UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 59
`
`TSMC Exhibit 1050
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01379
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01379
`Patent 6,197,696 B1
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 59
`
`TSMC Exhibit 1050
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01379
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed ......................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Legal Standards for Obviousness .................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Application of the Board’s Claim Construction .............................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The plain meaning of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” ........... 6
`
`The specification of the ’696 patent is internally inconsistent ........... 14
`
`V.
`
`Japanese patent application No. 10-079371 does not disclose all
`elements of claim 10 ...................................................................................... 23
`
`VI. U.S. Patent Application No. 60/071,628 discloses all elements of
`Grill’s claim 28 .............................................................................................. 28
`
`VII. Grill’s Dual-Relief Pattern ............................................................................ 45
`
`VIII. The Use of Aoyama’s Via Pattern With Grill ............................................... 47
`
`IX. Aoyama’s Via Pattern Does Not Depend on a Carbon Etch-Stop Layer ...... 51
`
`X.
`
`Aoyama’s Contact Pattern Would Not Have Reduced Critical
`Dimension Control When Used With Grill ................................................... 54
`
`XI. Certification ................................................................................................... 57
`
`Page 2 of 59
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Dr. Bruce W. Smith. I previously signed a declaration in
`
`relation to these proceedings on July 11, 2016, which I understand is Exhibit 1002.
`
`My qualifications, a summary of my opinions, a list of materials reviewed, and an
`
`explanation of the relevant legal standards I was asked to apply appear at
`
`paragraphs 1 through 31 of Exhibit 1002, which I incorporate herein by reference
`
`for brevity.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed
`
`2.
`
`In addition to the references listed in Exhibit 1002, I have reviewed
`
`the following references in forming the opinions expressed in this declaration:
`
` Declaration of Dr. Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D. dated July 11, 2016 (which I
`understand is Exhibit 1002);
`
` U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/071,628 with line numbers
`appended (which I have been told is Exhibit 1049);
`
`
`
` IPB’s Translation of Japanese Patent Application No. 10-079371 to
`Aoi (which I have been told is Exhibit 2012);
`
` Excerpts from James D. Plummer et al., “Silicon VLSI Technology:
`Fundamentals, Practice, and Modeling” (2000) (“Plummer,” which I
`have been told are Exhibits 1031 and 2016);
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 59
`
`
`
` Excerpts from C.Y. Chang & S. M. Sze, “ULSI Technology” (1996)
`(“Chang & Sze,” which I have been told is Exhibit 1032);
`
` Excerpts from S. Wolf & R.N. Tauber, “Silicon Processing for the
`VLSI Era: Volume 1: Process Technology” (1986) (“Wolf & Tauber,”
`which I have been are Exhibits 1033 and 2020);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,091,047 to Cleeves et al. (“Cleeves,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1034);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,287,973 to Aoi et al. (“the ’973 patent,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1035);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,560,436 to Bukhman et al. (“Bukhman,” which I
`have been told is Exhibit 1036);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,091,081 to Matsubara et al. (“Matsubara,” which I
`have been told is Exhibit 1037);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,473,437 to Higashikawa et al. (“Higashikawa,”
`which I have been told is Exhibit 1038);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,880,018 to Boeck et al. (“Boeck,” which I have been
`told is Exhibit 1039);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,832,789 to Cochran et al. (“Cochran,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1040);
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 59
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,855,252 to Peterman et al. (“Peterman,” which I
`have been told is Exhibit 1041);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,786,276 to Brooks et al. (“Brooks,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1042);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,756,216 to Becker et al. (“Becker,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1043);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,821,168 to Jain (“Jain 168,” which I have been told
`is Exhibit 1044);
`
` J.M. Moran & D. Maydan, “High Resolution, Steep Profile Resist
