throbber
DOCKET NO.: 2003195-00123US3 and US4
`Filed By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018431
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARDBEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. MANU
`
`v. v.
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`
`Inter Partes es Review Internterr Pter Partees eview Re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nos. IPR2017PR201177 1843 and IPR2011717-77--01843 and IPR2017171 -7-01844010 177 0
`U.S. Patent No. 7,893,501
`
`PETITIONER’S ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proposed Agenda
`
`Technology Background
`Overview of the ’501 Patent
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Undisputed Issues
`Obviousness of Claims
`Issues Raised by Patent Owner and Responses
`– Claim 1: whether applied prior art discloses claimed
`“protruding gate”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Technology Background
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Basic Elements of a MISFET (Transistor)
`
`MISFETs include:
`– an active region made
`of a substrate, located
`between the shallow
`trench isolation regions
`(STI);
`– a gate insulating film
`(red);
`– a gate electrode
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions
`including a silicide layer
`(green); and
`– other elements such as
`sidewalls (purple)
`
`Example metal-insulator-semiconductor
`field effect transistors (MISFETs) from
`Plummer textbook (1st ed. 2000):
`
`Plummer at 86 (Ex. 1209) (annotated); see also Petition
`at 6-7; Shanfield Decl. (Ex. 1202), ¶¶33-38; Rabaey at 42-
`43 (Ex. 1211)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Overview of the ’501 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`The ʼ501 Patent
`
`Claimed MISFET includes:
`– an active region 1a made
`of a substrate 1;
`– a gate insulating film 5
`(red);
`– a gate electrode 6a
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions
`3a, 4a including a silicide
`layer (green); wherein:
`– the gate electrode 6a
`(orange) protrudes from a
`silicon nitride film 8a
`(blue).
`
`’501 Patent at 3:19-64, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201); see also
`Petition at 8, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶48 (Ex 1202)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`’501 Patent File History
`
`Claims repeatedly rejected until amended to recite
`allegedly novel “protruding gate”
`’501 patent specification does not mention or
`identify any advantages of “protruding gate”
`
`
`
`August 5, 2010 Response at 8 (Ex. 1203); see also Petition at 1-2, A t 5 2010 R t 8 (E 1203) l P titi t 1 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶59-63 (Ex. 1202)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`The ʼ501 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1201)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Misra
`
`Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204); Petition at 9-14, Paper 2
`Shanfield Decl., ¶¶51-54 (Ex. 1202)
`
`Misra’s MISFET includes each
`of the claimed elements,
`including the allegedly novel
`protruding gate:
`– an active region made of a
`substrate 12;
`– a gate insulating film 27
`(red);
`– a gate electrode 28b
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions
`26, 28 including a silicide
`layer 18 (green); wherein
`– the gate electrode 28b
`(orange) protrudes from
`the silicon nitride film 20
`(blue).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues: Misra’s Gate 28b Protrudes Above
`Misra’s Silicon Nitride Film 20
`
`It is undisputed that Misra’s gate 28b protrudes above
`Misra’s silicon nitride film 20, just as gate 6a protrudes
`above silicon nitride film 8a in the ’501 patent.
`
`Reply at 2, 4-6, Paper 22; Petition at 40-44, Paper 2; Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204);
`Shanfield Decl., ¶¶111-118 (Ex. 1202); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶9-13 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues: “active region”
`
`There is no dispute that Misra discloses the “active
`region”
`
`’501 Patent at 3:19-64, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201);
`Petition at 8, Paper 2
`
`Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204);
`Petition at 10, Paper 2
`
`Petition at 9-10, 20-22, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶51, 68-75 (Ex. 1202)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues: “protruding gate” Known in the Art
`
`There is no dispute the allegedly novel “protruding gate” was known
`in the art
`In fact, Patent Owner cites Igarashi’s disclosure as evidence of the
`purported advantages of the allegedly novel “protruding gate”:
`
`POPR at 32, Paper 6; Reply at 1, Paper 22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Other Undisputed Issues
`
`Except for claimed “protruding gate,” Patent Owner
`does not dispute instituted grounds disclose all other
`limitations
`Patent Owner does not dispute references in the
`instituted grounds would have been obvious to
`combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Reply at 1-2, Paper 22
`
`

