`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-018431
`Patent 7,893,501
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding. See Paper 10
`at 3.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`A. The Claims Were Narrowed During Prosecution to Distinguish a
`Transistor With The Side Surfaces of Its Gate Electrode Fully
`Covered By Silicon Nitride ......................................................................... 2
`B. The Side Surfaces of the Misra/Tsai Gate Electrode Are Fully
`Covered By Silicon Nitride, Just Like The Distinguished Prior Art .......... 3
`C. The Board’s Preliminary Finding That The Claims Read On
`Misra/Tsai Cannot Be Maintained .............................................................. 4
`1. Petitioner Fails To Give “Film” Its BRI ............................................... 5
`2. Even If Silicon Nitride Layers 20 and 23 Are Considered to be
`Distinct Films, Misra/Tsai Fails To Meet The Protruding Gate
`Electrode Limitation .............................................................................. 9
`3. It Would Be Legal Error To Adopt Petitioner’s Unreasonably
`Broad Interpretation That Is Inconsistent With the Specification
`and Prosecution History ......................................................................11
`II. THE RECORD IS MORE FULLY DEVELOPED THAN AT
`INSTITUTION ................................................................................................17
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’501-PATENT AND CHALLENGED CLAIMS ......17
`A. The Protruding Gate Electrode Is Disclosed .............................................21
`B. The Protruding Gate Electrode Reduces Parasitic Capacitance
`Between the Gate Electrode and the Source/Drain Contacts ....................23
`C. The Claims Were Narrowed to Distinguish Gate Electrodes that Do
`Not Protrude ..............................................................................................25
`IV. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..............................................................................27
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................27
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .........................................................................27
`A. “silicon nitride film” ..................................................................................28
`1. The Plain Meaning of “Film” is a Thin Coating/Covering .................28
`2. The ’501-Patent Describes a Silicon Nitride Film As a Thin
`Coating of One Or More Layers Of Silicon Nitride ...........................29
`3. Petitioner’s Narrow Interpretation Of “Silicon Nitride Film”
`Must Be Rejected ................................................................................30
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`a. The Claimed Silicon Nitride Film is Not Limited to a
`Single Structure Formed Via the Same Process ......................... 31
`b. Silicon Nitride Films Disclosed In the Specification Can
`Perform More than One Function ............................................... 34
`4. Under BRI, Nothing Precludes A Film From Serving As A
`Sidewall ...............................................................................................35
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER MISRA IN VIEW OF TSAI .............................................38
`A. Overview of The Grounds .........................................................................39
`1. Misra ....................................................................................................39
`2. Misra/Tsai Combination ......................................................................41
`3. The Petitions’ Assertion About How The Protruding Gate
`Electrode is Met. ..................................................................................41
`B. All Grounds Fail Because the Petitions Fail to Give “Film” Its BRI
`In Ignoring The Parts Of Misra/Tsai’s Silicon Nitride Film That
`Fully Cover The Gate Electrode Side Surfaces .........................................42
`1. When Properly Interpreted Under BRI, the Claimed Silicon
`Nitride “Film” Includes Contiguous Silicon Nitride Layers That
`Together Coat Surfaces Of The Device ..............................................42
`2. When “Film” Is Given Its BRI, the Silicon Nitride Film of
`Misra/Tsai Includes Silicon Nitride Spacers 23 and Layer 20 ...........44
`a. Misra’s Layers 20 and 23 Are Contiguous And Form A
`Film Of Silicon Nitride ............................................................... 45
`b. Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony That Misra’s Silicon
`Nitride Layers 20, 23 Are Not Contiguous Fails ........................ 48
`c. When the Entire Silicon Nitride Film in Misra/Tsai Is
`Considered, The Combination Does Not Meet the
`Protruding Gate Limitation Required By All Challenged
`Claims ......................................................................................... 52
`3. Misra is Not “Nearly Identical” to Figure 1 of the ’501-Patent ..........54
`4. Petitioner’s Proposed Interpretation of the Protruding Gate
`Limitation is Inconsistent With the Claims, Specification and
`Prosecution History .............................................................................56
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`a. Petitioner’s Overly Broad Interpretation Reads On
`Embodiments In The Specification The Claims Are
`Clearly Not Directed To .............................................................. 57
`b. Petitioner’s Interpretation Is Inconsistent With the
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 63
`C. Even If Misra/Tsai’s Silicon Nitride Layers 20, 23 Are Considered