`Patterns,” J. Vac. Sci. & Tech., vol. 16, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1979)
`(“Moran & Maydan,” which I have been told is Exhibit 1045);
`
` M.M. O’Toole et al., “Linewidth Control in Projection Lithography
`Using a Multilayer Resist Process,” IEEE Transactions on Electron
`Devices, vol. ED-28, no. 11 (Nov. 1981) (“O’Toole,” which I have
`been told is Exhibit 1046);
`
` E. Bassous et al., “A Three-Layer Resist System for Deep U.V. and
`RIE Microlithography on Nonplanar Surfaces,” J. Electrochem. Soc.:
`Solid-State Sci. & Tech. (Feb. 1983) (“Bassous,” which I have been
`told is Exhibit 1047);
`
` Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. A. Glew (June 30, 2017) (“Glew
`Deposition,” which I have been told is Exhibit 1048);
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 59
`
`
`
` Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. B. Smith (March 23, 2017) (“Smith
`Deposition,” which I have been told is Exhibit 2010);
`
` J.R. Sheats & B.W. Smith, “Microlithography: Science and
`Technology,” Chapters 9 & 10 (1998) (which I have been told is
`Exhibit 2017);
`
` K. Suzuki & B.W. Smith, “Microlithography: Science and
`Technology,” Chapter 12 (2d ed., 2007) (which I have been told is
`Exhibit 2018);
`
` K. Suzuki & B.W. Smith, “Microlithography: Science and
`Technology,” Chapter 11 (2d ed., 2007) (which I have been told is
`Exhibit 2019);
`
` M. Schaepkens et al., “Influence of Reactor Wall Conditions on Etch
`Processes in Inductively Coupled Fluorocarbon Plasmas,” J. Vac. Sci.
`& Technol. A, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2099–2107 (July–Aug. 1998)
`(“Schaepkens” which I have been told is Exhibit 2014);
`
` Declaration of Alexander Glew, Ph.D. (which I have been told is
`Exhibit 2009);
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`(March 23, 2017) (“Paper 6”);
`
` Decision on Institution (January 18, 2017) (“Paper 11”); and
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 59
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (April 14, 2017)
`(“Paper 19”).
`
`III. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`3.
`
`I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer my opinion on
`
`the law. As an expert offering an opinion on whether the claims in the ’696 patent
`
`are patentable, however, I have been told I am obliged to follow existing law. In
`
`addition to the legal standards expressed at paragraphs 15 through 31 of Exhibit
`
`1002, I have been told the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`
`patentability pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`4.
`
`I have been told a determination of obviousness based on teachings
`
`from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
`
`elements. I have been told the proper test for obviousness is what the combined
`
`teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I have been told a reference must be considered for everything that it
`
`teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.
`
`5.
`
`I have been told a reference “teaches away” from the claimed
`
`invention when a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference,
`
`would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference. I have also
`
`been told the existence of better alternatives in the prior art does not mean that an
`
`inferior alternative is inapt for obviousness purposes.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 59
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have been told a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and knows how to combine familiar prior art
`
`elements to achieve the same functions. I have been told it is improper to ignore
`
`modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the
`
`prior art.
`
`7.
`
`I have been told it is improper to rely on drawings that are neither
`
`expressly to scale nor linked to quantitative values in the text.
`
`IV. Application of the Board’s Claim Construction
`A. The plain meaning of “using the [designated layer] as a mask”
`8.
`I have been told the Board adopted a preliminary claim construction
`
`in this matter. I understand that the Board has construed “using the [designated
`
`layer] as a mask” to mean “using the [designated layer] to define areas for
`
`etching.”
`
`9.
`
`I have been told the designated layer “must actually be used to define
`
`areas for etching.” For example, I have been told the Board determined a mask
`
`pattern that is entirely within a surrounding resist layer is not a mask. In addition, I
`
`have been told the Board found a buried layer (i.e., a layer without any portion of
`
`its top surface exposed to the etchant during a particular etch process) is not a mask
`
`simply because it has a lateral edge “in line and flush with [a lateral] edge of” the
`
`overlying layer.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 59
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, the Board’s claim construction and its application of
`
`the claim construction matches the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “mask”
`
`as used by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`11.
