UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01841
`Patent 7,893,501
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01841
`Patent 7,893,501
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (“Response’’) confirms that the challenged claims
`
`
`
`are unpatentable. There is no dispute that Igarashi discloses theallegedlynovel
`
`“protruding gate” that provided the basis for allowance.” Moreover, Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) does not dispute that the instituted grounds expressly disclose every
`
`limitation of the challenged claims, except the “active region.” Nor does PO
`
`dispute that the references would have been obvious to combine. Instead, PO
`
`merely repeats the same arguments that it already raised in its Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response (“POPR”*) that Igarashi’s disclosure somehowlacks an
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`2
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 1
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`Petition for /nter Partes Review
`
`
`
`NINNNN\ LAN
`6
`9
`9343 sb |
`3a3 3b9 N
` ZZwo
`BNEaet aheex.
`<A
`NLLZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R44
`
`aaFT
`
`
`(Igarashi atFig,12(Fx-1004) (annotated).) (Shanfield Decl. [66 (Ex-1002).)
`
`Active Region
`
`To the extent that Igarashi does not explicitly disclose the location of the
`
`“active element region” and therefore that the active regionis “made of” the
`
`semiconductor substrate, Woerlee discloses this limitation. (Shanfield Decl. 67
`
`(Ex-1002).) For example, Woerlee discloses an active region 4 “made of” the
`
`semiconductor body | in Fig. 13:
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`3
`
`27
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 27
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 27
`
`
`
`“Petitions Fail to Demonstrate that the Igarashi/Woerlee
`Device Comprises a MISFET that Includes an ‘Active Region’
`as Required by All Challenged claims.” (POR, 37)
`
`Ex. 1001, ’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 24, 25
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 32
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`4
`
`
`
`“Petition’s … rationale … supporting the assertion that
`Igarashi teaches … Fig. 12 includes STI regions …
`is non-existent.” POR 38-39
`
`Ex. 1001, ’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 24, 25
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 19
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`5
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence – Active Region
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 68, Annotated Fig.9A of ’501 patent
`(cited POR at 8)
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 69, Annotated Fig.1 of ’501 patent
`(cited POR at 9)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`’501 patent, at 3:24-28 (cited POR at 8)
`
`6
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 69, Annotated Fig.9B of ’501 patent
`(cited POR at 8)
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence – Active Region
`
`Woerlee,
`Ex.-1006,
`Annotated, Fig. 13
`
`Woerlee, Ex. 1006, Annotated Figure 13 (cited POR at 57)
`
`Kang, Ex. 1011, at 28 (cited POR at 31)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`7
`
`POR at 56
`
`
`
`“All of the extrinsic evidence is consistent with [Patent
`Owner’s proposed] BRI of ‘active region’” (POR at 30)
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 8-9
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`8
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence – Active Region
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 84 (cited POR 31)
`
`Rabaey, Ex. 1010 at 42-43 (cited Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 84,152,
`cited POR 31,76)
`
`* * * *
`
`Plummer, Ex. 1008, at 51, Fig. 2-2
`(cited Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 83-84, cited POR 31)
`
`Rabaey, Ex. 1010 at 44 (cited Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 84,152,
`cited POR 31, 76)
`
`Ex. 1008 at 53 (cited Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 83-84, cited POR 31)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Rabaey, Ex. 1010 at 48 (cited Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 82, cited POR 31)
`
`9
`
`
`
`The Claims Require That the MISFET Includes
`An Active Region
`
`’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`Agata, Ex 1025, 5:9-18 (cited Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply,
`Paper No. 28, at 1)
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 9
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`10
`
`
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 23
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 24
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`11
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a ‘MISFET Includes:
`An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 23
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 24, 25
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 32
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a
`‘MISFET Includes: An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`13
`
`POR, Paper No. 20, at 59
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Declaration Does Not Solve The Problems
`In The Petition As He Repeats The Petition Verbatim
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`14
`
`Petition at 25
`
`Shanfield Opening Declaration, Ex. 1002, at 33
`
`
`
`“Shanfield refused to explain whether … the alleged ‘active region’ was the entire