`to be Distinct Films, Misra/Tsai Still Does Not Satisfy the
`Limitations Claim 1 ...................................................................................71
`1. Ignoring The Silicon Nitride Film Closest To The Gate
`Electrode In Determining Whether The Protruding Gate
`Electrode Is Met Ignores The Plain Language Of The Claims
`And Is Not Consistent With The Specification ...................................71
`2. Ignoring The Silicon Nitride Film Closest To The Gate
`Electrode In Determining Whether The Protruding Gate
`Electrode Is Met Ignores The Plain Language Of The Claims
`And Is Inconsistent With The Prosecution History ............................77
`3. The Gate Electrode in Misra/Tsai Does Not Protrude from
`Silicon Nitride Spacers 23 ...................................................................79
`D. Petitioner Has Failed To Show That Any Of Dependent Claims 4-
`5,7,9-11,15-19, and 23-25 Would Have Been Obvious Over Misra
`and Tsai ......................................................................................................80
`E. Claims 6 and 21 are not Rendered Obvious by Misra, Tsai, and Oda ......80
`F. Claims 12-13 are not Rendered Obvious by Misra, Tsai, and
`Hokazono ...................................................................................................81
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Aqua Prod., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................15
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................8, 31
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................21
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
` 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................27
`
`D’Agostino v. MasterCard International Inc.,
`844 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 14, 57
`
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00731, Paper No. 29 (Oct. 26, 2017) ....................................................15
`
`In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 13, 28
`
`In re Slocombe,
`510 F.2d 1398 (C.C.P.A. 1975) ............................................................................23
`
`In re Smith Int’l, Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... passim
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 14, 57, 66, 67
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................75
`
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Lee,
`137 S. Ct. 2160 (2017) .........................................................................................13
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC.,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 13, 27, 75
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Sophos Ltd. v. Iancu,
`No. 2017-1567 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2018) .................................................... passim
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`806 F.3d 1356 ................................................................................................ 14, 57
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 14, 57, 66, 67
`
`V-Formation v. Benetton Grp.,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................8, 31
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`2208
`2209
`
`2210
`2211
`
`2212
`
`2213
`
`Exhibit Description
`2201
`Request for Continued Examination dated March 29, 2010
`2202
`U.S. Patent No. 6,437,404 (“Xiang”)
`2203
`U.S. Patent No. 6,870,230 (“Matsuda”)
`2204
`Office Action dated May 10, 2010
`2205
`U.S. Patent No. 3,390,022
`2206
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003)
`Declaration of Joshua J. Miller in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`2207
`Hac Vice
`Declaration of Alexander D. Glew, Ph.D., P.E.
`Transcript of the Deposition of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D. (March 27,
`2018)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D. (March 28,
`2018)
`Exhibit 2001 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., annotated version of ’501 Patent
`Exhibit 2002 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., annotated version of Igarashi
`Exhibit 2003 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Twelfth Edition
`(1993)
`Exhibit 2004 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., annotated version of Xiang (Ex. 2202)
`Exhibit 2005 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., annotated versions of Fig. 12 of Igarashi
`Exhibit 2006 from March 27-28 Deposition of Dr. Stanley Shanfield,
`Ph.D., annotated versions of Fig. 12 of Igarashi
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,924,237
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0164359
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,908,324
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,792,695
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,020,233
`Park, et al., A Study on Modified Silicon Surface after CHF3/C2F6
`Reactive Ion Etching, 16 ETRI Journal 45 (1994)
`Miyatake, et al., Surface Contamination Control During Plasma
`Etching, 1593 SPIE 47 (1991)
`Kastenmeier, et al., Gas Utilization in Remote Plasma Cleaning and
`
`2217
`2218
`2219
`2220
`2221
`2222
`
`2214
`
`2215
`
`2216
`
`2223
`
`2224
`
`vi
`
`

`

`2225
`
`2226
`
`Exhibit Description
`Stripping Applications, 18(5) J. VAC. SCI. TECH. 2102 (2000)
`Butterbaugh, et al., Plasma-Surface Interactions in Fluorocarbon
`Etching of Silicon Dioxide, 9(3) J. VAC. SCI. TECH. 1461 (1991)
`Schaepkens, et al., Study of the SiO2-toSi3N4 Etch Selectivity
`Mechanism in Inductively Coupled Fluorocarbon Plasmas and a
`Comparison with the SiO2-to-Si Mechanism, 17(1) J. VAC. SCI. TECH.
