces the
`straightforward descriptive meaning of the claim terms. . . . The conclusion
`we draw is that there is no clear message that the patent gives Bayer’s broad
`meaning to [the term] in place of the term’s accepted scientific meaning.”).
` Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`(“It is clear from the entirety of the written description that this is not an
`accurate statement. . . . [It] therefore does not alter our construction, which
`is based on the entire written description.”).
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 8–9.
`
`45
`
`
`
`Anisotropic Etches for Dual Damascene
`
`Processes
`
`46
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Theory of Masking is Flawed
` An intermediate layer with flush edges cannot
`prevent undercutting of the layer being etched
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 5
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 4–6; IPR-2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶11–15.
`
`47
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Explain How the Intermediate Layer is a Mask
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶12
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 4–6; IPR-2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶11–15.
`
`48
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶15
`
`
`
`Dual Damascene is Very Anisotropic
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1006, at 6:19–23
`
`Smith Dep. Tr. at 23:6–17
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 3–4, 6; IPR2016-01376, EX2040 at 26:20–27:12, IPR2016-01376,
`EX1006 at 6:19–23, FIG. 5(a); IPR2016-01376, EX1011 at 4:9–15.
`
`49
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1011, at 4:9–15
`
`
`
`RIE Allows for Very Anisotropic Etch Profiles
`
`Smith Dep. Tr. at 22:6–12
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶14
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX2040 at 26:20–27:12; IPR2016-01376, EX1049 at ¶14; IPR2016-01376, EX1030,
`at 40–42.
`
`50
`
`
`
`Multi-Layer Resist Processes
`
`51
`
`
`
`Why Tri-Layer Resists Are Irrelevant
`
` Tri-Layer Resist Process:
` Three Layers:
`
`Bottom Planarizing Layer
`Middle Etch-Stop Layer
`Top Photoresist Layer
` Step 1: Expose and Develop Top Photoresist Layer
` Step 2: Etch the Resist Pattern Into the Middle Etch-Stop
`Layer Using the Top Photoresist as the Mask
` Step 3: Etch the Pattern Into the Bottom Planarizing Layer
`Using the Middle Etch-Stop Layer as a Mask.
`The Middle Etch-Stop Layer Is a Mask Because the Top Photoresist
`Layer Comes Off First, Not Because of Its Sidewalls
`Nothing In Any of the Evidence Suggests an Intermediate Layer Is a
`Mask During a Subsequent Etch
`
`
`
`
` Note:
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1032, at 14; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, ¶¶16–19.
`
`52
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Dr. Smith’s Book
`
`Contrary to the additional negative limitation and Petitioner’s expert’s (Dr.
`
`Smith) arguments during his deposition, Petitioner’s expert has admitted in prior
`
`1Trilayer system
`
`publications that a “multiple layer resist” having flush edges can be used to define
`a “substrate film material” to be etched—i.e., can be used as a mask. -EX2018642-lnaaginng layer
`—_——
`rior aboh
`
`643,657:EX2010 49:6-50:9; EX2009 70-71: see also EX2017 574, 592. For
`Planarcing layer
`
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Dr Smiths Book
`Subsiiale
`
` YeSee,e.g.,IPR2016-01376, Paper19, at17;IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at18-19.
`
`
`12.3 Wet-Development/Dry-Pattern Transfer Approaches to Multilayers
`Anisotropic pattern transfercan allow significant improvementoverthe isotropic proces-
`sing of wet-etched multilayer approaches. Through the use of a plasma-reactive-ion-etch
`(RIE) pattern transfer process, near anisotropy can be approached, allowing high-aspect
`
`
`
`
`
`ratio, fine-feature resolution [12,13].
`This etch-stop layer can be a spin-on organosilicon
`compound (spin-on glass), a low-temperature oxide, a silicon oxinitride, or a metallic
`layer, which provide oxygen etch resistance. A thin resist imaging layer is coated over
`
`
`this etch-stop, exposed,andlwet developed.Patterntransferinteimediate/etchointolthe
`
`
`
`
`
`ariations on this technique have been used for both
`
`optical and electron beam applications [14].
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 19 (643)
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 19 (643)
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18 (642)
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18 (642)
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 17; IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18–19.
`
`53
`
`0)
`
`
`
`Dr. Smith Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 61:14–19
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 62:15–63:2
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 17–18; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1049,
`at ¶17; IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 60:22–65:8.
`
`54
`
`
`
`Dr. Smith Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 62:2–14
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 64:9–65:8
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 17–18; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1049,
`at ¶17; IPR2016-01376, EX2010, at 60:22–65:8.
`
`55
`
`
`
`Source Material Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1045, at 3
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 46
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–8 & n.2; IPR2016-01376, EX2017, at 61, 96; IPR2016-01376,
`EX2018, at 18–19, 46; IPR2016-01376, EX1045, at 3; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶18.
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1045, at 3
`56
`
`
`
`Source Material Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 47
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1044, at 3
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–8 & n.2; IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 47; IPR2016-01376, EX1044, at
`3–4; IPR2016-01376, EX2017, at 97.
`
`57
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1044, at 4
`
`
`
`Source Material Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 47
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1046, at 3
`IPR2016-01376, EX1046, at 2
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–8 & n.2; IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 47; IPR2016-01376, EX1046, at
`2–3.
`
`58
`
`
`
`Independent Evidence Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1032, at 14
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1032, at 14.
`
`59
`
`
`
`Independent Evidence Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1031, at 41
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1031, at 70
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1031, at 41, 70.
`
`60
`
`
`
`Independent Evidence Confirms Dr. Smith’s Testimony
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1033, at FIGS. 1–4
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1033, at FIGS. 1–4
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1033, at 3:20–49
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 6–7; IPR2016-01376, EX1033, at 3:20–49, FIGS. 1–4.
`
`61
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2015 Describes the Same Processes
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2015, at 8
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2015, at 7
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 18; IPR2016-01376, EX2015, at 7–8.
`
`62
`
`
`
`Grill’s 102(e) Date Is January 16, 1998
`Grill’s 102(e) Date Is January 16, 1998
`
`63
`
`
`
`“Concurrently”
` Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`provisional application teaches etching or
`transferring the via pattern into carbon-
`containing dielectric layer 12 (“second dielectric
`layer”) while etching or removing photoresist
`layer 62 (“via-patterned second layer of resist”).
`EX1018, pp. 12, 15
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 37–40; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 20–22 & n.6; IPR2016-01376,
`Paper 35, at 7–9; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶¶44–53 & n.1.
`
`64
`
`
`
` “Removal”
`
`while concurrently removing said via-patterned
`
`Patent Owner argues the limitation in claim 28 of
`transferring said via pattern in said patterned first
`hard mask layer into said second dielectric layer,
`second layer of resist” requires “completely”
`removing layer 62.
`Claim 28, however, does not have the word
`“completely” before “removing.”
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 39–40; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 21 n.6; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`35, at 7–9; IPR2016-01376, EX1049, at ¶46 n.1.
`
`65
`
`
`
`“Partially Concurrently”: Different Context
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1017, at cl. 28
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1017, at cl. 28
`
`•
`
`“transferring . . . while concurrently
`removing” means there is no time while
`etching layer 12 that resist layer 62 is not
`also being etched
`• Allows for layer 12 etch to finish before
`layer 62 removal finishes, but not vice
`versa (which makes sense because layer
`62 is the etch mask)
`
`• “transferring, at least partially
`concurrently, [two layers]” means there
`exists a time during which both layer 12
`and layer 8 are being etched
`• Allows for either layer to finish etching
`before the other (which makes sense
`because they likely have different
`thicknesses)
`
`12
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX2040, at 45:1–6, 46:4–48:5; IPR2016-01376, Paper 35, at 7–9.
`
`66
`
`
`
`A Comparison of Grill and Its Provisional Parent
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2011, at 13–15
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX2011, at 13–15.
`
`67
`
`
`
`These Minor Changes Do Not Constitute New Matter
` “Patterned second resist layer 62 is absent from FIG. 5F because
`it is typically removed by the etching process used to pattern
`dielectric 12.”
` This occurs whenever an organic photoresist is used
`(and organic resists are generally implied, unless
`specified otherwise)
` The statement clarifies that atypical situations are
`within the scope of the invention (e.g., inorganic
`resists are within the scope of the invention)
` That it would be unusual for layer 62 not to be
`removed by the process for etching layer 12 shows a
`POSITA already would have understood the disclosure
`of a process in which layer 62 is removed
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1017, at 11
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1017, at 11, 15, FIGS. 5E, 5F; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 20–22; IPR2016-
`01376, EX1049, at ¶¶44–53.
`
`68
`
`
`
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`69
`
`
`
`Combining Grill and Aoyama
` The Petitions and Institution Decisions explain
`why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Grill and Aoyama:
`
`Both references are directed to the problems of lithographic
`misalignment and avoiding rework
`Grill teaches how to use dual hard masks so rework does
`not damage carbon-containing interlevel dielectric films
`Aoyama reduces the probability of requiring rework
`The Grill and Aoyama solutions are complementary.
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 52–56; IPR2016-01376, EX1002, at ¶¶157–65; IPR2016-01377, Paper
`2, at 39–42; IPR2016-01377, EX1002, at ¶¶183–91; IPR2016-01378, Paper 2, at 46–49; IPR2016-01378,
`EX1002, at ¶¶157–65; IPR2016-01379, Paper 2, at 36–37, 54–59; IPR2016-01379, EX1002, at ¶¶188–96.
`
`70
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Technical Errors
`
`71
`
`•Patent Owner and its expert mistakenly argued the
`combination of references would cause the silicon oxide
`upper hard mask in Grill to etch faster than the silicon
`nitride lower hard mask in the presence of a silicon
`nitride etching process
` •This conclusion resulted because Patent Owner and its
`expert inverted the definition of selectivity, and
`reversed SiO2 and Si3N4 etches
` •Instead, as one would expect, a selective silicon nitride
`etch removes a silicon nitride mask faster than a silicon
`oxide mask.
`
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 58; IPR2016-01376, EX2009, at ¶¶156.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Misunderstands the Terminology
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1030, at 27
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 24–27; IPR2016-01376, EX1030, at 27.
`
`72
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Misunderstands the Terminology
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2020, at 27 (556)
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2009, at ¶155
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX2009, at ¶155; IPR2016-01376, EX2020, at 27; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at
`24–27.
`
`73
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Example Is not a Si3N4 Etch
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2014, at 2
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2014, at Fig. 2
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX2009, at ¶155; IPR2016-01376, EX2014, at 2, Fig. 2; IPR2016-01376, Paper
`26, at 24–27.
`
`74
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Misinterprets Grill’s Figures 5F and 5G
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at 7:30–38
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at 8:20–32
`
`No Thinning
`of Layer 68
`
`66
`
`68
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at FIGS. 5F, 5G
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at FIGS. 6E, 6F
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 26; IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at 7:30–38, 8:20–32, FIGS. 5F, 5G, 6E, 6F.
`
`75
`
`
`
`Grill-Aoyama Does Not Defeat Grill’s Purpose
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 52
`
`*Patent Owner never provided any technical reason why this distinction would matter.
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 50–54.
`
`76
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Ignores the Third Dimension
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 24
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at 7:16–30
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 23–24; IPR2016-01376, EX1005, at 7:16–30.
`
`77
`
`
`
`Grill-Aoyama Does Not Defeat Grill’s Principles of Operation
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 60
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 54–64.
`
`78
`
`
`
`Aoyama Does Not Teach Away From Grill-Aoyama
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 66
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 65–71.
`
`79
`
`
`
`Grill-Aoyama Has an Equivalent Layer
`
`58
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 69
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 62
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 65–71; IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 62; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 27.
`
`80
`
`
`
`Grill Does Not Teach Away From Grill-Aoyama
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 71–73.
`
`81
`
`
`
`Grill Does Not Teach Away From Grill-Aoyama
`300 nm to 1,000 nm
`~20 nm to 50 nm
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 29
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 30
`
`• Comparing the lithography over a 300 nm to 1,000 nm step against a 20 nm to
`50 nm step is inappropriate. The resist is about 1,000 nm to 2,000 nm thick.
`• Accommodating a small 20 nm to 50 nm step would have been trivial.
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 71–73; IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 28–31; IPR2016-01376,
`EX1049, at ¶¶73–74.
`
`82
`
`
`
`The ’696 Patent is in Agreement
`
`IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 30–31
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 26, at 30–31; IPR2016-01376, EX1001, at 24:60–25:11, 25:36–65, Fig.
`27(b).
`
`83
`
`
`
`Accommodating Much Larger Steps Was Routine
`
`500 nm step
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX1030, at 22
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, EX1030, at 22.
