`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`Filing Date: March 23, 1999
`Issue Date: March 6, 2001
`
`Title: METHOD FOR FORMING INTERCONNECTION STRUCTURE
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01376
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRUCE W. SMITH, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED
`STATES PATENT NO.6,197,696
`
`Page 1 of 137
`
`TSMC Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`L.
`
`IMtrOdUCTION oe eee eccnceceeeeestcceeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaeeeeeeeeas l
`
`TT.«=Summary of Opinions 2... cee ccc cccccnceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeacaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeeeeeaas l
`
`UI.
`
`Background and Qualifications 0.0... ee cccccceeeesecceeeeeeeaieeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaeeeeees 2
`
`A.—_Background... eee eee eeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeenes 2
`
`B.—Previous Expert Witness Experience ........eecicceecccceeeeeeetceeeeeeeeaeeeeees 3
`
`
`
`C. —-COMPENSALION «2... cece ccceee cece eeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaeeeeeeeeeseeetaaeeeeees 3
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed oo... eeeccccccceesesscceeeeeeeneceeeeseeaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesutaeeeeseeuaaeeeeeeneas 4
`
`VV.—-_Legal Standards .........cecccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaas 6
`
`A.
`
`AMUICIPAION 2.0... e cece cecceee cece eeeeeeeeeeeneaaeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeaaaeeeeeeeeeseneaaaaeeeees 7
`
`B.—-_ODVIOUSNESS ... eee cece eenneeeeeeeseceeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeseeeaeeees 8
`
`VI.
`
`Technological Background............cececcccccccceeeeeeeeeeenceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaas 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Integrated Circuits and Interconnections.0........eeecccceeeeeeenceeeeeeeenneeeeees 12
`
`Semiconductor Etching and Photolithography ............ ccc cccceeeeeeeeeeeees 16
`
`VIL. The °696 Patent... ccc cccccceeeesncceeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeseeeaaeeeeeeas 19
`
`A.—Description of the Challenged Claims ....... cc eccccccceseeteeeeeeeeenteeeeees 19
`
`lL. Cai 13 once eeccceeecesnceeeeeeeeneceeeeeeeaeeeeseeeaaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeees 19
`
`2. Cai 15 coe eeecccceeeesnceeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeneaaeeeeeees 43
`
`B.
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. 10-079371 does not disclose
`many elements of claims 13 and 15 woo... eeeecceeeeeeenceeeeeeeeneeeeees 46
`
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art oo eeccceeeeeseeneeeeeeeeeaeeeeseeeaeeeeees 53
`
`TX.
`
`Claim Construction wee ee cccccccceeessnceeeeeeeaaceeeeeeeaceeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaeeeeees 54
`
`>, CHRD
`
`2000-0155perc ccc cee 54
`
`Page 2 of 137
`
`
`
`A.—Grill (U.S. Patent No. 6,140,226)... ccc estneeeeeeeenaeeeeeeeeneeeeees 55
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Aoyama (U.S. Patent No. 5,592,024) ooo. eeecscceeeeeeetneeeeeeeeneeeeees 61
`
`The combination of Grill and AOVQimad ...... ccc ccc ccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeees 63
`
`Grill and Claim 13 eee eeecccccceeeencceeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeaueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeas 67
`
`The combination of Grill and Aoyama and Claim 13 ............cccccceeeee 87
`
`The combination of Grill and Aoyama and Claim 15 ...............c66 103
`
`Page 3 of 137
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`l.
`
`My nameis Dr. Bruce W. Smith. I have been asked to submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
`
`(“TSMC”or“Petitioner’’) in connection with a petition for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696 (“the ’696 patent’).
`
`2.
`
`I have beenretained as a technical expert by TSMCto study and
`
`provide my opinions on the technology in and the validity of claims 13 and 15 in
`
`the ’696 patent (“the Challenged Claims”).
`
`I have also been asked to provide my
`
`opinions as to whethercertain related applications provide support for the
`
`Challenged Claims and whethera certain prior art reference is supported by the
`
`disclosures of its provisional application.
`
`II.
`
`Summaryof Opinions
`
`3.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledgeofthe art at the relevant time,
`
`analysis of prior art references, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims in light of the specification, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of
`
`the ’696 patent are obvious overthe prior art references discussed below.