`26 (1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,505,816
`The American Heritage College Dictionary (Third Edition)
`Curriculum vitae of Alexander D. Glew, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`2227
`2228
`2229
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The 7,893,501 patent (the “’501-patent”) discloses a number of
`
`embodiments of a semiconductor device comprising a transistor (more specifically
`
`a MISFET) that includes a silicon nitride film. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶27-29. In
`
`some embodiments (e.g., Figs. 4B and 4C, reproduced below), the silicon nitride
`
`film (highlighted in green below) covers the entire side surfaces of the MISFET’s
`
`gate electrode (highlighted in orange below). Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶40.
`
`’501-patent (Ex.-1201), Figures 4B and 4C (annotated)
`
`
`
`In others embodiments (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4A, reproduced below) the silicon
`
`nitride film is not formed on the upper side surfaces of the gate electrode, so the
`
`gate electrode protrudes above the surface level of the silicon nitride film at both
`
`side surfaces of the gate electrode. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶41. This decreases the
`
`parasitic capacitance of the MISFET as compared with the embodiments where the
`
`silicon nitride film covers the entire side surfaces of the gate electrode. See §III.B.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`’501-patent (Ex.-1201), Figures 1 and 4A (annotated)
`
`A. The Claims Were Narrowed During Prosecution to
`Distinguish a Transistor With The Side Surfaces of Its Gate
`Electrode Fully Covered By Silicon Nitride
`
`During the prosecution of the ’501-patent, the claims were rejected over
`
`prior art devices Xiang (Ex.-2202) and Matsuda (Ex.-2203) (both annotated
`
`below), in which a silicon nitride film (green below) entirely covers the side
`
`surfaces of the gate electrode (orange below). Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶151.
`
`Xiang (Ex.-2202),
`Figure 1 (annotated)
`
`Matsuda (Ex.-2203),
`Portion of Figure 9A (annotated)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`To overcome the rejection over Xiang and Matsuda, the claims were
`
`amended to require that “the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface level
`
`of parts of the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces of the gate
`
`electrode.” Applicant explained that the amended claims were directed to, for
`
`example, the embodiments in Figs. 1 and 4A. Ex.-1203 at 8-9; Ex.-2208(Glew-
`
`Decl.), ¶131. The specification of the ’501-patent describes these embodiments as
`
`being formed by removing part of the silicon nitride film from the side surfaces of
`
`the gate electrode. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶132; ’501-patent at 6:62-7:12 (“part of
`
`the silicon nitride film 8x located on the gate electrode 6a is removed”), 9:53-10:3
`
`(same).
`
`B.
`
`The Side Surfaces of the Misra/Tsai Gate Electrode Are
`Fully Covered By Silicon Nitride, Just Like The
`Distinguished Prior Art
`Just like in Xiang and Matsuda, the sides surfaces of the gate electrode
`
`(orange below) in the Misra/Tsai combination2 are entirely covered with silicon
`
`nitride (green below). Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶93, 99-111, 145.
`
`
`2 In the Misra/Tsai combination used to challenge claim 1, Tsai is used only to
`
`allegedly teach that Misra’s plasma enhanced nitride layer 20 is silicon nitride.
`
`Petition at 19, 33. Below, as in the Petition, the figures of Misra are used to
`
`illustrate the Misra/Tsai combination.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Misra (Ex.-1204), Figure 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`No reasonable interpretation of the challenged claims can read on
`
`Misra/Tsai, given that (1) the challenged claims all require that “the gate electrode
`
`protrudes upward from a surface level of parts of the silicon nitride film located at
`
`both side surfaces of the gate electrode”; and (2) these claims were amended to
`
`explicitly distinguish devices, like Misra/Tsai, where the sides of the gate electrode
`
`are covered with silicon nitride.
`
`C. The Board’s Preliminary Finding That The Claims Read
`On Misra/Tsai Cannot Be Maintained
`
`At Institution, the Board accepted Petitioner’s assertion that the claimed
`
`silicon nitride film could be read on one layer (element 20) of Misra/Tsai’s silicon
`
`nitride film that is contiguous with, and spaced further from the gate electrode
`
`than, another layer (element 23) of Misra/Tsai’s silicon nitride film that covers the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`side surfaces of the gate electrode. Decision (Paper 10) at 8-9. On the now more
`
`fully developed record, that finding cannot be maintained.
`
`To arrive at a strained interpretation that reads the claims directed to a
`
`protruding gate electrode onto a device where the sides of the gate electrode are
`
`entirely covered by silicon nitride, the Petitions take two indefensible claim
`
`interpretation positions, and ignore highly relevant aspects of the prosecution
`
`history.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Give “Film” Its BRI
`
`1.
`Contrary to clear teachings in the ’501 specification that the silicon nitride
`
`“film” can be formed of multiple layers, Petitioner asserts that Misra/Tsai’s silicon
`
`nitride film includes only layer 20, rather than the two contiguous layers 20, 23 of
`
`silicon nitride that (as shown in green below) coat the gate electrode and the top of
`
`the substrate. Petitioner fails to give “film” its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(BRI).
`
`The plain meaning of a “film” is a thin coating. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶62;
`
`Ex.-2228 (defining film as a “thin covering or coating”). Misra unquestionably has
`
`a thin coating of silicon nitride (green below) that covers the side surfaces of the
`
`gate electrode (orange below) and the top of the substrate. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.),
`
`¶100.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Misra (Ex.-1204), Figure 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The Petitions do not explicitly interpret “film,” and failed to address its plain
`
`meaning or how “film” is used in the ’501 specification. That is because an
`
`explicit claim interpretation analysis would have laid bare that Petitioner’s position
`
`is indefensible.
`
`The Petitions label Misra/Tsai’s layer 20 alone a “film,” and despite the fact
`
`that 20 and 23 together form a contiguous thin coating of silicon nitride, Petitioner
`
`suggests that they do not together form a film of silicon nitride because they are
`
`“separate structures” that are “formed through different process steps and serve
`
`separate functions.” Petition at 42-43.3
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise specified with the “-1844” prefix/suffix, references to exhibits
`
`and papers are to those filed in IPR2017-01843. Pin cites are not provided for
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Thus, the Petitions implicitly assert that under BRI, the term “film” is
`
`limited to (1) the same structure that is (2) formed through the same process steps
`
`and (3) serves the same function. The Petitions fail to point to any intrinsic, or
`
`even extrinsic, evidence that supports limiting the meaning of “film” in this way.
`
`Id. Petitioner’s unduly narrow interpretation of “film” is not remotely the BRI.
`
`Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶61-77.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s narrow interpretation of “film” is inconsistent with the
`
`’501 specification’s explicit statement that the silicon nitride film may be formed
`
`of multiple layers. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶69-77; ’501-patent at 5:60-64. In the
`
`embodiments of the ’501 specification where the silicon nitride film is formed of
`
`multiple layers, the layers that form the silicon nitride “film” (1) are not the same
`
`structure, (2) are not formed through the same process steps, and (3) need not
`
`serve the same function. See §§VI.A.1-3. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that under
`
`BRI a “film” is limited to the same structure formed by the same process and
`
`serving the same function is not only entirely unsupported, it is refuted by, and
`
`inconsistent with, the specification. See, e.g., V-Formation v. Benetton Grp., 401
`
`
`Petition-1844 where the arguments are the same as Petition-1843. Throughout this
`
`Response, unless otherwise specified, internal citations are omitted and emphasis is
`
`added.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The intrinsic record … is the primary tool to
`
`supply the context for interpretation of disputed claim terms.”); Bell Atl. Network
`
`Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“[E]xtrinsic evidence … may not be used to … contradict … the claim language
`
`from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.”).
`
`It is unusual for a petitioner to advocate an improperly narrow interpretation.
`
`But Petitioner does just that here because its unduly narrow interpretation of “film”
`
`is critical for Petitioner to make its erroneous argument that Misra/Tsai’s silicon
`
`nitride layer 23 can be ignored when analyzing whether Misra/Tsai’s gate electrode
`
`protrudes from “a silicon nitride film formed over from side surfaces of the gate
`
`electrode to upper surfaces of the source/drain regions.”
`
`At Institution, the Board noted that a silicon nitride film “need not include
`
`every silicon nitride structure in a prior art device.” Decision at 8 (emphasis in
`
`original). Patent Owner agrees that every silicon nitride structure need not be
`
`considered part of the same film. But the plain meaning of “film,” and more
`
`importantly its usage in the ’501 specification, do require that contiguous layers of
`
`the same silicon nitride material that—like Misra/Tsai’s layers 20, 23—together
`
`coat one or more surfaces of a device are part of the same film. Ex.-2208(Glew-
`
`Decl.), ¶¶99-102.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s unduly narrow interpretation of “film” must be rejected. When
`
`“film” is given its BRI consistent with the ’501 specification’s disclosure that the
`
`silicon nitride film can be formed of multiple layers, Misra/Tsai’s silicon nitride
`
`layers 20, 23 together form a film that covers the entire side surfaces of the gate
`
`electrode. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶105-111. Thus, Misra/Tsai fails to satisfy the
`
`claimed gate electrode that “protrudes upward” from the parts of the silicon nitride
`
`film located at both its side surfaces. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶121-24. This is
`
`fatal to all instituted grounds.
`
`2.
`
`Even If Silicon Nitride Layers 20 and 23 Are Considered to
`be Distinct Films, Misra/Tsai Fails To Meet The Protruding
`Gate Electrode Limitation
`
`Even if the Board were to construe “film” in a manner that somehow
`
`precludes Misra/Tsai’s silicon nitride coating formed by layers 20, 23 from being
`
`considered the same film, Misra/Tsai fails to meet the protruding gate electrode
`
`limitation because its gate electrode is fully covered with silicon nitride (layer
`
`23). Interpreting the claims to read on such a structure is inconsistent with the
`
`plain language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history, and is
`
`not remotely reasonable. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶148-61.
`
`Claim 1 requires that “the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface
`
`level of parts of the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces of the gate
`
`electrode” and recites the silicon nitride film as “formed over from side surfaces of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`the gate electrode.” The Petitions offer no justification for ignoring Misra/Tsai’s
`
`silicon nitride layer 23—which entirely covers the gate electrode side surfaces—in
`
`determining whether Misra/Tsai’s gate electrode protrudes from a silicon nitride
`
`film “formed over from the gate electrode’s side surfaces” and “located at both
`
`side surfaces of the gate electrode” as claimed. Given that Misra/Tsai’s gate
`
`electrode does not protrude from the silicon nitride layer 23 that entirely covers the
`
`side surfaces of the gate electrode, Misra/Tsai fails to satisfy the challenged claims
`
`even if silicon nitride layers 20, 23 are considered to be separate films. Ex.-
`
`2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶162-63.
`
`When asked at deposition to explain why Misra/Tsai’s spacer 23 is allegedly
`
`not a silicon nitride film formed over from side surfaces of the gate electrode,
`
`Petitioner’s expert (“Shanfield”) could only respond that 23 was a spacer and
`
`therefore not a film. E.g., Ex.-2210 at 289:5-18, 291:7-17, 296:22-298:16
`
`(admitting that no characteristics of film are missing in silicon nitride spacers 23
`
`but asserting that they are “a separate entity from film”). This conclusory assertion
`
`is refuted by the specification (which repeatedly refers to a film serving as a
`
`spacer) and overwhelming evidence establishing that in the art “films” and spacers
`
`are not mutually exclusive, and indeed it is common to implement (as in the ’501
`
`specification) a spacer like Misra 23 via a film. See §VI.A.4 below; see also Ex.-
`
`2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶78-87. Thus, if the contiguous layers 20, 23 of silicon nitride
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`in Misra/Tsai are considered separate films, then it is Misra/Tsai’s silicon nitride
`
`structure 23 that is the silicon nitride film “formed over from” and “located at” side
`
`surfaces of the gate electrode as claimed, and from which the gate electrode would
`
`need to protrude to meet the protruding gate electrode limitation. Ex.-2208(Glew-
`
`Decl.), ¶¶148-161.
`
`At Institution, the Board characterized Patent Owner’s argument as requiring
`
`that the gate electrode protrude from “all silicon nitride structures in a prior art
`
`device.” Decision at 18 (emphasis in original). Respectfully, that is not Patent
`
`Owner’s position. Patent Owner’s position is simply this—the plain language of
`
`the claims requires that the gate electrode protrude from a silicon nitride film
`
`“formed over from” and “located at” the side surfaces of the gate electrode, and
`
`in view of the specification and prosecution history, the only reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claims is that the silicon nitride structure located closest to the
`
`side surfaces of the gate electrode (such as layer 23 in Misra) cannot fully cover
`
`the side surfaces of the gate electrode. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶¶148-161.
`
`3.
`
`It Would Be Legal Error To Adopt Petitioner’s
`Unreasonably Broad Interpretation That Is Inconsistent
`With the Specification and Prosecution History
`
`Petitioner asserts that a claim that (1) was amended during prosecution to
`
`distinguish a gate electrode whose sides are covered with silicon nitride, (2)
`
`expressly recites the gate electrode as protruding upward from “parts of the silicon
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`nitride film located at both side surfaces of the gate electrode,” and (3) covers
`
`embodiments described in the specification as being formed by removing parts of
`
`the silicon nitride film on the upper side surfaces of the gate electrode, somehow
`
`reads on a gate electrode with its side surfaces completely covered by silicon
`
`nitride. It would be legal error for the Board to adopt Petitioner’s unreasonably
`
`broad interpretation because it is inconsistent with the claims, specification and
`
`prosecution history.
`
`Misra (Ex.-1204), Figure 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`As the Federal Circuit has emphasized in several recent decisions reversing
`
`the Board for adopting overly broad claim interpretations, the proper interpretation
`
`under BRI may not be so broad that it fails to be affirmatively consistent “with
`
`what and how the inventor describes [the] invention in the specification.” E.g., In
`
`re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding an
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`interpretation “unreasonable” because its breadth exceeded “the otherwise different
`
`description in the specification”—“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its
`
`[BRI] in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or
`
`precludes” a proposed interpretation and “is not simply … [whether] an
`
`interpretation is not inconsistent with the specification.”), see also In re Power
`
`Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Sophos Ltd. v. Iancu, No.
`
`2017-1567, 2018 WL 1517198, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2018); SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`
`ComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. granted sub
`
`nom. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Lee, 137 S. Ct. 2160 (2017) (the BRI “must be consistent
`
`with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”).
`
`Claim 1 is directed to embodiments (Figs. 1 and 4A, reproduced below)
`
`having a protruding gate electrode free of silicon nitride at its upper side surfaces.
`
`Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.), ¶150; Ex.-1203 at 8-9. The specification describes these
`
`embodiments as being formed by removing “part of the silicon nitride film …
`
`located on the gate electrode.” ’501-patent at 6:62-7:12, 9:53-10:3. Petitioner’s
`
`interpretation that reads the claims onto a MISFET having a silicon nitride film
`
`completely covering the side surfaces of the gate electrode does not correspond
`
`with “what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification,” is
`
`inconsistent with the specification, and is unreasonable. E.g., In re Smith, 871 F.3d
`
`at 1382-83.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`’501-patent (Ex.-1201), Figures 1 and 4A (annotated)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s position is also inconsistent with the prosecution history, which
`
`must be considered in determining the BRI of the claims. See Ex.-2208(Glew-
`
`Decl.), ¶¶140-47; see, e.g., Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1061-62
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim
`
`must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the …
`
`prosecution history.”); Sophos, 2018 WL 1517198, at *5 (rejecting interpretation
`
`where “nothing in the claims, the specification, or the prosecution history supports
`
`the Board’s understanding”); D’Agostino v. MasterCard International Inc., 844
`
`F.3d 945, 949-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming BRI of single-merchant was limited
`
`to single identified merchant where prosecution history reinforced that the BRI did
`
`not cover a chain of stores); Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806
`
`F.3d 1356, 1362 (prosecution history “is to be consulted even in determining a
`
`claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation”); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prod.,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The PTO should also consult the
`
`patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought
`
`back to the agency for a second review.”). The Petitions acknowledge this (citing
`
`the “prosecution history” at 15-17) but cherry-pick from the prosecution history
`
`and ignore highly relevant aspects that are fatal to Petitioner’s grounds.
`
`Shanfield admitted that he did not even consider whether Petitioner’s claim
`
`interpretations were so broad that they read directly onto the very references
`
`distinguished over during prosecution. Ex.-2210 at 389:8-390:2 (“I’ve offered no
`
`opinion about whether Xiang meets or doesn’t meet the claim elements in my
`
`interpretation of them … I haven’t done [] an analysis on Xiang.”). It was legal
`
`error for Shanfield to not ensure that the claim interpretation he and the Petitioner
`
`advanced was consistent with the prosecution history. See Hospira, Inc. v.
`
`Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-00731, Paper No. 29 at 8 (Oct. 26, 2017) (“Under the
`
`broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard, we must consult the patent’s
`
`prosecution history in proceedings … “Any explanation, elaboration, or
`
`qualification presented by the inventor … is relevant, for the role of claim
`
`construction is to capture the scope of the actual invention that is disclosed,
`
`described, and patented.”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Regardless of whether the silicon nitride layers 20, 23 in Misra/Tsai are
`
`viewed as forming separate films (bottom left below) or a single film (bottom right
`
`below), the side surfaces of Misra/Tsai’s gate electrode are covered in silicon
`
`nitride, just like the Xiang and Matsuda references the claims were amended to
`
`distinguish over by reciting a protruding gate electrode. Ex.-2208(Glew-Decl.),
`
`¶¶88-91. A POSA reviewing the prosecution history would never interpret the
`
`claims to read on Misra/Tsai’s covered gate