Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`GlobalFoundries, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR: To be assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,538,324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ......................................................................................1
`THE ‘324 PATENT............................................................................................................4
`A.
`Overview of the ‘324 Patent ....................................................................................4
`B.
`Prosecution History ..................................................................................................5
` Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................................................8 III.
`
` Claim Construction ............................................................................................................8
`IV.
`CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, AND 9 OF THE ‘324 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`V.
`
`OVER THE PRIOR ART .................................................................................................9
`A.
`Overview of the Prior Art ........................................................................................9
`1.
`Ding........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Zhang ........................................................................................................ 12
`2.
`
`The combined teachings of Ding in view of Zhang render claims 1-3, 5-7, and
`9 obvious ................................................................................................................13
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................................... 28
`2.
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................................... 30
`3.
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................................... 31
`4.
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................................... 32
`5.
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................................... 33
`6.
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................................... 33
`7.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES ..............................................................................................34
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................................34
`B.
`Related Matters ......................................................................................................34
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ...................................................................................36
`D.
`Service Information ...............................................................................................36
` CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d).........................................................36 VII.
`
` GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................................36
`VIII.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`IX.
`
`CHALLENGED ...............................................................................................................37
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................37
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Case
`
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................27
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, slip op. (U.S. June 20, 2016) ................................8
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-00134
`(E.D. Tex. February 14, 2016) .................................................................................................33
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Omni Vision Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-
`00290 (D. Del. April 22, 2016) ................................................................................................33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................17
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) ...................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .........................................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........................................................................................................................4, 35
`
`Other Aurthorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ...........................................................................................................................35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D) .....................................................................................................................35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................................................8
`
` “Duan,” Ex. 1017 ..........................................................................................................................24
`
` “Hong,” Ex. 1009 ............................................................................................................................6
`
` “Moussavi,” Ex. 1019 ...................................................................................................................19
`
` “Vitkavage,” Ex. 1008 .....................................................................................................................6
`
` “Wang”, Ex. 1023 .........................................................................................................................20
`
` “Wijekoon,” Ex. 1021 ...................................................................................................................19
`
`Abstract. Ding ................................................................................................................................30
`
`1005, Abstract. Thus, Ding ............................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`1004, Abstract. Zhang ....................................................................................................................12
`
`Although Ding ...............................................................................................................................16
`
`Annotated FIG. 2 of Ding ..............................................................................................................32
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, Order ..................................................................................................34
`
`Ding. Ex. 1003 ...............................................................................................................................18
`
`Duan et al., “Magnetic Property and Microstructure Dependence of CoCrTa/Cr
`Media on Substrate Temperature and Bias,” ...........................................................................23
`
`1004, FIG. 4. Zhang .......................................................................................................................15
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131.03 ........................................................................................................................30
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 .............................................................................................................................17
`
`Moussavi et al., “Comparison of Barrier Materials and Deposition Processes for
`Copper Integration,” .......................................................................................................... vi, 19
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,668,411............................................................................................................v, 6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,858,873............................................................................................................v, 6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752......................................................................................................v, 3, 12
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324...................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353......................................................................................................v, 3, 12
`
`While Ding .....................................................................................................................................17
`
`Wijekoon et al., “Development of a Production Worthy Copper CMP Process,”
`1998.................................................................................................................................... vi, 19
`
`Zhang. Ex. 1003 .............................................................................................................................11
`
`Zhang. Ex. 1003 .............................................................................................................................26
`
`Zhang. Ex. 1004, 3:9-12 ................................................................................................................29
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 to Tagami et al.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324.
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Banerjee.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 to Zhang et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 to Ding et al.
`
`Holloway et al., “Tantalum as a diffusion barrier between copper and
`silicon: Failure mechanism and effect of nitrogen additions,” Journal
`of Applied Physics, 71(11), 5433-5444 (1992).