`

`Obviousness of the Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`The ʼ501 Patent: Claim 1
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1201)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Misra Expressly Discloses the “protruding gate”
`
`Figure 7 of Misra shows that the gate electrode 28b is higher
`than the silicon nitride film (plasma enhanced nitride layer 20)
`
`Petition at 42, Paper 2
`
`Petition at 40-44, Paper 2; Reply at 4-6, Paper 22; Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204);
`Shanfield Decl. ¶¶ 111-118 (Ex. 1202); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶9-13 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`Misra Expressly Discloses the “protruding gate”
`
`Petition showed that even in embodiments where spacers 23
`are made of silicon nitride, Misra still discloses the claimed
`“protruding gate”
`
`Petition at 40-44, Paper 2; Reply at 4-6, Paper 22; Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204);
`Shanfield Decl. ¶¶ 111-118 (Ex. 1202); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶9-13 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`

`Issues Raised by Patent Owner
`and Responses
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`Issues Raised by Patent Owner
`
`Claim 1: whether applied prior art discloses a
`transistor that includes a “protruding gate”
`– First, Patent Owner argues that Misra’s silicon nitride
`film 20 and its sidewall spacers 23 are multiple layers of
`a single film
`– Second, Patent Owner argues that Misra’s gate does not
`protrude above the parts of the silicon nitride film
`closest to the gate, which it argues are the silicon nitride
`spacers 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`

`Response to Patent
`Owner’s First Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response attempted to
`avoid the prior art by proposing a construction that
`encompassed all films and required the gate to
`protrude above the closest silicon nitride structure:
`“the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface level of
`parts of the silicon nitride film (which can be formed of one
`or more layers) located closest to both side surfaces of the
`gate electrode.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response at 58; Reply at 6, Paper 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`The Board Properly Rejected Patent Owner’s
`Outcome Driven Construction
`
`D.I. at 8, Paper 10
`
`Petition at 42-43, Paper 2; Reply at 6-7, Paper 22;
`Shanfield Decl. ¶¶ 115-116 (Ex. 1202); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶14-18 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`D.I. at 8-9, Paper 10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response Advances the Same Argument
`
`Patent Owner no longer advances its rejected
`construction
`But Patent Owner continues to apply an
`interpretation of “film” that treats two separate
`silicon nitride structures as layers of the same film
`
`Response at 28, Paper 20; Reply at 7, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶15-16 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`