`region bounded by isolation regions so that there was only one ‘active region’
`present, or … more than one ‘active region’ was present.” (POR 63)
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2010 at 424:2-11
`(cited in POR at 70)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 22
`
`15
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony Reveals
`He Did Not Even Consider How The Claimed ‘MISFET Includes’
`Requirement Was Met Before The Petition Was Filed
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 23-24
`
`16
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony First Asserted
`that there are Two Active Regions
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo, Ex. 2009, at 91:12-22
`(cited POR at 64)
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2010, at 401:9-11
`(cited POR at 66)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 65
`
`17
`
`
`
`Shanfield Gave Inconsistent Testimony
`
`* * * *
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2009, at 86:21-24;
`91:12-22 (cited POR at 64)
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2010, at 406:8-23
`(cited POR at 68)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`18
`
`
`
`Shanfield Gave Inconsistent Testimony
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2009, at 91:12-15
`(cited POR at 64)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 23
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2010 at 409:2-16
`(cited POR at 70)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2, at 27
`
`19
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony Reveals
`He Did Not Even Consider How The Claimed ‘MISFET Includes’
`Requirement Was Met Before The Petition Was Filed
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 70-71
`
`20
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony Reveals
`He Did Not Even Consider How The Claimed ‘MISFET Includes’
`Requirement Was Met Before The Petition Was Filed
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 71
`
`POR at 20
`
`21
`
`
`
`Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony Reveals
`He Did Not Even Consider How The Claimed ‘MISFET Includes’
`Requirement Was Met Before The Petition Was Filed
`
`Shanfield Reply Decl., Ex. 1027
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 25
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a
`‘MISFET Includes: An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 24, 25
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 19
`
`23
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a
`‘MISFET Includes: An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`24
`
`POR at 61
`
`
`
`“Petitioner’s New Arguments regarding Active Region”
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 14
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20-21
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`25
`
`
`
`“Petitioner’s New Arguments that Isolation Region Not
`Required to Form an Active Region”
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 14
`
`Petition at 33
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`26
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`
`
`The Petition Asserted That An Active Region Must Be Bounded
`By Isolation And Be The Region Where the Transistor is Formed
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR, Paper No. 20, at 27-28
`
`27
`
`
`
`“Petitioner’s New Arguments regarding Active Region”
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 21
`
`Petition at 27
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`28
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20
`
`
`
`The Argument That In Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12 Two Transistors
`Share The Same Active Region Is Improper New Argument
`
`Paper 27, Patent Owner’s
`Identification of Improper Arguments, at 2
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Paper 29, Petitioner’s Response, at 1-2
`
`29
`
`
`
`The Argument That Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12 Has A Separate
`Active Region For Each Transistor Is Improper New Argument
`
`Paper No. 27, Patent Owner’s
`Identification of Improper Arguments, at 2
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Paper No. 29, Petitioner’s Response, at 2
`
`30
`
`
`
`The New Argument That Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12
`Has A Separate Active Region For Each Transistor Fails
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`31
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20-21
`
`Shanfield Reply Decl., Ex. 1027, ¶¶ 30-31
`
`
`
`The New Argument That Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12
`Has A Separate Active Region For Each Transistor Fails
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`32
`
`POR at 65
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶140 (cited POR at 65)
`
`
`
`The New Argument That Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12
`Has A Separate Active Region For Each Transistor Fails
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`33
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 14
`
`POR, Paper No. 20, at 27-28
`
`
`
`The New Argument That Igarashi/Woerlee Fig. 12
`Has A Separate Active Region For Each Transistor Fails
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper No. 28, at 3
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Decl., Ex. 2024 at 3
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`34
`
`
`
`A MISFET’s Active Region Must Be Defined By
`Isolation and Be Where the MISFET Is Formed
`
`’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 69
`
`35
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Requires That the MISFET Is The Larger Whole
`That Includes The Active Region Not Vice Versa
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 67
`
`36
`
`
`
`The Reply Seeks to Rewrite Claim 1
`
`’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20
`
`37
`
`
`
`The Claims Require That the MISFET Includes
`An Active Region – Not the Other Way Around
`
`Ex. 1001, ’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 1-2
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 12
`
`38
`
`
`
`The Reply Seeks to Rewrite Claim 1
`
`’501 patent, at Claim 1
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 1-2
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments On
`“MISFET Includes: an Active Region
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 6, 7
`
`40
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments On
`“MISFET Includes: an Active Region
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 6
`
`POR at 26
`
`41
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`Shanfield Opening Declaration (Ex. 1002)
`Portion of ¶ 66
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`42
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition, at 27
`
`43 Slide 61A
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 43-44 (cited POR 33)
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 116-17 (cited POR 34)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶ 68 (cited POR 34)
`
`44
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`45
`
`POR at 44
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`Shanfield Opening Decl., Ex. 1002, Portion of ¶ 66
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 42-43
`
`46
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`POR at 45
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2009, at
`98:10-13; 100:24-101:10 (cited POR 43)
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2009, at
`104:24-106:1 (cited POR 43)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at
`84:18-85:5 (cited in Paper No. 34,
`Observation No. 4)
`47
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 20
`
`48
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`49
`
`Petition at 22-23
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 2
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 17-18
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`50
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 17
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 19
`
`POR at 59
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`51
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 43-44 (cited POR 33)
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 116-17 (cited POR 34)
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶ 68 (cited POR 34)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`52
`
`
`
`“Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions” (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 18
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`53
`
`Glew Declaration, Ex. 2007, ¶ 120 (cited POR 51)
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 42
`
`54
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 19
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`55
`
`POR at 47-48
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 48-49
`
`56
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 25-26
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 14
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`57
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 25
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 27, 31
`
`58
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`59
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 15-16
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 3
`
`POR at 52
`
`Petition at 32
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`60
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`61
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2009, at 104:24-106:1
`(cited POR 11)
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`POR at 43
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 44-45
`
`62
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 15
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 17
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`63
`
`
`
`US. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`MISFET. Ex.-2007, 145. It is undisputed that there are at least twotransistors in
`
`Igarashi’s Fig. 12. Ex.-2010, 405:9-18, 423:21-424:1; Ex.-2007, 4144. Indeed,
`
`the term “includes”in claim | means“that it has at least these features.” Ex. 1024,
`
`Petitioner’s expert agreed there could be more, andthat the STI regions the
`
`94:20-95:7. Under the second, each transistor includes an active region because
`
`there are two transistors and two active regions. Ex. 1027, 30-31.
`
`PO’s attempt to argue that Igarashi’s Figure 12 embodiment somehow does
`
`not have an active region becauseit is a memory device also fails. Response, 33-
`
`34, Whenasked to provide examples of known devices having “active regions,”
`
`Dr. Glew admitted that there were various types of devices—including “logic and
`
`memory devices”—that would have “active regions.” Ex. 1024, 97:7-18. Ex.
`
`1027, 33.
`
`Petitions added to Fig. 12 could be further away from the shown transistors. Ex.-
`
`2009, 93:21-94:20; Ex.-2010, 406: 15-23; Ex.-2007, {144. For example, the left
`
`transistor is formed in the region highlighted yellow below. Ex.-2007, 4145.
`
`
`
`ENiN
`CsDe
`C4:
`SJ
`
`
`
`Formation Region R
`
`STI
`
`Active Region
`
`And, as Dr. Glew confirmedin his declaration, Igarashi’s Fifth Embodiment
`
`shown in Figure 12 “comprises a portion of a memory cell”—precisely the type of
`
`
`
`Neither of the MISFETs shown in the Petitions’ modified-Igarashi Fig. 12 is
`
`formed in and includes the entire region ofthe substrate bounded by the isolation
`
`region, so the region boundedby the isolation region is not an “active region” of
`
`
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 21
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 21
`
`POR at 18
`POR at 18
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`64
`64
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Relies Heavily On The Institution Decision;
`Institution Decision at 9
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 9
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`65
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Coaching During Deposition
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude,
`Paper No. 35 at 2-3
`
`66
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Leading Questions
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026, at 157:1-2; 160:20-23
`(cited Paper No. 35 at 8)
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo.,
`Ex. 2026 at 144:1-145:17
`(cited Paper No. 35 at 10)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Counsel’s Leading Questions … Enabled Shanfield to
`Answer Questions About Claim 2 that He Was Unable to Answer
`Without Being Led (Paper No. 35 at 11)
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at 144:1-12
`(cited Paper No. 35 at 11)
`
`Shanfield Opening Depo., Ex. 2010 at 230:15-231:7
`(cited Paper No. 35 at 11)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`68
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Improper Coaching
`
`* * * *
`[omitted objections and call to the Board]
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at 175:17-24
`(cited Paper No. 35 at 2)
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at
`176:4-16 (cited Paper No. 35 at 2)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at 167:14-21;
`170:11-172:16 (cited Paper No. 35 at 11, 13)
`
`69
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Did Not Waive Its Objections
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026 at 167:14-170:9 (cited Paper No. 35 at 2)
`
`70
`
`
`
`Dr. Glew Interpreted “wherein the MISFET includes: an active
`region”
`
`Paper No. 33 at 1
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No.33, at 1
`
`Glew Decl., Ex.2007, ¶¶ 61-63
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Glew Sur-
`Reply
`Depo.,
`Ex. 1029
`46:1-47:6
`
`71
`
`
`
`Dr. Glew Interpreted “wherein the MISFET includes: an active
`region”
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`72
`
`Ex. 2025 at 16:13-24
`
`
`
`Dr. Glew’s Testimony Regarding “Includes”
`
`Petitioner Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No.33 at 1-2
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo., Ex. 1029, 93:15-22
`
`Glew Opening Depo., Ex. 1024, at 94:13-95:7
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶¶ 142-143 (cited POR 67-68)
`
`73
`
`
`
`“That the active region of a multi-transistor device … has multiple
`transistors does not support … that any of those transistors
`“includes” the device’s active region.” Sur-Reply at 2-3.
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 2
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo., Ex. 1029, 62:5-63:9
`
`74
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “hypothetical” “doesn’t make physical sense”
`(Ex. 1029 at 66:17-67:3, cited in paper 33 at 3)
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 3
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 69, Annotated Fig.1 of
`’501 patent (cited POR at 9)
`
`Glew Decl., Ex. 2007 ¶ 69, Annotated Fig.9B of
`’501 patent (cited POR at 9)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`75
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo., Ex. 1029, 66:17-67:3
`
`
`
`“An “active region” … is “an area of the semiconductor substrate
`defined by an isolation region where the transistor is formed”” (POR 26)
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33 at 3
`
`Shanfield Reply
`Depo., Ex. 2026 at
`84:18-85:5 (cited
`Paper No. 34,
`Observation No. 4)
`
`Glew Sur-Reply,
`Ex. 2024, at ¶ 9
`(cited in Paper
`No. 28 at 3)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026, at 95:4-96:18
`(cited Paper No. 34, Observation No. 4)
`
`76
`
`
`
`“An “active region” … is “an area of the semiconductor substrate
`defined by an isolation region where the transistor is formed”” (POR 26)
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 3
`
`Shanfield Reply
`Depo., Ex. 2026 at
`84:18-85:5 (cited
`Paper No. 34,
`Observation No. 4)
`
`Glew Sur-Reply,
`Ex. 2024, at ¶ 9
`(cited in Paper
`No. 28 at 3)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026, at 95:4-96:18
`(cited Paper No. 34, Observation No. 4)
`
`77
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`78
`
`Petition at 27
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 15
`
`
`
`“Petitions Fail to Demonstrate that the Igarashi/Woerlee
`Device Comprises a MISFET that Includes an
`‘Active Region’ as Required by All Challenged claims.”
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Petition at 24, 25
`
`Petition at 32
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`79
`
`
`
`Shanfield Repeats Portions of the Petitions Verbatim
`(POR at 42-43)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`80 New Slide
`
`POR at 42-43
`
`
`
`“Petitioner changed its theory of unpatentability based on a new argument
`that it would have been obvious to modify Igarashi’s Fifth Embodiment to
`add isolation regions … in view of Woerlee” (Paper No. 27 at 1)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 25
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 19
`
`81
`
`
`
`1. A semiconductor device, comprising a MISFET,
`wherein
`
` made of a semiconductor substrate;
`a gate insulating film formed on the active region;
`a gate electrode formed onthe gate insulating film;
`source/drain regions formed in regionsofthe active region
`located on both sides of the gate electrode; and
`a silicon nitride film formed over from side surfaces of the
`gate electrode to upper surfaces of the source/drain
`regions, wherein:
`the silicon nitride film is not formed on an uppersurface of
`the gate electrode, and
`the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface level of
`parts of the silicon nitride film located at both side sur-
`faces of the gate electrode.