`
`4.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledgeofthe art at the relevant time,
`
`and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimsin light of the specification,
`
`Page 4 of 137
`
`
`
`it is further my opinion that the Challenged Claims do not have support in Japanese
`
`application JP 10-079371, to which the ’696 patent claims the benefit of priority.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledgeofthe art at the relevant time,
`
`and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimsin light of the specification,
`
`it is further my opinion thatat least claim 28 of the Grill reference (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,140,226) is supported by U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60-071,628, to
`
`whichthe Grill reference claims the benefit of priority.
`
`II. Background and Qualifications
`
`A.
`
`6.
`
`Background
`
`I have over 30 years of research, academic, industry, and consulting
`
`engineering experience in IC (integrated circuit) processing, semiconductor device
`
`materials, microelectronics, and microlithography.
`
`I have expertise in
`
`semiconductorIC processes and fabrication, microlithography, and deposition and
`
`etch processes.
`
`7.
`
`I ama professor of Microelectronic Engineering and the Director of
`
`the Ph.D. program in Microsystems Engineering at the Rochester Institute of
`
`Technology (RIT).
`
`8.
`
`I ama Fellowofthe Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), a Fellow of the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), and a
`
`Fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA).
`
`I have received numerous
`
`Page 5 of 137
`
`
`
`awards including the IEEE Technology Innovation Award, the RIT Trustees
`
`Scholarship Award, the SPIE Research Mentoring Award, the RIT Creators
`
`Award, and the Rush Henrietta Outstanding Alumni Award, amongothers, and
`
`have been inducted into RIT’s Innovator Hall of Fame.
`
`9.
`
`I have published over 200 technical papers, articles, textbooks, and
`
`textbook chapters, and I hold 27 patents. My patented technologies have been
`
`licensed both nationally and internationally.
`
`10.
`
`Additional details about my employmenthistory, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further included in my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`‘Previous Expert Witness Experience
`
`11.
`
`Ihave served as an expert witness since the mid 1990’s. In the last
`
`ten years or so, I have testified at the International Trade Commission twice and
`
`district court three times.
`
`In addition, I have been deposed over twenty times on
`
`patents related to semiconductor device fabrication. Several of these have been
`
`IPR cases. Additional details about mylitigation consulting experience are further
`
`included in my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A.
`
`C.
`
`12.
`
`Compensation
`
`Iam being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`usual and customary rate of $525 per hour plus travel expenses. My compensation
`
`Page 6 of 137
`
`
`
`is not conditioned on the conclusions | reach as a result of my analysis or on the
`
`outcomeof this matter, and in no wayaffects the substance of my statements in
`
`this declaration.
`
`13.
`
`TI have no financialinterest in Petitioner TSMCoranyofits
`
`subsidiaries.
`
`I also have no financial interest in Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP
`
`Bridge 1. I do not have any financial interest in the 696 patent and have not had
`
`any contact with any of the named inventorof the ’696 patent, Nobuo Aoi.