`Misra Invalidates the Challenged Claims
`
`It is undisputed Misra discloses embodiments where
`the spacers 23 are thermally grown with materials
`other than silicon nitride, such as silicon oxide
`
`Reply at 2, 4-6, Paper 22; Misra (Ex. 1204) at 6:54-58; Petition at 40-42;
`Shanfield Tr. 262:6-24 (Ex. 2210)
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Misra Invalidates the Challenged Claims
`
`Patent Owner only disputes the “protruding gate”
`limitation and only addresses Misra’s embodiments
`where the spacers 23 are silicon nitride (which also
`invalidate the claims). Patent Owner offers no
`response for the silicon oxide embodiments.
`It is undisputed that Misra’s embodiments where
`spacers 23 are made of other materials such as silicon
`oxide invalidate the challenged claims
`
`Reply at 2, 4-6, Paper 22; Petition at 40-42; Misra (Ex. 1204) at 6:54-58;
`Shanfield Tr. 262:6-24 (Ex. 2210)
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Film 20 and Spacers 23 Are Separate Structures,
`Not Layers of a Film
`
`The plasma enhanced nitride 20 and the spacers 23 are:
`– separate structures
`– formed through different process steps
`– serve separate functions
`
`Misra at Fig. 5 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Petition at 42-44, Paper 2; Reply at 6-9, Paper 22; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶115-118 (Ex. 1202);
`Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶14-20 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From Xiang
`Reference Discussed During Prosecution
`In contrast with Misra’s protruding gate, in Xiang, both the left etch stop
`layer 208 and the right etch stop layer 210 in Fig. 10 perform the same
`function and are deposited in the same manufacturing step 212
`
`Xiang at 4:9-14, 6:35-36, Figs. 2, 9, 10 (Ex. 2202)
`Reply at 10, 16, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶23, 29 (Ex. 1232)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From Xiang
`Reference Discussed During Prosecution
`
`Dr. Shanfield confirms—consistent with the disclosure in Xiang—
`that etch stop layer 208 and etch stop layer 210 are formed during a
`single manufacturing step.
`
`Xiang at Fig. 10 (Ex. 2202)
`
`Xiang at 4:9-14, 6:35-36, Figs. 2, 9, 10 (Ex. 2202); Reply at 17, Paper 22;
`Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶29 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From the Matsuda
`Reference Discussed During Prosecution
`
`In contrast with Misra’s film 20 and spacers 23, in Matsuda,
`protective insulating film 9a is deposited in a single step and
`shaded in a consistent pattern, with no distinction or
`separation made to denote two separate structures
`
`Matsuda at Fig. 3B (Ex. 2203)
`Matsuda at 8:11-14, Figs. 3A, 3B (Ex. 2203); Reply at 10, 17-19, Paper 22;
`Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶22-23, 30-32 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From the Xiang and Matsuda
`References Discussed During Prosecution
`
`In contrast to the Xiang and Matsuda references, Misra’s layer 20
`and spacer 23 are formed through different process steps, serve
`different functions, and are part of separate structures.
`
`Misra at Fig. 2 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at Fig. 5 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at 5:20-27, 6:37-54, Figs. 2-5 (Ex. 1204);
`Reply at 11-13, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶24-27 (Ex. 1232);
`Petition at 42-44, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶115-118 (Ex. 1202)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From the Xiang and Matsuda
`References Discussed During Prosecution
`
`Misra describes a separate process to form spacer 23 in Fig. 2 that is
`separated from the formation of film 20 in Fig. 5 by several
`intervening steps in Figs 3 and 4
`
`Misra at Fig. 2 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at Fig. 3 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at 5:20-27, 6:37-54, Figs. 2-5 (Ex. 1204);
`Reply at 11-13, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶24-27 (Ex. 1232);
`Petition at 42-44, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶115-118 (Ex. 1202)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`Misra’s Disclosure Differs From the Xiang and Matsuda
`References Discussed During Prosecution
`
`Misra describes a separate process to form spacer 23 in Fig. 2 that is
`separated from the formation of film 20 in Fig. 5 by several
`intervening steps in Figs 3 and 4
`
`Misra at Fig. 4 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at Fig. 5 (Ex. 1204)
`
`Misra at 5:20-27, 6:37-54, Figs. 2-5 (Ex. 1204);
`Reply at 11-13, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶24-27 (Ex. 1232);
`Petition at 42-44, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶115-118 (Ex. 1202)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`

`Dr. Glew Confirms Misra’s Silicon Nitride Film 20 is
`Formed Separately From Spacers 23
`
`Q. In Figure 2, the silicon nitride film 20 has already been deposited, right?
`A. Layer 20 is shown being deposited in Figure 2.
`
`Ex. 1231 at 130:11-19
`
`Q. In Figure 2, spacers 23 have not yet been formed, correct?
`A. Column 6, Lines 34 through 56 describe that spacers 23 are formed in Figure
`5, and that's where it's shown, and it's not yet present.”
`
`Ex. 1231 at 130:20-25
`
`Q. Figures 3 and 4 show additional intermediate stages in the manufacturing
`process in between the steps shown in Figure 2 and what’s depicted in Figure
`5, correct?
`A. Yes, Figure 3 are intermediate in between Figures 2 and 5 in the
`manufacturing process.
`
`Ex. 1231 at 131:6-12
`
`Reply at 13-14, Paper 22; Dr. Glew Deposition Transcript at
`130:11-19, 130:20-25, 131:6-12 (Ex. 1231)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`

`Matsuda, Xiang, Misra, and Fig. 4B
`
`Like Matsuda and Xiang:
`(i) Figure 4B has a single film
`(ii) Figure 4B’s single film is
`deposited in a single process
`(iii) Figure 4B’s single film
`performs the same function
`
`BUT, in Misra:
`(i) Layer 20 and spacer 23 are
`different
`(ii) Layer 20 and spacer 23 are
`deposited separately
`(iii) Layer 20 and spacer 23
`perform different functions
`
`’501 Patent at Fig. 4B (Ex. 1201)
`
`Reply at 27-29, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl.
`¶¶47-49 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Film Layers
`
`The ’501 patent merely recognizes a film can have multiple layers
`deposited on top of each other
`
`Nowhere does the ’501 patent state that two adjacent films
`would be considered “layers” of a single film
`
`Reply at 21-24, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶37-41 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Stress Fields Further Illustrate How Layers of a Film
`Differ From Two Adjacent Films
`Consistent with the ’501 patent, Dr. Shanfield uses stress fields to
`illustrate how a film with two layers differs from two side-by-side films:
`
`(i) a single film with two layers (tan
`and grey) creates a single
`combined stress field (orange)
`
`(ii) two separate, adjacent films
`(tan and grey) create two
`separate stress fields (peach)
`
`Reply at 21-24, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶37-41 (Ex. 1232)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`