`
`I 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. This is not due to any “masks” preventing lateral etching, but due to the
`
`reactive ion etch (“RIE”) processes which are highly directional. Plummer at 611
`
`(“[M]odern fabrication methods tend to employ directional etching and vertical
`
`steps with little undercutting.”); Plummer at 619 (“[D]irectional etching is due to
`
`the presence of ionic species in the plasma and the electric fields that direct them
`
`normal to the wafer surface.”); Plummer at 625 (“[I]t is usually assumed that all
`
`the ions arrive normal to the wafer surface, as shown in Figure 10-11(b).”);
`
`Plummer at 627 (“[D]irectional etching occurs [in RIE] because of the
`
`directionality of the ions. . . . Since the ions are striking normal to the wafer
`
`surface, the enhancement will occur normal to the wafer surface.”); Chang & Sze
`
`at 329 (“Integrated circuit fabrication processes that use reactive plasmas are
`
`commonplace in today’s semiconductor production lines because of their potential
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 59
`
`
`
`for very-high-accuracy transfer of resist patterns, i.e., anisotropic etching, as shown
`
`in Fig. 1.”); Chang & Sze at 338 (“[I]on transport must be perpendicular to the
`
`surface so that only the etch rate of the bottom surface is enhanced.”). A mask,
`
`therefore, shields etchant particles traveling normal to the surface being etched.
`
`The vertical sidewalls in the opening that defines the pattern being etched do not
`
`“mask” the etch and are not relevant to the masking function.
`
`12.
`
`If lateral particles were a problem as IPB suggests, those particles
`
`would cause significant undercutting in the layer being etched. IPB and Dr. Glew
`
`cite as evidence the figure on the left below, but that is not an accurate
`
`representation of what occurs during reactive ion etching. Even if it were, IPB and
`
`Dr. Glew ignore the resulting undercutting (shown to the right below). IPB’s figure
`
`is inaccurate because such undercutting does not occur in these RIE processes,
`
`which produce nearly vertical sidewalls. If such undercutting did occur, it would
`
`lead to problems like void formation and electromigration, increased contact
`
`resistivity, and possibly contact failure. IPB’s misleading figure does not provide
`
`evidence that the internal sidewall plays any role in defining areas for etching.
`
`What matters instead are sizes and shapes of the openings as seen from above in
`
`the plan view, not the internal sidewalls of a buried layer.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`IPB cited Plummer but does not address the chapter devoted to
`
`etching (Chapter 10) or Section 10.2.2.1 (“Plasma Etching Mechanisms”), which
`
`explain RIE is highly directional. Plummer at 621–28. In RIE (the most common
`
`dry etch process, usually synonymous with dry etching), both neutral and ionic
`
`species are present. The ionic species are highly directional (i.e., anisotropic),
`
`traveling normal to the substrate. The neutral species are essentially isotropic,
`
`traveling in all directions. The plasma contains both chemically reactive species
`
`and chemically neutral species. Chemically reactive species remove material by
`
`reacting with it to form volatile species that come off the surface of the material
`
`being etched. Chemically neutral species remove material from a surface by
`
`physically bombarding it.
`
`14.
`
`In RIE, all of these particles and processes work together
`
`synergistically, resulting in a highly directional etch, as Plummer explains:
`
`In ion-enhanced etching, both chemical and physical components are
`acting, but the profiles are not just a linear combination of isotropic
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 59
`
`
`
`chemical etching and anisotropic physical etching as illustrated in
`Figure 10-3(b). Instead, the profile for ion-enhanced etching is much
`more like the case for physical etching acting alone, as in Figure 10-
`3(c). If the chemical component in the etch system is increased, the
`vertical etching is increased but not the lateral etching, which is not
`what would be expected from chemical etching. . . .
`
`So not only can one achieve very anisotropic etch profiles, but also a
`high degree of selectivity as well. This is something that is very
`difficult to achieve when the two components work independently. In
`addition, high etch rates can be achieved. Thus gas chemistries and
`etch conditions are usually chosen to promote ion-enhanced etching
`and to suppress independent chemical and physical etching. . . .
`
`ion-enhanced etching, . . .
`the exact mechanism for
`Whatever
`directional etching occurs because of the directionality of the ions.
`The enhancement of the process . . . occurs only where the ions strike
`the surface. Since the ions are striking normal to the wafer surface, the
`enhancement will occur normal to the wafer surface. This directional
`enhancement will result in directional, anisotropic etching.
`
`Plummer at 626–27.
`
`
`Plummer, Figure 10-3(c)
`10
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 59
`
`
`
`15. As a matter of physics, the interior surfaces of the layers above the
`
`layer being etched do not play the masking role IPB and Dr. Glew suggest. Such
`
`usage of the term “mask” is therefore improper even in the hyper-technical sense
`
`IPB and Dr. Glew suggest.
`
`16.
`
`I disagree with IPB and Dr. Glew when they mistakenly suggest that
`
`multi-layer resist processes (e.g., tri-layer resists) are examples of buried layers
`
`acting as masks because they have flush interior sidewalls. IPB erroneously cites
`
`portions of my textbook to suggest I “admitted in prior 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.” Paper 19, at 17.
`
`17. As I explained in my deposition, a tri-layer resist includes “two etch
`
`processes and a develop process.” Smith Deposition at 64:9–10; see also 59:2–
`
`65:8. In this way, [m]ultilayer resist techniques . . . ease requirements for resist
`
`performance . . . by using physically distinct layers to separate the imaging
`
`function from the etch resistance, planarization, and reflection suppression
`
`functions.” EX2017 at 79; EX2018 at 33.
`
`18. The basic multi-layer resist process was developed in the late 1970s at
`
`Bell Labs and, to my knowledge, was first published in a paper by Moran &
`
`Maydan. As I explained in my deposition, first, a planarizing polymer layer (e.g., a
`
`photoresist) is formed on the wafer, followed by an etch-stop layer (e.g., SiO2) that
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 59
`
`
`
`provides oxygen etch resistance. Then, an imaging photoresist layer is deposited
`
`and developed to form the etch pattern. This is shown in the top image of Moran &
`
`Maydan’s Figure 4 (see below). RIE is used to transfer the pattern of the imaging
`
`layer into the etch-stop layer using the imaging layer as a mask. This is shown in
`
`the middle image of Moran & Maydan’s Figure 4 (see below). Finally, the pattern
`
`is transferred by RIE into the planarizing layer. Because the imaging layer and
`
`planarizing layer are both organic materials, the imaging layer (which is much
`
`thinner than the planarizing layer) is completely removed during this process. This
`
`is shown in the bottom image of Moran & Maydan’s Figure 4 (see below). Other
`
`texts similarly describe the multi-layer resist process. Moran & Maydan at 1622–
`
`24, Figure 4; Chang & Sze at 294–95, 361, FIGURE 17; Wolf & Tauber at 424,
`
`Fig. 11; Cleeves at 3:29-41, FIGS. 1–4; Bassous at 479–80, Fig. 1; O’Toole at
`
`1407, Fig. 6. The intermediate layer does not act as a mask until it is no longer
`
`buried (see figures below). In my textbook, I also provide a figure (Figure 12.3(c)
`
`on page 18 of EX2018) that combines into a single figure the independent tri-layer
`
`resist process steps depicted in each of the figures below. This figure in my
`
`textbook does not depict a physical structure as IPB and Dr. Glew appear to
`
`suggest.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 59
`
`
`
`
` Moran & Maydan, Figure 4 Wolf & Tauber, Fig. 11 (chapter 12)
`
`
`
`
`Chang & Sze, FIGURE 17 (chapter 6) Cleeves, FIGS. 1–4
`
`
`
`19. Likewise, in the final structures above, the planarizing layer does not
`
`act as a mask for etching the layer immediately below the planarizing layer. The
`
`purpose of the etch-stop layer is to act as a mask by providing etch resistance when
`
`layers below are etched. The etch-stop layer is chosen not only to resist the etch of
`
`the planarizing layer, but typically to also resist the etch used to transfer the pattern
`
`into the layer immediately below the planarizing layer. The purpose of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 59
`
`
`
`planarizing layer, on the other hand, is to prevent problems associated with optical
`
`lithography used to expose and develop the top imaging layer. In some instances,
`
`the planarizing layer could be used as a mask during subsequent etching (e.g.,
`
`etching a SiO2 film below the planarizing layer when the etch-stop layer is made of
`
`SiO2), but only once the etch-stop layer is completely removed, not while the etch-
`
`stop layer is still intact. In other words, the planarizing layer does not act as a mask
`
`because of its interior sidewalls. My textbook does not suggest otherwise.
`
`B.
`
`20.
`
`The specification of the ’696 patent is internally inconsistent
`
`I do not agree with IPB’s suggestion that a buried layer acts as a mask
`
`simply because it has a lateral edge “in line and flush with [a lateral] edge of” the
`
`overlying layer. I have never heard anyone suggest such a layer would be a mask.
`
`21.
`
`IPB appears to base its suggestion on three inconsistencies in the ’696
`
`patent, detailed immediately below, which in my opinion are errors:
`
`(1) Buried Layer 305A as a “Mask”—“Next, as 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, thereby forming openings for forming wiring
`grooves in the patterned second organic-containing silicon
`dioxide film 305A. 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.” ’696 patent at 17:30–40 (underlining
`added).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Buried Layer 355A as a “Mask”—“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.” ’696 patent at 19:50–54 (underlining
`added).
`
`
`(3) Buried Layer 556B as a “Mask”—“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, and the first organic film 553 is dry-
`etched using the patterned first silicon dioxide film 554A
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 59
`
`
`
`as a mask, thereby forming a patterned second organic film
`555B having wiring grooves 561 and a patterned first
`organic film 553A having contact holes 562 as shown in
`FIGS. 26(c) and 29(a).” ’696 patent at 26:30–40
`(underlining added).
`
`
`
`
`22. During my deposition, I explained the second example is “not
`
`
`
`consistent with what is described in the rest of the process flow nor is it consistent
`
`with the diagrams.” Smith Deposition at 45:1–47:18. The same is true of the other
`
`two examples.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that Dr. Glew also found incorrect teachings in the ’696
`
`patent, such as when the ’696 patent mistakenly identifies layer 509 as a mask in
`
`Figures 22(b) and 22(c) (see figures below). Glew Deposition at 97:12–99:21; ’696
`
`patent at 23:40–46.
`
`24. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 59
`
`
`
`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 44) is untrue, as
`
`even Dr. Glew admits. Glew Deposition at 97:12–99:21.
`
`25. The opening in layer 510 of the figures above defines the contact hole.
`
`’696 patent at 23:40–42. The pattern in layer 509 of the figures above defines the
`
`wiring pattern. ’696 patent at 23:25–32. As a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood, and as Figures 27(a) through 29(a) of the ’696 patent illustrate, the
`
`wiring grooves extend into and out of the cross-sections shown in Figures 22(b)
`
`and 22(c). That is because wiring grooves define the circuit layout of the integrated
`
`circuit, connecting many individual device structures. Each contact hole, on the
`
`other hand, is restricted to an individual device structure. The contact hole extends
`
`only minimally into and out of the cross-sections in Figures 22(b) and 22(c). The
`
`figures below explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood Figures 22(b) and 22(c). Just as Figure 27(b) represents the cross-
`
`section in Figure 25(c), the top figures below depict Figures 22(b) and 22(c). The
`
`bottom figures below illustrate the plan view of Figures 22(b) and 22(c). As shown
`
`in both sets of images, layer 509 is completely buried by the resist layer 510. There
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 59
`
`
`
`are no “edges lined up and flush with” layer 510 or “offset[s]” that expose layer
`
`509. Paper 6, at 44.
`
`
`
`
`
`26. As these images illustrate and Dr. Glew’s testimony confirms, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the draftsperson made an
`
`error in the ’696 specification by identifying layer 509 as a mask in Figures 22(b)
`
`and 22(c). The rationale proposed by IPB (Paper 6, at 44) makes no sense, because
`
`it would limit the example above to obscure, restrictive, and difficult-to-imagine
`
`circuit layouts with complex and unnecessary shapes. This would run contrary to
`
`the general nature of this processing technology and other examples in the ’696
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 59
`
`
`
`patent. In fact, the ’696 patent does not discuss circuit layouts at all, nor is there
`
`any technical reason for such restrictive and incomprehensible circuit layouts. To
`
`deem layer 509 a “mask” in this etch step would, in my view, would be contrary to
`
`the way a person of ordinary skill would have viewed the disclosure.
`
`27.
`
`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”:
`
`(1) Buried Layer 103A not a “Mask”—“Subsequently, the
`silicon nitride film 102 is dry-etched using the patterned
`organic-containing silicon dioxide film 104A as a mask,
`thereby forming a patterned silicon nitride film 102A and
`exposing the first metal interconnects 101 within the
`contact holes 110 as shown in FIG. 3(a).” ’696 patent at
`11:51–55 (underlining added).
`
`
`
`(2) Buried Layer 103A not a “Mask”—“[T]he silicon nitride
`film 102 is dry-etched using the patterned organic-
`containing silicon dioxide film 104A as a mask, thereby
`forming a patterned silicon nitride film 102A and exposing
`the first metal interconnects 101 within the contact holes
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 59
`
`
`
`110 as shown in FIG. 6(b).” ’696 patent at 13:37–41
`(underlining added).
`
`
`
`
`(3) Buried Layer 103A not a “Mask”—“[T]he silicon nitride
`film 102 is dry-etched using the patterned organic-
`containing silicon dioxide film 104A as a mask, thereby
`forming a patterned silicon nitride film 102A and exposing
`the first metal interconnects 101 withinthe contact holes
`110 as shown in FIG. 8(b).” ’696 patent at 14:41–45
`(underlining added).
`
`
`
`
`(4) Buried Layer 203A not a “Mask”—“[T]he silicon nitride
`film 202 is dry-etched using the patterned organic-
`containing silicon dioxide film 204A as a mask, thereby
`forming a patterned silicon nitride film 202A and exposing
`the first metal interconnects 201 within the contact holes
`210 as shown in FIG. 11(a).” ’696 patent at 16:7–11
`(underlining added).
`
`
`(5) Buried Layers 304A and 305A not “Masks”—“[T]he
`second organic-containing silicon dioxide film 305, the
`low-dielectric-constant SOG film 304 and the first organic-
`containing silicon dioxide film 303 are sequentially dry-
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 59
`
`
`
`etched using the second resist pattern 309 as a mask. As a
`result, a patterned second organic-containing silicon
`dioxide film 305A, a patterned low-dielectric-constant
`SOG film 304A and a patterned first organic-containing
`silicon dioxide film 303A having contact holes 310 are
`formed as shown in FIG. 13(b).” ’696 patent at 17:20–29
`(underlining added).
`
`
`
`
`(6) Buried Layer 355A not a “Mask”—“[T]he second
`silicon dioxide film 355 and the organic film 354 are
`sequentially dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359
`as a mask, thereby forming a patterned second silicon
`dioxide film 355A and a patterned organic film 354A
`having openings 360 for forming contact holes as shown in
`FIG. 16(b). In this case, the second resist pattern 359 is
`removed during the step of etching the organic film 354.”
`’696 patent at 19:33–40 (underlining added).
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(7) Buried Layer 405A not a “Mask”—“[T]he second low-
`dielectric-constant SOG film 405 and
`the organic-
`containing silicon dioxide film 404 are sequentially dry-
`etched using the second resist pattern 409 as a mask,
`thereby forming a patterned second low-dielectric-constant
`SOG film 405A and a patterned organic-containing silicon
`dioxide film 404A as shown in FIG. 19(a).” ’696 patent at
`21:33–39 (underlining added).
`
`
`
`28. The discussion in this section demonstrates the specification of the
`
`’696 patent is inconsistent regarding buried layers acting as “masks.”
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 24 of 59
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Japanese patent application No. 10-079371 does not disclose all elements
`of claim 10
`
`29.
`
`IPB suggests that a buried layer acts as a mask even when it has
`
`nothing to do with the etch. Consider the illustrations below. The top layer (striped
`
`layer) contains the via (i.e., contact hole) pattern, and the buried layer (blue)
`
`contains the wiring pattern. The etch I am describing is used to transfer the via
`
`pattern into the green layer. In IPB’s view, the blue layer in this example acts as a
`
`mask even though it does not define the via pattern. This would make the term
`
`“mask” meaningless and confusing to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`IPB’s argument that the Japanese ’371 application supports step i) of
`
`claim 10 hinges on the description of a contingent process used to compensate for
`
`unwanted misalignment errors. The Japanese ’371 application explains the process:
`
`If the second resist pattern 359 may have been misaligned with the
`first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-
`etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second
`silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern
`359 as a mask. That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is partially
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 25 of 59
`
`
`
`exposed inside the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for
`forming contact holes because of the misalignment of the second
`resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask
`pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a
`mask.
`
`
`EX2012 at 39:12–21; Japanese ’371 application at ¶ 96. The figures IPB
`
`uses in support of its position are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`31. The description IPB relies on states, “[T]he second silicon dioxide
`
`film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” The Japanese
`
`’371 application makes no mention of using layer 358 as a “mask” in this process,
`
`which is appropriate because layer 358 is not a mask in this process. The sole
`
`purpose of this process is to eliminate exposed portions of layer 358 so it does not
`
`act as a mask. The Japanese ’371 application requires removing the exposed
`
`portions of layer 358, otherwise layer 358 would define a narrower contact hole
`
`pattern than designed, causing increased contact resistance, void formation during
`
`metallization, reduced reliability, and/or failed contacts. Japanese ’371 application
`
`at ¶ 54, Fig. 6(c); EX2012, 26:20-24, Fig. 6(c). In other words, a person of
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 26 of 59
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Japanese ’371 application
`
`teaches how to avoid layer 358 inadvertently becoming a mask.
`
`32. The top view of this process illustrates why IPB’s suggestion that
`
`layer 358 acts as a mask is wrong. The images in the first column below show the
`
`cross-section; the images in the second column illustrate the composite top view;
`
`the images in the third column illustrate the top view of layer 359 only (the contact
`
`hole, i.e., via); the images in the fourth column illustrate the top view of layer 358
`
`only (the wiring groove); and the images in the fifth column illustrate the top view
`
`of layer 355 only. The top row illustrates the misalignment of resist layer 359; the
`
`second row illustrates the etching of the exposed portion of layer 358; and the third
`
`row illustrates the etching of layer 355. The goal of this process, like the goal of
`
`the process without misalignment, is to transfer the via pattern of layer 359 into
`
`layer 355 faithfully. Layer 358, which contains the wiring pattern, does not “define
`
`areas for etching” a via in layer 355. As these images show—and the text of the
`
`Japanese ’371 application explains—layer 359 is the sole mask used to define the
`
`square-shaped areas for etching in layer 355. Japanese ’371 application at ¶ 93, 96.
`
`
`
`25
`
`Page 27 of 59
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Even accepting the ’696 patent’s incorrect descriptions of certain
`
`buried layers with flush edges acting as “mask,” layer 358 in the example above is
`
`different. Each example of a buried “mask” IPB identifies in the ’696 patent is a
`
`buried layer that shares the same pattern as
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