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following references:
`
`e The ’696 patent (which I understand is Exhibit 1001 to TSMC’s
`
`petition);
`
`e U.S. Patent No. 3,617,824 (‘Shinoda,” which I understand is Exhibit
`
`1003 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e US. Patent No. 3,838,442 (“Humphreys,” which I understandis
`
`Exhibit 1004 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e U.S. Patent No. 6,140,226 “Grill,” which I understand is Exhibit 1005
`
`to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e USS. Patent No. 5,635,423 (“Huang,” which I understand is Exhibit
`
`1006 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`Page 7 of 137
`
`
`
`e U.S. Patent No. 5,741,626 “Jain,” which I understand is Exhibit 1007
`
`to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e C. Akroutet al., “A 480-MHz Microprocessorin a 0.124m Ler CMOS
`
`Technology with Copper Interconnects,” IEEE J. of Solid-State
`
`Circuits, Vol. 33, no. 11 (November 1998) (“Akrout,” which I
`
`understand is Exhibit 1008 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e
`
`J.N. Burghartz et al., “Monolithic Spiral Inductors Fabricated Using a
`
`VLSI Cu-DamasceneInterconnect Technology and Low-Loss
`
`Substrates,” International Electron Devices Meeting (December 1996)
`
`(“Burghartz,” which I understand is Exhibit 1009 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e US. Patent No. 6,100,184 (“Zhao,” which I have beentold is Exhibit
`
`1010 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e U.S. Patent No. 6,103,616 (“Yu,” which I have beentold is Exhibit
`
`1011 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696 to Aoiet al. (which I have
`
`been told is Exhibit 1012 to TSMC’s petition)
`
`e
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. 10-079371 to Aoi (“the 371
`
`application,” which I have beentold is Exhibit 1013 to TSMC’s
`
`petition);
`
`Page 8 of 137
`
`
`
`e Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Application No. 10-079371 to
`
`Aoi (“the ’371 application,” which I have beentold is Exhibit 1014 to
`
`TSMC’s petition);
`
`e
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. 11-075519 to Aoi (which I have been
`
`told is Exhibit 1015 to TSMC’s petition);
`
`e Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Application No. 11-075519 to
`
`Aoi (“the ’519 application,” which I have beentold is Exhibit 1016 to
`
`TSMC’s petition);
`
`e US. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/071,628 (which I have
`
`been told is Exhibit 1017 to TSMC’s petition); and
`
`e U.S. Patent No. 5,592,024 to Aoyamaet al. “Aoyama,” which I have
`
`been told is Exhibit 1018 to TSMC’s petition).
`
`V.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`15.
`
`Iam not anattorney and have not been asked to offer my opinion on
`
`the law. However,as an expert offering an opinion on whetherthe claims in the
`
`696 patent are patentable, I have beentold that I am obliged to follow existing
`
`law. [have beentold the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`
`patentability pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that, in an inter partes review proceeding, patent
`
`claims may be deemed unpatentableif it is shown by preponderanceof the
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 137
`
`
`
`evidence that they were anticipated and/or rendered obvious by one or more prior
`
`art patents or publications.
`
`17.
`
`Further, I have beentold that, in an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`patent claims cannotclaim the benefit of priority to a domestic or a foreign
`
`application, if the domestic or the foreign application does not adequately describe
`
`or enable those claims.
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`I have beentold that for a claim to be anticipated under § 102, every
`
`limitation of the claimed invention must be foundin a single prior art reference.
`
`19.
`
`IT have beentold that a claim is unpatentable as anticipated
`
`under § 102(a) if the claimed invention was “knownor used by others in this
`
`country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or another country,
`
`before the invention thereof by the applicantfor patent.”
`
`20.
`
`I have beentold that a claim is unpatentable as anticipated under
`
`§ 102(b) if the claimed invention was“patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
`
`more than oneyearpriorto the date of the application for patent in the United
`
`States.”
`
`21.
`
`Ihave beentold that a claim is unpatentable as anticipated under
`
`§ 102(e) if “the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published
`
`Page 10 of 137
`
`
`
`under section 122(b), by anotherfiled in the United States before the invention by
`
`the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by
`
`anotherfiled in the United States before the invention by the applicantfor patent,
`
`except that an international application filed underthe treaty defined in section
`
`351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application
`
`filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English
`
`language.”
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`[have been told that under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), “[a] patent may not be
`
`obtained although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth
`
`in section 102,if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter would have been obviousat the
`
`time the invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.”
`
`23. When considering the issues of obviousness, I have been told that I
`
`am to do the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Determine the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`Ascertain the differences betweenthe prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 137
`
`
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`24.
`
`Ihavebeentold that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obviousto a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`alleged invention, which I have assumedis shortly before the ’696 patent wasfiled.
`
`25.
`
`Ihave been told that obviousness is a determination of law based on
`
`underlying determinationsof fact.
`
`I have been told that these factual
`
`determinations include the scope and contentofthe priorart, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the differences between the claimed invention andthepriorart, and
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`Ihavebeentold that any assertion of secondary indicia must be
`
`accompanied by a nexus between the merits of the invention and the evidence
`
`offered.
`
`27.
`
`Ihavebeen told that a reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each elementof the invention under § 103.
`
`I have been told
`
`that a reference may also be combined with the knowledgeof a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple
`
`references.
`
`I have also beentold that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to know the relevantprior art.