`Response to Patent
`Owner’s Second Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Attempt to Read-in a “closest to the
`gate” Requirement Should be Rejected
`
`Claims recite protruding above silicon nitride film
`“located at both side surfaces,” not “closest to the
`gate”
`Dependent claims confirm the silicon nitride film
`need not be “closest to the gate” to be “located at
`both side surfaces”
`Claim 7 recognizes: “the silicon nitride film is formed
`over the side surfaces of the gate electrode with the
`sidewall interposed between the silicon nitride film
`and the side surface of the gate electrode.”
`
`’501 Patent at claim 7 (Ex. 1201); Petition at 31-32, Paper 2;
`Reply at 26, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl. ¶45 (Ex. 1232);
`Response at 71, Paper 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Misra’s Gate Protrudes Above the Silicon Nitride
`Film “located at both side surfaces”
`
`Just like the ’501 patent Fig. 1 and dependent claim 7, Misra’s gate
`protrudes above the surface of the silicon nitride film (film 20 in
`Misra and film 8a in the ’501 patent) “located at both side surfaces
`of the gate electrode” with a sidewall interposed therebetween
`(spacers 23 in Misra and sidewall 7 in the ’501 patent)
`
`Petition at 31-32, Paper 2; Reply at 26-27, Paper 22; Misra at Fig. 7 (Ex. 1204);
`’501 Patent at Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶45 (Ex. 1232)
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s “closest to the gate” Argument Still
`Requires Film 20 and Spacer 23 to be Part of a Single Film
`
`Patent Owner’s “closest to the gate” argument still
`implicitly requires that film 20 and spacers 23 both
`be part of the “silicon nitride film” and should be
`rejected for the reasons discussed previously
`
`Response at 71-76;
`Reply at 2-3, 25-27, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶ 44-45 (Ex. 1232)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s “closest to the gate” Argument Still
`Requires Film 20 and Spacer 23 to be Part of a Single Film
`
`Properly understood as two separate structures,
`there is no dispute that gate electrode 28b protrudes
`above the portions of film 20 “closest to the gate”
`
`Reply at 2-3, 25-27, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶ 44-45 (Ex. 1232);
`Petition at 40-44, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶111-118 (Ex. 1202)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`

`Gate Must Protrude Above “a silicon nitride film,” Not “all
`silicon nitride structures”
`
`Claims merely require the “gate electrode protrudes
`upward from … the silicon nitride film” and does not
`require the gate to protrude above every silicon
`nitride structure in the device
`
`Reply at 6-7, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶¶ 14-15 (Ex. 1232); Petition at
`43, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶116 (Ex. 1202); D.I. at 8-9, Paper 10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Fails Under Any Theory
`
`PO’s “film layers” theory – fails because film 20 and
`spacer 23 are separate structures, not layers of a film
`PO’s “closest to the gate” theory – fails because not
`required by claims and because gate 28b protrudes
`above portion of film 20 closest to the gate
`PO’s “all silicon nitride structures” theory – fails
`because the claims only require the gate to protrude
`above “a silicon nitride film,” not “all silicon nitride
`structures”
`
`Petition at 40-44, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶111-118 (Ex. 1202); D.I. at 8-9,
`Paper 10; see generally Reply, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl. (Ex. 1232);
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Offers Claim Construction for
`Different Terms in Each Proceeding
`
`Patent Owner offers constructions for different terms in each
`proceeding, despite both proceedings addressing the same
`challenged patent and claims.
`
`In IPR2017-01841, Patent Owner only offers construction of
`an “active region made of a semiconductor substrate.”
`
`In IPR2017-01843, Patent Owner only offers construction of a
`“silicon nitride film.”
`
`These constructions are not offered to provide an
`understanding of the claims terms, but rather as a vehicle to
`argue patentability independently in each proceeding
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 5, Paper 22
`
`46
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Opening-47
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith /________________
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on September 5, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record as listed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Registration No. 50,474
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Registration No. 36,149
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Edmund J. Walsh, Registration No. 32,950
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Joshua Miller, admitted pro hac vice
`Joshua.Miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Ma 02210
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`___/Michael Smith /__________
`Michael H. Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket