Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
`v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01376, -01377, -01378, -01379
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Contrary to the additional negative limitation and Petitioner’s expert’s (Dr.
`
`Smith) arguments during his deposition, Petitioner’s expert has admitted in prior
`
`publications that a “multiple layer resist” having flush edges can be used to define
`
`Trilay'er system
`
`a “substrate film material” to be etchediie, can be used as a mask._ Imaging mm
`—
`I'llflll'r'ln
`huh {Huh 5
`
`-EX2010 49:6-50:9; EX2009 111170—71; see also EX2017 574, 592. For
`
`
`letcjnq layer
`
`12.3 Wet-Developmentr‘Dry-Pattern Transfer Approaches to Multilayers
`
`Anisotropic pattern transfer can allow significant improvement over the isotropic proces-
`sing of wet-etched multilayer approaches. Through the use of a p1asma-reactive-ion-etch
`(RIE) pattern transfer process, near anisotropy can be approached, allowing high-aspect
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Dr. Smith’s Book
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Dr. Smith’s Book
`Subs-Irate
`optical and electron beam applications [14].
`
`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 rovide oxygen etch resistance. A thin resist imaging layer is coated over
`
`this etch-stopLfi—cr—m",ex ,. an we eveloped.—
`
`
` ariations on this technique have been used for both
`
`
`
`
`
`ratio, fine-feature resolution [12,13].
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 19 (643)
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18 (642)
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 19 (643)
`IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18 (642)
`
`k See, e.g., IPR2016—01376, Paper19, at17;IPR2016—01376, EX2018, at18—19. @/
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01376, Paper 19, at 17; IPR2016-01376, EX2018, at 18–19.
`
`53
`
`
`
`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 ls 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
`
`CLAIMS
`
`88
`
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`[10.1]
`[10.1]
`
`[10.2]
`[10.2]
`
`[10.3]
`[10.3]
`
`[10.4]
`[10.4]
`
`[10.5]
`[10.5]
`
`[10.6]
`[10.0]
`[10.7]
`[10.7]
`
`10. A method for forming an interconnection structure,
`comprising the steps of:
`a) forming a first insulating film over lower-level metal
`interconnects;
`13) forming a second insulating film, having a different
`composition than that of the first insulating film, over
`the first insulating film;
`c) forming a third insulating film, having a diiferent
`composition than that of the second insulating film,
`over the second insulating film;
`(1) forming a fourth insulating film, having a diflerent
`composition than that of the third insulating film, over
`the third insulating film;
`
`e) forming a thin film over the fourth insulating film;
`f) forming a first resist pattern on the thin film, the first
`resist pattern having openings for forming vviring
`grooves;
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`k EX1001 at 34,-1—49.
`
`
`
`89
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`
`
`[10.8]
`[10.8]
`
`[10.9]
`[103]
`
`[10.10]
`[10.10]
`
`[10.11]
`[10.11]
`
`[10.12]
`[10-12]
`
`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 grooves in the patterned fourth
`insulating film and patterning the second insulating
`film to have the openings for forming contact holes;
`
`
`
`
`@
`90
`
`\ EX1001 at34:1—49.
`
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`
`
`
`
`
` Independent Claim 10
`Independent Claim 10
`
`
`
`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 the first
`insulating film, respectively; and
`In) 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.
`
`[10.13]
`[10.13]
`
`[10.14]
`[10.14]
`
`
`
`k EX1001 at341—49. 9/
`91
`
`
`
`EX1001 at 34:1–49.
`
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 13
`Independent Clai
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
