`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
`
`