`
`I have been told that the obviousness
`
`Page 12 of 137
`
`
`
`analysis may take into accountthe inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`28.
`
`In determining whethera prior art reference could have been
`
`combined with anotherprior art reference or other information knownto a person
`
`having ordinaryskill in the art, I have been told that the following principles may
`
`be considered:
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methodsis
`
`likely to be obviousif it yields predictable results;
`
`b. The substitution of one known elementfor anotheris likely to be
`
`obviousif it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a knowntechnique to improvesimilar items or methods in
`
`the same wayis likely to be obviousif it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a knowntechniqueto a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement,to yield predictable results;
`
`e. Any need or problem knownin the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`mannerclaimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`Page 13 of 137
`
`10
`
`
`
`g. The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of
`
`whethera person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “reasonable
`
`expectation of success”—not“absolute predictability” of success—in
`
`achieving the claimed invention by combiningpriorart references.
`
`29.
`
`I have beentold that whethera prior art reference renders a patent
`
`claim unpatentable as obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I have beentold that there is no requirementthat the prior
`
`art contain an express suggestion to combine knownelements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, but a suggestion to combine knownelements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention may come from thepriorart, as filtered through the knowledge
`
`of one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been told that the inferences and
`
`creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employare also relevant to
`
`the determination of obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I have been told that, when a workis available in onefield, design
`
`alternatives and other market forces can promptvariationsofit, either in the same
`
`field or in another.
`
`I have been told that if a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implementa predictable variation and would see the benefit of doing so, that
`
`variation is likely to be obvious.
`
`I have beentold that, in manyfields, there may
`
`be little discussion of obvious combinations, and in these fields market demand—
`
`not scientific literature—maydrive design trends.
`
`I have been told that, when
`
`Page 14 of 137
`
`11
`
`
`
`there is a design need or marketpressure andthere are a finite numberof
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue
`
`those knownoptions.
`
`31.
`
`[have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”to
`
`combinereferences. But I also understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation”test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art.
`
`[ have beentold that this test poses the question as to
`
`whetherthere is an express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combineprior art elements in a waythat realizes the claimed invention, and thatit
`
`seeks to counter impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`VI.
`
`Technological Background
`
`A.
`
`32.
`
`Integrated Circuits and Interconnections
`
`Integrated circuits contain millions of discrete semiconductordevices.
`
`These discrete devices are electrically connected to one another by
`
`“interconnections,” or “interconnects,” to form circuits. U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,617,824, from 1965, provides an early example of interconnects.
`
`(Shinoda at
`
`4:30-73, Figs. 6, 7.) For example, Figures 6 and 7 of Shinoda (below) shows
`
`interconnects (in blue and green)in an integrated circuit.
`
`Page 15 of 137
`
`12
`
`
`
`FIG6
`
`Lower Level Interconnects
`
`’ UpperLevelInterconnects
`
`Insulating Material
`LeogegsNin7,FIRRRE
`
`
`eesPresSe se2.et le, (Ce
`Se,SG,SS
`
`aedJpghehe!Dias
`
`hens
`
`} V2
`
`33.
`
`Interconnects having a “via” and “trench” portions were very common
`
`years before the application for the ’696 patent wasfiled. “Vias” provide an
`
`electrical connection path between device levels by extending between the planes
`
`of one or more adjacent layers. Whenfilled with a conductive material, these vias
`
`provide the electrical contact between conductive layers and are often also referred
`
`to as contact holes. Whenfilled with a conductive material, the “trenches” are the
`
`Page 16 of 137
`
`13
`
`
`
`wiresthat link the filled vias (or contacts) to form circuits. Figures 6 and 6A of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,838,442 show this structure. (Humphreys at Abstract, 1:54—2:6,
`
`8:19-54, Figs. 6, 6A, 7, 7A.)
`
` FIG.6A
`
`34. Multiple levels of interconnects are typically used to form various
`
`circuits within a microchip. The vias are vertical metal patterns that link each
`
`interconnect level together. The trenches are coplanar with the semiconductor
`
`substrate and connectthe circuit elements. These trenches define each
`
`metallization level in an integrated circuit. This type of multi-level wiring scheme
`
`was commonin semiconductor processing years before the time the application for
`
`the ’696 patent was filed. Examples appear below.