`
`84
`
`
`
`TSMC’S REPLY IS PROPER
`
`TSMC’S REPLY IS PROPER
`
`85
`
`
`
`Propriety of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Alleged “New”
`Argument (Paper 36, at 1)
`
`Petition lacked priority argument (referring
`to Grill’s 102(e) date)
`Reply 14:8–22:15; Ex. 1036; Ex. 1037; Ex. 1038; Ex.
`1049 ¶¶37-54
`New priority arguments
`Reply at 17, 19, 21:4–15; EX1036; EX1037; EX1038;
`EX1049 ¶¶46–52
`New combination/success arguments
`regarding “dual relief” cavity
`Reply 22:16–23:2; EX1039; EX1040
`New combination/success arguments
`regarding Aoyama’s carbon etch stopper
`Reply 22:16–23:2; EX1039; EX1040
`
`Petitioner’s Response
`
`No such burden in Petition; responsive to Patent
`Owner’s priority allegations
`Paper 19, at 18–4; see also Petition (Paper 2), at 28–29
`n.3; EX1002, at ¶153, App’x B; Paper 9, at 1–3
`No such burden in Petition; responsive to Patent
`Owner’s priority allegations
`Paper 19, at 18–4; see also Petition (Paper 2), at 28–29
`n.3; EX1002, at ¶153, App’x B; Paper 9, at 1–3
`Responsive to Patent Owner’s “dual relief”
`arguments
`Paper 19, at 50–54 & n.22
`Responsive to Patent Owner’s carbon etch
`stopper arguments
`Paper 19, at 65–71
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 36, at 1; IPR2016-01376, Paper 2, at 28–29 n.3; IPR2016-01376, EX1002, at
`¶153, App’x B; IPR2016-01376, Paper 9, at 1–3; IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 18–47, 50–54 & n.22, 65–71.
`
`86
`
`
`
`CLAIM MAPPING
`
`CLAIM MAPPING
`
`87
`
`
`
`CLAIMS
`
`88
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`[10.1]
`[10.1]
`
`[10.2]
`[10.2]
`
`[10.3]
`[10.3]
`
`
`
`
`10. A method for forming an interconnection structure,
`comprising the steps of:
`a) forming, a first insulating film over lower-level metal
`interconnects;
`b) forming a second insulating film, having a different
`composition than that of the first insulating film, over
`ihe first insulating film;
`c) forming a third insulating film, having a different
`composition than that of the second insulating film,
`over the second insulating film;
`d) forming a fourth insulating film, having a different
`composition than that of the third insulating film, over
`the third insulating film;
`[10.6]
`e) forming a thin film over the fourth insulating film;
`[10.6]
`[10.7]
`f) formingafirst resist pattern on the thin film, the first
`[10.7]
`resist pattern having openings for forming wiring
`grooves;
`
`[10.4]
`[10.4]
`
`[10.5]
`[10.5]
`
`89
`
`\_ EX1001 at 34:1-49,
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`[10.8]
`[10.8]
`
`[10.9]
`[10.9]
`
`[10.10]
`[10.10]
`
`
`
`
`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;
`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;
`i) dry-etching the fourth insulating film using the second
`resist pattern and the mask pattern as a mask, thereby
`patterning the fourth insulating film to have the open-
`ings for forming contact holes;
`j) dry-etching the third insulating film using the patterned
`fourth insulating film as a mask, thereby patterning the
`third insulating film to have the openings for forming
`contact holes;
`k) dry-etching the patterned fourth insulating film and the
`second insulating film using the mask pattern and the
`patterned third insulating film as respective masks,
`thereby forming wiring groovesin the patterned fourth
`insulating, film and patterning the second insulating
`film to have the openings for forming contact holes;
`
`
`[10.11]
`[10.11]
`
`[10.12]
`[10.12]
`
`\_ EX1001 at 34:1-49,
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`
`
`
`90
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`[10.13]
`[10.13]
`
`[10.14]
`[10.14]
`
`
`
`
`1) dry-etching the patterned third insulating film and the
`first insulating film using the mask pattern and the
`patterned second insulating film as respective masks,
`thereby forming the wiring grooves and the contact
`holes in the patterned third insulating film and thefirst
`insulating film, respectively; and
`mm)filling in the wiring grooves and the contact holes with
`a metal film, thereby forming upper-level metal inter-
`connects and contacts connecting the lower- and upper-
`level metal interconnects together.
`
`
`\_ EX1001 at 34:1-49,
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`
`
`
`91
`
`
`
` Indep