`
`HarmonieInc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming final written decision upholding patentability where
`
`Petitioner offered merely “conclusory” discussion ofthe priorart and failed to
`
`explain with particularity howthe limitations were disclosed); Kranos Corp. v.
`
`Riddell, Inc., IPR2016-01649, Paper No, 25 at 29, 36, 39-42 (PTAB Feb.7, 2018)
`
`(Petitionerfailed to meet its burden where “it is unclear fromPetitioner’s argument
`
`where each element of[the challenged claims] is found in” the prior art and the
`
`Board “decline[d] to speculate as to Petitioner’s intentions”).
`
`501 patent at Claim 1
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`POR at 20
`POR at 20
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`82
`
`
`
`In the Petitions’ modified-Igarashi Fig. 12 the entire region of the substrate
`
`bounded bythe alleged isolation region is not the formation region for any
`
`MISFET. Ex.-2007, 4145. Taking the left MISFET as an example,the transistoris
`
`formed in the region in yellow below. Jd. There are other regions of the substrate
`
`bounded bythe alleged isolation region, ¢.g., the area in blue, that are
`
`unquestionably not part of the region (yellow below) where the left MISFETis
`
`formed. Id.
`
`Formation Region R
`
`1
`
`
`
`3a° 3b9
`
`«6
`
`o
`
`Active Region
`
`
`
`so the region boundedbythe isolation region is not an “active region” of
`
`either MISFET. Ex.-2007, 146. Thus, there is not one “active region” that meets
`
`Fe 12
`INASoeRNLON
`
`93,3 3b |
`
`ZZ)eara
`SS.DeolaeasLS
`
`NNuN
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`69
`
`POR at 69
`POR at 69
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`83
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a
`‘MISFET Includes: An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`Petition at 32
`
`Petition at 24, 25
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 27
`
`84
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`the substrate and defined by the STI regions. Petition, 25-26, citing Ex, 1010, 42-
`
`43 (explaining that the manufacturing process for a MISFET“starts with the
`
`definition of the active regions—these are the regions wheretransistors will be
`
`constructed. All other areas of the die will be covered with a thick layer ofsilicon
`
`dioxide (SiO2) called the field oxide. This oxide acts as the insulator between
`
`neighboring devices, andit is either grown(asin the process of Figure 2-1) or
`
`deposited in etched trenches (Figure 2-2)—hence, the nametrench insulation.)
`
`Asdiscussed in Section H above with respect to Agata and Rashed (and PO’s
`
`district court infringement contentions), it is visibly clear that Igarashi discloses the
`
`claimed “active region” of the "501 patent. Ex. 1027, 929.
`
`As discussed below, Dr. Shanfield was asked during his deposition whether
`
`this active region would be considered one active region or two active regions. There is nothing that precludes multiple transistors
`
`from being formedin the active region, nor does the claim require that each
`
`transistor have its own active region that is separated fromother active regions by
`
`isolation regions. See Section II, above; Ex. 1025. Indeed, Dr. Glew admitted that
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 20
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`
`
`
`
`InLN N
`
`
`
`Ior
`
`a ceA
`Peeeee+
`oT
`
`
`
` Active Region
`
`es
`
`STI
`
`(Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex-1004) (annotated).) (Shanfield Decl. 66 (Ex-1002).)