`
`(Akrout at Fig. 2; Burghartz at
`
`Fig. 2.) The via-trench structures are readily apparent.
`
`Page 17 of 137
`
`14
`
`
`
` Fig. 2 Cross-sectional SEM of # five-level Cy-damascene interconnect
`
`Interconnect
`Scammmg elecron microscope ef sax copper metal levels and local
`Fig.
`Ehiarcomnect
`
`tlhustmted to
`the stracture 1s
`oxide isolanen. (Note that
`eructure with
`desmanstrate the VLSI capability of the process;
`the dimensions of matal
`layers, vies, and oxede solation are dilferent fram the ones used for the
`taductor fabrication}
`
`35.
`
`One way to makethis type of interconnect structure is a damascene
`
`process.
`
`In a damasceneprocess, the via and trench patterns are etched into an
`
`insulating material, and those patterns are filled with metal. Excess metalis
`
`removed by a chemical-mechanical polish (CMP) treatment. In a single
`
`damascene process, the via and trench levels are formed independently through
`
`two separate damasceneprocesses. In a dual damasceneprocess, the vias and
`
`trenches are formed in the sameprocess. Like other metallization processes, the
`
`resulting structure formed in a dual damasceneprocess is characterized by via
`
`portions for contacting each discrete device and trenches for linking the vias.
`
`(Grill at 1:45-48, 3:33-36; Huang at Abstract, 2:61—3:2, 3:54-57; Jain at 2:15-
`
`20.) Examples of the dual-damascenestructure appear below with annotations.
`
`(Grill at Fig. 1L; Huang at Figs. 6(c), 9; Jain at Fig. 5.)
`
`Page 18 of 137
`
`15
`
`
`
`FIG. 6(c)
`
`Trench
`
`Grill
`
`Huang
`
`Trench
`
`a Via
`
`18
`eee Ze
`
`Jain
`
`Huang
`
`B.
`
`Semiconductor Etching and Photolithography
`
`36.
`
`One semiconductor processing technology that can create patterns in a
`
`semiconductor waferis called photolithography.
`
`37.
`
`In photolithography, a chemical called a “photoresist” uniformly coats
`
`the surface of the processed semiconductor wafer. Photoresist is sensitive to light
`
`and will change its molecular structure when illuminated underthe right
`
`conditions.
`
`Page 19 of 137
`
`16
`
`
`
`38.
`
`A photomask, whichis transparent in some regions and opaque in
`
`others, contains a pattern that is meantto be transferred to the processed wafer
`
`through the photoresist. After the photomaskis aligned, the photoresistis
`
`illuminated through the photomask. The exposed photoresist is altered by the
`
`light.
`
`39.
`
`Any photoresist that is not part of the pattern can be removed with a
`
`chemicalcalled a “developer.” The processed wafer retains the patterned
`
`photoresist layer, which can be usedto help pattern material beneath the
`
`photoresist.
`
`40.
`
`A schematic representation of two photolithography processes appear
`
`below. Ina “negative” photoresist process, the exposed portions of the photoresist
`
`remain on the processed wafer.
`
`In a “positive” photoresist process, the illuminated
`
`portions of the photoresist are removed from the processed wafer.
`
`
` —————
`
`:
`
`aaa
`
`-
`at
`
`Fasitive resist} exposed
`areas will be removed
`
`leqative resist exposedMec
`
`afeas will rernain
`
`Page 20 of 137
`
`17
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Another semiconductor processing technologythat can create patterns
`
`in a semiconductorwaferis called etching. Etching usually complements
`
`photolithography.
`
`42.
`
`A patterned photoresist layer can serve as a “mask” during an etch
`
`process.
`
`In an etch process, surfaces of the processed wafer (semiconductor
`
`substrate and/or overlying layers) are exposed to corrosive chemicals to remove
`
`certain portions of the processed wafer.
`
`43.
`
`After etching, the photoresist may be “stripped” (i.e., removed) from
`
`the wafer by another chemical treatment.
`
`In some processes, the photoresist may
`
`also be removed during etching. The following diagram showsphotolithography
`
`and etching.