`
`Sun et al., “Properties of reactively sputter-deposited Ta-N thin films,”
`Thin Solid Films, 236 (1993) 347-351.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,858,873 to Vitkavage et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,668,411 to Hong et al.
`
`Excerpt of El-Kareh, “Fundamentals of Semiconductor Processing
`Technologies,” Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995).
`
`Declaration of Dr. Li Jiang.
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Holloway et al., “Tantalum as
`a diffusion barrier between copper and silicon: Failure mechanism
`and effect of nitrogen additions,” Journal of Applied Physics, 71(11),
`5433-5444 (1992).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Sun et al., “Properties of
`reactively sputter-deposited Ta-N thin films,” Thin Solid Films, 236
`(1993) 347-351.
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of El-Kareh, “Fundamentals of
`Semiconductor Processing Technologies,” Kluwer Academic
`Publishers (1995).
`
`Stavrev et al., “Crystallographic and morphological characterization of
`reactively sputtered Ta, Ta-N and Ta-N-O thin films,” Thin Solid
`Films, 307 (1997) 79-88.
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`
`Exhibit 1012:
`
`Exhibit 1013:
`
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`Exhibit 1015:
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Exhibit 1018:
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`
`Exhibit 1020:
`
`Exhibit 1021:
`
`Exhibit 1022:
`
`Exhibit 1023:
`
`Exhibit 1024:
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Stavrev et al.,
`“Crystallographic and morphological characterization of reactively
`sputtered Ta, Ta-N and Ta-N-O thin films,” Thin Solid Films, 307
`(1997) 79-88.
`
`Duan et al., “Magnetic Property and Microstructure Dependence of
`CoCrTa/Cr Media on Substrate Temperature and Bias,” IEEE
`Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 28, No. 5, September 1992.
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Duan et al., “Magnetic
`Property and Microstructure Dependence of CoCrTa/Cr Media on
`Substrate Temperature and Bias,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
`Vol. 28, No. 5, September 1992.
`
`Moussavi et al., “Comparison of Barrier Materials and Deposition
`Processes for Copper Integration,” Proceedings of the IEEE 1998
`International Interconnect Technology Conference, pp. 295-97 (1998).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Moussavi et al., “Comparison
`of Barrier Materials and Deposition Processes for Copper Integration,”
`Proceedings of the IEEE 1998 International Interconnect Technology
`Conference, pp. 295-97 (1998).
`
`Wijekoon et al., “Development of a Production Worthy Copper CMP
`Process,” 1998 IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing
`Conference, pp. 354-63 (1998).
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Wijekoon et al., “Development
`of a Production Worthy Copper CMP Process,” 1998 IEEE/SEMI
`Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, pp. 354-63
`(1998).
`
`Wang et al., “Barrier Properties of Very Thin Ta and TaN layers
`Against Copper Diffusion,” J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 145, No. 7, pp.
`2538-45.
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record of Wang et al., “Barrier
`Properties of Very Thin Ta and TaN layers Against Copper
`Diffusion,” J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 145, No. 7, pp. 2538-45.
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 (Ex. 1001) “relates to a semiconductor integrated circuit
`
`including a copper wiring layer.” Ex. 1001, 1:8-9. Semiconductor devices, such as transistors,
`
`are typically formed using layers of material deposited on a semiconductor substrate, such as
`
`silicon. Once formed, the semiconductor devices comprise electrical terminals that are
`
`interconnected by one or more metal wiring layers to form specific integrated circuitry, for
`
`example, in a processor. A metal wiring layer is often deposited over an interlayer insulating
`
`layer, such as silicon dioxide, which separates the metal wiring layer from underlying layers of
`
`the semiconductor devices (such as MOSFET transistors). See, e.g., Ex. 1003, ¶ 39.
`
`At the time the application leading to the ‘324 patent was filed, it was understood that
`
`copper was a desirable metal for the wiring layer as devices became smaller because copper
`
`provides lower electrical resistivity than aluminum. Ex. 1001, 1:13-19; see also Ex. 1003, ¶ 40.
`
`But it was also known that “it is absolutely necessary for a semiconductor device having a
`
`copper wiring layer to have a diffusion-barrier film for preventing diffusion of copper into an
`
`interlayer insulating film formed between copper wiring layers.” Ex. 1001, 1:26-30. Diffusion
`
`occurs when atoms or molecules migrate from an area of higher concentration into an area of
`
`lower concentration. Ex. 1003, ¶ 40. At the time of the ‘324 patent, there was a recognized need
`
`in the art for a diffusion barrier that would block the movement of copper from a wiring layer
`
`with a high concentration of copper into an underlying insulating layer and semiconductor
`
`devices. See, e.g., id.; Ex. 1001, 1:22-25 (explaining that copper has a high diffusion rate in
`
`silicon and silicon dioxide, and if copper were to diffuse into a MOSFET formed on a silicon
`
`substrate, it would induce a reduction in carrier lifetime in such a device).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`The ‘324 patent specification admits it was known that the diffusion barrier not only must
`
`prevent copper from diffusing out of the wiring layer into underlying layers and devices, but also
`
`must provide good adhesion to the copper wiring layer. Id., 2:13-15 (“As will be obvious to
`
`those skilled in the art, the diffusion-barrier film is required to have high coverage as well as
`
`capability of preventing copper diffusion and adhesion to copper.”); see also id., 1:30-33.
`
`The specification acknowledges the existence of several prior-art barrier films for
`
`preventing diffusion of copper at the time of the alleged invention. Id., 2:21-54, 7:52-57, FIGS.
`
`1-3. In FIG. 1, the ‘324 patent recognizes that two-layer diffusion barrier structures were known
`
`in the art. Id., 7:51-52. With reference to FIG. 2, the patent explains it was also known in the
`
`prior art that a diffusion barrier containing a crystalline film could provide good adhesion to a
`
`copper wiring layer, although it exhibited a “low barrier characteristic of preventing copper
`
`diffusion.” Id., 3:1-4, 3:14-19. FIG. 3 of the ‘324 patent shows it was known in the prior art that
`
`amorphous (non-crystalline) films provide a good barrier to copper diffusion, but they do not
`
`adhere well to copper. Id., 3:21-33; FIG. 3.
`
`Because of this knowledge in the art, many in the field had already made two-layer
`
`diffusion barriers that combined the advantages of a crystalline layer for its known
`
`characteristics of providing good adhesion to copper and an amorphous layer for its known
`
`property of preventing copper diffusion into underlying layers and semiconductor devices, e.g.,
`
`incorporating the prior-art films in FIGS. 2 and 3 into the barrier structure in FIG. 1. And more
`
`particularly, others had already made two-layer diffusion barriers using a crystalline layer for
`
`providing good adhesion to copper and an amorphous layer for preventing copper diffusion.
`
`Exactly like the claims of the ‘324 patent, the prior art included such two-layer diffusion barriers
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`with tantalum nitride (TaNx) as the amorphous layer and a tantalum (Ta) metal containing
`
`nitrogen as the crystalline layer.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,887,353 (“Ding,” Ex. 1005) teaches a two-layer
`
`diffusion barrier having an amorphous TaNx layer on the bottom for
`
`providing a barrier to copper diffusion and a crystalline tantalum layer
`
`overlying the TaNx layer to provide good adherence to a copper wiring
`
`layer. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:33-38, 7:66-8:4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,752 (“Zhang,” Ex. 1004), directed to the same
`
`problems as the ‘324 patent and Ding, teaches a diffusion barrier with a
`
`bottom TaNx layer for preventing copper diffusion and a top “tantalum-
`
`rich nitride film” that provides good adherence to copper. Ex. 1004,
`
`Abstract, 2:29-40, 3:22-67, 5:49-59, FIG. 8 (multi-layer diffusion barrier
`
`22 and 32, copper wiring layer 54 and 64)1, FIG. 4.