`
`Petition at 27
`Petition at 27
`
`85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s cursory and conclusory “argument,” that the area “between the
`two STI in Igarashi [modified Fig. 12]” includes multiple “active regions”
`(one per transistor) … is new. (Paper No. 27 at 2)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 25, 26
`
`86
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Improper New Arguments
`
`Paper No. 27, Patent Owner’s Identification of
`Improper New Arguments, at 1
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 26
`
`Petition at 27
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 15-16
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 31
`
`87
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Improper New Arguments
`
`Paper No. 27, Patent Owner’s Identification of
`Improper New Arguments, at 1
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 3
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 15
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 19
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Petition at 25-26
`
`88
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 38-39
`
`89
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 17
`
`POR at 43-44
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`90
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`POR at 48
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 10, at 19
`
`Glew Declaration, Exhibit 2007, ¶117
`
`91
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify a
`‘MISFET Includes: An Active Region’ As Claimed
`
`POR at 20
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`POR at 59
`
`POR at 62
`
`92
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (Paper No. 20 at 38)
`
`Reply, Paper No. 22, at 17, 19
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`Igarashi, Ex. 1004, ¶ 68 (cited Reply, Paper No. 22 at 18)
`
`93
`
`
`
`Igarashi Does Not Teach That the Fifth Embodiment (Fig. 12)
`Includes Isolation Regions (POR at 38)
`
`Reply
`
`✔
`Reply at 17
`✔
`Reply at 20
`
`✘
`
`✔✔
`
`Reply at 14
`
`Reply at 3
`
`Institution
`Decision
`✔
`ID at 20
`✔
`ID at 20
`
`✔
`ID at 19
`✘
`
`✘
`
`Petition
`
`? ?
`
`Pet. at 22
`
`Pet. at 22
`
`✘
`
`✘
`
`✘
`
`Same Reference Numerals … Describe
`Common Features (Reply at 17)
`
`Where Features Differ Between
`Figures, The Differences Are
`Described (Petition at 22)
`
`Fifth Embodiment Refers Back to …
`Method for Manufacturing … First
`Embodiment (ID at 19)
`
`Use of Isolation Regions … Obvious in
`View of Woerlee (Reply at 14)
`
`Obvious to Apply Igarashi’s … Teaching
`of An Active Region to the Fifth
`Embodiment (Reply at 3)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`94
`
`
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo,
`Ex. 1029 at 16:4-23
`(cited Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 2)
`
`Transcript of Call with Board,
`Ex. 2025 16:13-24
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`95
`
`
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo,
`Ex. 1029 at 14:19-15:8
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo Exhibit 1028
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`96
`
`
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo., Ex. 1029 at 19:3-11 (cited Petitioner’s
`Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 2)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`97
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo,
`Ex. 1029 at 22:5-16
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo Exhibit 1028
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ’501 patent at Claim 1
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`98
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo, Ex. 1029 at 62:5-63:9
`(cited Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 2)
`
`
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo, Ex. 1029 at 63:10-20
`(cited Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 3)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`99
`
`
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Depo, Ex. 1029 at 70:5-12
`(cited Petitioner’s Sur-Sur-Reply, Paper No. 33, at 3)
`
`Glew Decl., Ex.2007, ¶¶ 61-63
`(cited POR 26)
`
`Shanfield Reply Depo., Ex. 2026, at 95:4-96:18
`(cited Paper No. 34, Observation No. 4)
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`100
`
`
`
`
`
`SooOonNOOOoFF&NH
`PaoOooOSHOoOoFFeSONYSlUlUwhlUCD
`
`Q.
`
`What's the function of the active
`
`region?
`
`A.
`
`As
`
`| stated,
`
`it's an area where
`
`the transistor is formed. Different portions
`
`of the transistor have different functions.
`
`Hence, different areas of the active region
`
`would have a function corresponding to the area
`
`of the transistor that it corresponded to.
`
`Q.
`
`Does the active region itself have
`
`any functions?
`
`A.
`
`As
`
`| previously stated,
`
`the active
`
`region is the region where the transistor is
`
`formed.
`
`There are different aspects to the
`
`transistor,
`
`such as the source gate or drain.
`
`These different parts of the
`
`transistor have different functions.
`
`So
`
`portions of the active region do different jobs
`
`corresponding to the part of the transistor
`
`occupying that part of the active region.
`
`Glew Opening Depo., Ex. 1024 at 43:2-20
`Glew Opening Depo., Ex. 1024 at 43:2-20
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`101
`
`
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