`
`Os Prepare Water
`
`TT naae
`
`bod sad ddd
`ten ana Espo
`
`TTT beep
`
`led 5:2. tnpte, cv
`
`ea sire Resist
`
`44.
`
`Anetchthat attacks all exposed materials is called a non-selective
`
`etch. An etch that attacks certain material compositions more than othersis called
`
`Page 21 of 137
`
`18
`
`
`
`a selective etch. The ratio of etch rates between two materials is known as
`
`“selectivity.” (Wang at 6:1-11.)
`
`45. Anetch that attacks a materialin all directions is called isotropic. An
`
`etch that attacks a material in a preferred direction (most commonly perpendicular
`
`to the surface of the wafer) is called anisotropic.
`
`46. Anetch that uses a liquid etching agentis called a “wet” etch. An
`
`etch that does not use a liquid (typically an ionized gas, called a “plasma,” instead)
`
`is called a “dry”etch.
`
`47.
`
`In dual damasceneprocesses, selective anisotropic dry etching is
`
`typically used. (Huang at 2:61-63; Zhao at 2:45—48; Yu at 4:9-12.) This
`
`preservesthe critical dimensions(..e., the sizing) of the vias and trenches and
`
`ensures that the correct layers are etched during each step of the process.
`
`VII. The 696 Patent
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Challenged Claims
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13
`
`48.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understoodthat claim
`
`13 reads on the fifth and sixth embodiments, including the modified fifth and sixth
`
`embodiments, of the ’696 patent. (696 patent at 22:47—29:60, Figs. 21(a)—37(b).)
`
`Below I describe the steps of claim 13 of the ’696 patent with reference to the fifth
`
`and sixth embodiments of the ’696 patent (including their modified counterparts).
`
`Page 22 of 137
`
`19
`
`
`
`49.
`
`The preamble of claim 13 recites “[a] method for forming an
`
`interconnection structure.” The ’696 patent, titled “Method of Forming
`
`Interconnection Structure,” states that “[t]he present invention relates to a method
`
`for forming an interconnectionstructure in a semiconductorintegrated circuit.”
`
`(696 patent at Title, Abstract, 1:6—8.)
`
`50.
`
`Step a) of claim 13 recites “forming a first insulating film [504, 554,
`
`603, 653] over lower-level metal interconnects [501, 551, 601, 651).”
`
`51.
`
`In myopinion, a person of ordinaryskill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the fifth embodimentthe claimedfirst insulating film is first
`
`silicon dioxide film 504, which is located over lower-level interconnects 501.
`
`(696 patent at 22:52-62.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understoodthat silicon dioxideis an insulating film.
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified fifth embodimentthe claimedfirst insulating film
`
`is first silicon dioxide film 554, which is over lower-level interconnects 551. (696
`
`patent at 24:60—25:3.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that silicon dioxide is an insulating film.
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the sixth embodimentthe claimedfirst insulating film is first
`
`Page 23 of 137
`
`20
`
`
`
`organic film 603, whichis an “insulating film” and located over lower-level
`
`interconnects 601. (696 patent at 28:1-9.)
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified sixth embodimentthe claimedfirst insulating film
`
`is first organic film 653, whichis an “insulating film” and located over lower-level
`
`interconnects 651. (696 patent at 30:1-11.)
`
`55.
`
`Figures 21(a), 24(a), 30(a), and 33(a) from the ’696 patent showing
`
`step a) appear below.
`
`(’696 patent at 22:52—23:24, 24:60—25:11, 28:1—-36, 30:1-
`
`16, Figs. 21(a), 24(a), 30(a), 33(a).)
`
`,
`
`Fig. 21 (a)
`
`Fig. 24 (a)
`
`507
`506
`505
`
`504
`503
`
`0
`
`501
`500
`
`Fig.
`ig
`
`30 (a)
`a
`
`606
`605
`604
`
`oN
`602
`
`600
`
`Fifth Embodiment
`
`Sixth Embodiment
`
`997
`556
`999
`554
`553
`
`551
`590
`
`Fig. 33 (a)
`
`
`
`Modified Fifth Embodiment
`
`Modified Sixth Embodiment
`
`Page 24 of 137
`
`21
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Step b) of claim 13 recites “forming a second insulating film [505,
`
`555, 604, 654], having a different composition than that of the first insulating film,
`
`overthefirst insulating film [504, 554, 603, 653].”