`
`The purported invention in the ‘324 patent is a two-layer diffusion barrier to prevent
`
`copper diffusion and provide good adhesion to a copper wiring layer.2 The bottom layer in the
`
`barrier is an amorphous metal nitride to prevent copper diffusion. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 9:50-
`
`52, 18:22-24. The top layer is a crystalline metal that contains nitrogen to provide good adhesion
`
`to a copper wiring layer. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 9:49-50, 18:24-26. The claims require the
`
`crystalline layer of the diffusion barrier to contain less nitrogen than the amorphous layer. Id.,
`
`
`1 Zhang teaches the copper seed film 54 and copper wiring film 64 may be replaced with a single copper film. Ex.
`
`1004, 5:35-38.
`
`2 The ‘324 patent’s specification and claims refer to a barrier “film” (i.e., thin film) having a multi-layered structure
`
`of first and second films. In this context, the words “layer” and “film” are used interchangeably. Ex. 1003, ¶ 42.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`19:2-3. The claimed two-layer diffusion barrier, combining known crystalline and amorphous
`
`barrier layers, was not new and non-obvious at the time of the alleged invention. Several prior
`
`art references, such as Ding and Zhang, taught the same two-layer barrier structure.
`
`Because the combination of Ding and Zhang renders obvious each of claims 1-3, 5-7, and
`
`9 in the ‘324 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of these
`
`claims.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`THE ‘324 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ‘324 Patent
`
`The face of the ‘324 patent indicates it was filed on June 19, 2000, issued on March 25,
`
`2003, and claims foreign priority to Japanese application 11-214110 filed on June 24, 1999. The
`
`patent contains claims 1-10, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 and its dependent
`
`claims 2-4 recite a barrier film preventing diffusion of copper from a copper wiring layer formed
`
`on a semiconductor substrate. Claim 5 and its dependent claims 6-10 recite a multi-layered
`
`wiring structure comprising the barrier film in claim 1. Although the specification describes
`
`specific steps for manufacturing the claimed multi-layered wiring structure and barrier film, the
`
`claims are directed only to the structure and barrier film, not to any manufacturing method.
`
`Claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`[1.0] A barrier film preventing diffusion of copper from a copper wiring layer formed on
`
`a semiconductor substrate, comprising a multi-layered structure of first and second films:
`
`[1.1] said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,
`
`[1.2] said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride,
`
`[1.3] said barrier film being constituted of common metal atomic species,
`
`[1.4] said first film being formed on said second film,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`[1.5] said first film in direct contact with said second film,
`
`[1.6] said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content than that of said second film.
`
`Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 1. It reads:
`
`[5.0] A multi-layered wiring structure comprising a barrier film which prevents diffusion
`
`of copper from a copper wiring layer formed on a semiconductor substrate,
`
`[5.1] said barrier film having a multi-layered structure of first and second films,
`
`[5.2] said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,
`
`[5.3] said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride,
`
`[5.4] said barrier film being constituted of common metal atomic species,
`
`[5.5] said first film being formed on said second film,
`
`[5.6] said first film in direct contact with said second film,
`
`[5.7] said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content than that of said second film.
`
`Claim elements [5.2]-[5.7] of claim 5 are identical to the claim elements [1.1]-[1.6] of
`
`claim 1.
`
`During prosecution, the PTO correctly explained that a device covered by claim 1 “could
`
`be made by processes materially different from those” of the specific method described in the
`
`specification. Ex. 1002 (‘324 patent file history) at 202; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56 (Dr. Banerjee agreeing
`
`with PTO). The Applicant did not disagree.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The original application for the ‘324 patent included claims 1-36. Claims 1-10 were
`
`directed to either a diffusion barrier film or a structure comprising the diffusion barrier film, and
`
`claims 11-36 were directed to methods of forming either the diffusion barrier film or a structure
`
`comprising the diffusion barrier film.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`In an initial Office Action, the PTO restricted the claims into two distinct groups and
`
`required election of one of the groups for examination. Group I contained claims 1-10 “drawn to
`
`a semiconductor device,” and Group II contained claims 11-36 “drawn to a method of making a
`
`semiconductor device.” Ex. 1002 at 202. The Applicant chose to prosecute Group I, claims 1-10,
`
`and withdrew all of the method claims (claims 11-36) from consideration. Id. at 207.
`
`The PTO issued a non-final rejection of claims 1-10 as anticipated or rendered obvious
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 5,858,873 (“Vitkavage,” Ex. 1008). Id. At 210-12. In response, the Applicant
`
`amended the independent claims to recite “said first film being formed on said second film”
`
`([1.4] and [5.5]) and “said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content than that of said
`
`second film” ([1.6] and [5.7]), seeking to distinguish the claims over Vitkavage because of these
`
`added limitations. Id. at 219-23. The Applicant also added two new claims, corresponding to
`
`claims 4 and 10 in the ‘324 patent.
`
`The PTO issued a final rejection finding the amended claims anticipated by U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,668,411 (“Hong,” Ex. 1009). The Applicant tried (Ex. 1002 at 231-36), but failed (id. at
`
`237-39), to distinguish the claims over Hong, and eventually filed a Request for Continued
`
`Examination. Id. at 240-41.
`
`Along with the RCE, the Applicant further amended the independent claims to recite
`
`“said first film in direct contact with said second film” ([1.5] and [5.6]). Id. at 247-49. With the
`
`amendment, the Applicant distinguished Hong because it lacked a top layer (“first film”) in
`
`direct contact with a bottom layer (“second film”), whereas Hong disclosed “a seed layer 46 of
`
`the diffusion barrier film positioned between the top layer 48 and the bottom layer 44.” Id. at
`
`245. The PTO allowed the claims in the next Office Action. Id. at 252-61.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`During prosecution, the Examiner did not consider prior art that disclosed the same claim
`
`elements he believed were missing from the art of record. For example, the Applicant
`
`distinguished Vitkavage by arguing that Vitkavage does not disclose “said first film being formed
`
`on said second film” ([1.4] and [5.5]) and “said first film containing nitrogen in a smaller content
`
`than that of said second film” ([1.6] and [5.7]). These elements are disclosed in Ding, as shown
`
`in the annotated FIG. 2 of Ding below, which teaches a two-layer diffusion barrier structure with
`
`a top tantalum layer (in blue) overlying a bottom tantalum nitride layer (in red). See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1005, 3:33-34 (“a layer of Ta overlying a layer of TaNx”), 7:1-29, Abstract, 4:66-5:1 (“The
`
`TaNx/Ta barrier layer structure”), FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Annotated FIG. 2 of Ding (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`In Ding, “[t]o form the TaNx/Ta barrier layer structure, a tantalum target cathode 110 was
`
`used,” where “[d]uring the formation of the TaNx first layer, . . .[n]itrogen gas was also fed into
`
`vacuum chamber 117” and “[s]ubsequent to application of the TaN layer, the nitrogen gas was
`
`shut off” to form “a . . . layer of tantalum . . . over the TaN layer.” Ex. 1005, 6:64-7:28.
`
`Further, the claims were allowed after Applicant argued that Hong does not disclose “said
`
`first film in direct contact with said second film” ([1.5] and [5.6]), but the prior art discloses this
`
`claim element as well, such as in Ding, which was not before the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`See, e.g., id., 3:33-34 (“We have developed a barrier layer structure comprising a layer of Ta
`
`overlying a layer of TaNx”), 7:21-29 (describing the formation of the second layer directly on the
`
`first layer, whereby “[s]ubsequent to application of the TaN layer, the nitrogen gas was shut off”
`
`to form the Ta layer), 4:66-5:1 (“TaNx/Ta barrier layer structure”), FIG. 2 (annotated above).