`
`57.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the fifth embodiment the claimed secondinsulating film is
`
`“second organic film 505,” whichis an “insulating film” and has a composition
`
`that differs from the composition of the claimedfirst insulating film (first silicon
`
`dioxide film 504). (696 patent at 22:60-64.) A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understoodthat silicon dioxide is not organic. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art also would have understood that second organic film 505 is located
`
`overfirst silicon dioxide film 504.
`
`58.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified fifth embodimentthe claimed secondinsulating
`
`film is “second organic film 555,” which is an “insulating film” and has a
`
`composition that differs from the composition of the claimedfirst insulating film
`
`(first silicon dioxide film 554). (696 patent at 25:1-6.) A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understoodthat silicon dioxide is not organic. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also would have understoodthat second organic film 555 is
`
`located overfirst silicon dioxide film 554.
`
`Page 25 of 137
`
`22
`
`
`
`59.
`
`In myopinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the sixth embodimentthe claimed secondinsulating film is
`
`“silicon dioxide film 604,” which has a composition that differs from the
`
`composition of the claimedfirst insulating film (first organic film 603). (696
`
`patent at 28: 6-11.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that silicon dioxide is an insulating film and thatit is not organic. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also would have understood that silicon dioxide film 604 is
`
`located overfirst organic film 603.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified sixth embodiment the claimed second insulating
`
`film is “silicon dioxide film 654,” which has a composition that differs from the
`
`composition of the claimedfirst insulating film (first organic film 653). (696
`
`patent at 30:6-11.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that silicon dioxide is an insulating film andthatit is not organic. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also would have understoodthat silicon dioxide film 654 is
`
`located overfirst organic film 653.
`
`61.
`
`Figures 22(a), 24(a), 30(a), and 33(a) from the ’696 patent showing
`
`step b) appear below. (696 patent at 22:52—23:24, 24:60-25:11, 28:1-36, 30:1-
`
`16, Figs. 21(a), 24(a), 30(a), 33(a).)
`
`Page 26 of 137
`
`23
`
`
`
`Fig. 21 (a)
`
`Fig.
`
`1g.
`6
`
`30 (a)
`
`a
`
`606
`605
`604
`
`sa?
`601
`600
`
`Sixth Embodiment Fig. 24 (a)
`
`-
`° Za
`
`IN
`
`Fig. 33 (a)
`
`Modified Fifth Embodiment
`
`Modified Sixth Embodiment
`
`62.
`
`Step c) of claim 13 recites “forming a third insulating film [506, 556,
`
`605, 655], having a different composition than that of the secondinsulating film,
`
`over the second insulating film [505, 555, 604, 654].”
`
`63.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the fifth embodiment the claimed third insulating film is
`
`“second silicon dioxide film 506,” which has a composition that differs from the
`
`composition of the claimed second insulating film (second organic film 505).
`
`(696 patent at 22:62-67.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that silicon dioxideis an insulating film andthatit is not organic. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art also would have understood that secondsilicon
`
`dioxide film 506 is located over second organic film 505.
`
`Page 27 of 137
`
`24
`
`
`
`64.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified fifth embodimentthe claimed third insulating film
`
`is “second silicon dioxide film 556,” which has a composition that differs from the
`
`composition of the claimed second insulating film (second organic film 555).
`
`(696 patent at 25:3-9.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that silicon dioxideis an insulating film andthatit is not organic. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art also would have understood that secondsilicon
`
`dioxide film 556 is located over second organic film 555.
`
`65.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the sixth embodimentthe claimedthird insulating film is
`
`“second organic film 605,” whichis an “insulating film” and has a composition
`
`that differs from the composition of the claimed second insulating film (silicon
`
`dioxide film 604). (696 patent at 28: 9-13.) A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understoodthat silicon dioxide is not organic. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art also would have understood that second organic film 605 is located
`
`oversilicon dioxide film 604.
`
`66.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that in the modified sixth embodimentthe claimed third insulating film
`
`is “second organic film 655,” whichis an