`
`
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL III.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the application leading to the
`
`‘324 patent was filed would have an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited
`
`institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working
`
`knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two
`
`years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development. Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`64. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant
`
`work experience could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`IV.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, slip op. (U.S. June 20,
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`2016). The broadest reasonable construction should be applied to all claim terms in the ‘324
`
`patent.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, AND 9 OF THE ‘324 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`THE PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`The ‘324 patent admits the inventors were not the first to recognize problems associated
`
`with single-layer barriers for preventing diffusion of copper and suggest a multi-layer solution.
`
`The specification recognized a desire for a diffusion barrier “having a high barrier characteristic
`
`of preventing copper diffusion and high adhesion to copper.” Ex. 1001, 3:47-49; see also 2:12-
`
`15. The specification also acknowledges that a barrier layer formed only of a crystalline metal
`
`film, such as a crystalline β-Ta (002) film, was known to provide “good adhesion” and “rich
`
`crystal orientation” (e.g., allowing a copper film to grow with good adhesion), but would serve
`
`as a poor barrier to copper diffusion. Id., 3:14-20; see also, Ex. 1003, ¶ 67. On the other hand, a
`
`diffusion barrier formed only of an amorphous metal nitride would provide a better barrier to
`
`copper diffusion since it “does not have the [grain-boundary] paths through which copper is
`
`diffused,” but would suffer from poor adhesion because “copper crystallinity and adhesion to
`
`copper are degraded” using an amorphous layer. Ex. 1001, 3:21-33; see also, Ex. 1003, ¶ 67.
`
`The ‘324 patent claims a two-layer diffusion barrier comprising overlying crystalline and
`
`amorphous films having different nitrogen contents. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. In this
`
`multi-layer structure, the bottom film of the barrier (substrate side) may be a prior-art amorphous
`
`metal nitride film, such as tantalum nitride, and the top film (copper side) may be a prior-art
`
`crystalline metal film containing less nitrogen than the bottom film. As discussed below, both
`
`the problems with known diffusion barriers and the solution described in the ‘324 patent were
`
`already known in the art, including in Ding and Zhang.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes review
`United States Patent No. 6,538,324
`Like the ‘324 patent, Ding discloses a two-layer “TaNx/Ta barrier structure” that
`
`“provides both a barrier to the diffusion of a copper layer deposited thereover, and enables the
`
`formation of a copper layer having a high <111> crystallographic content so that the
`
`electromigration resistance of the copper is increased.” Ex. 1005, Abstract.3 The diffusion
`
`barrier in Ding may consist of an amorphous tantalum nitride bottom film for preventing copper
`
`diffusion (Ex. 1005, Abstract), and a crystalline tantalum top film for “easy wetting of the
`
`tantalum surface by the copper” (thus providing good adhesion to the copper layer) and
`
`“depositing of a copper layer having a high <111> crystal orientation” (Ex. 1005, 8:1-4). See
`
`also Ex. 1003, ¶ 72.
`
`Ding meets every claim element of the ‘324 patent, except it does not expressly mention
`
`whether its crystalline tantalum film for the top film of the barrier contains “nitrogen therein” as
`
`required by the first film in claim 1.
`
`Zhang discloses a two-layer diffusion barrier film for copper having top and bottom films
`
`32 and 22, with the bottom film 22 lying closer to the substrate than the top film 32. Ex. 1004,
`
`Abstract. According to Zhang, a “combination of portions (22 and 32) within the first
`
`conductive film provides a good diffusion barrier (first portion) and has good adhesion (second
`
`
`3 <111> are indices representing a set of equivalent directions in a crystalline material. Ex. 1003, ¶ 51; see also Ex.
`
`1010 at 11-12, which is a technical publication that was catalogued and available to