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
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF STANLEY R. SHANFIELD, PH.D.
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`TSMC 1232
`TSMC v. GODO KAISHA
`IPR2017-01843
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018431
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF STANLEY R. SHANFIELD, PH.D.
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`TSMC 1232
`TSMC v. GODO KAISHA
`IPR2017-01843
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`I, Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Stanley R. Shanfield. I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. to serve as a technical
`
`expert in this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`2. My background is set forth in paragraphs 2-12 of my initial
`
`Declaration in this proceeding (Ex. 12022). As I explained in paragraphs 2-12 and
`
`34-36 of my initial Declaration, I would have been a person with at least ordinary
`
`skill in the art of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,501 (the “’501 patent”) as of the time of its
`
`alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`Since my prior declaration, I have reviewed Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Responses dated November 8, 2017, Patent Owner’s district court
`
`infringement contentions (Ex. 1228), the Board’s Decision to Institute dated
`
`February 6, 2018, the transcript of my deposition on March 27, 2018 and March
`
`28, 2018 (Exs. 2009 and 2010), the Patent Owner’s Response dated April 20, 2018,
`
`the Declaration of Dr. Alexander D. Glew (Ex. 2008), the transcript of Dr. Glew’s
`
`deposition (Ex. 1231), and the exhibits submitted in connection with the forgoing.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified with the “-01844” prefix, references to exhibits and
`
`papers herein are to those filed in Case IPR2017-01843.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`I confirm that everything I included in my prior declaration, and all of the
`
`testimony given during my deposition on March 27, 2018 and March 28, 2018
`
`remain true to the best of my knowledge. I have been asked to provide expert
`
`testimony in this declaration in reply to issues raised by the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (“Response”) and the Declaration of Alexander D. Glew (Ex. 2208).
`
`4.
`
`Specifically, I understand that, with the exception of the “protruding
`
`gate” limitation (“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”),
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the instituted grounds expressly disclose every
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`limitation recited by the challenged claims of the ’501 patent. Nor does Patent
`
`Owner dispute that the references would have been obvious to combine.
`
`5.
`
`For example, there is no dispute 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.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1202, ¶¶112-114; Petition, 40-42. Instead, Patent Owner argues gate 28b must
`
`also protrude above spacers 23 because in some embodiments spacers 23 are also
`
`made of silicon nitride.
`
`6.
`
`As I will describe below, Patent Owner’s arguments incorrectly
`
`assume that the spacers 23 are necessarily made of silicon nitride. Misra expressly
`
`states with regard to spacers 23 that the “nitride spacers formed by deposition may
`
`be replaced or composited with a sidewall thermal growth,” Ex. 1204, 6:54-58
`
`(emphasis added), as I confirmed on cross-examination when questioned about this
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`language. Ex. 2210, 262:6-24. It is therefore undisputed that Misra discloses the
`
`“protruding gate” limitation in the embodiments where spacers 23 are replaced
`
`with sidewall thermal growth.
`
`7. Moreover, Patent Owner’s arguments do not rebut the showing that
`
`Misra discloses the “protruding gate” limitation “regardless of whether spacers 23
`
`are constructed out of silicon nitride.” Ex. 1202, ¶115; Petition, 42. Patent Owner
`
`raises the same principal arguments it raised in the POPR. Each argument was
`
`already rejected by the Board. First, Patent Owner again incorrectly argues that the
`
`“silicon nitride film” includes both the “contiguous” plasma enhanced layer 20 and
`
`silicon nitride spacers 23. See e.g., Response, 45. Then, Patent Owner again
`
`incorrectly 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.
`
`See e.g., Response, 71.
`
`8.
`
`I provide further explanation below regarding these issues, with which
`
`I disagree with the Patent Owner and Dr. Glew.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute Misra’s Thermally Grown Sidewall
`Embodiments Discloses the Claimed Protruding Gate
`9. My initial declaration demonstrated that Misra discloses the
`
`“protruding gate” limitation because gate 28b protrudes above silicon nitride film
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`20. Ex. 1201, ¶¶112-115; Petition, 40-42. My initial declaration also showed that
`
`Misra discloses the “protruding gate” limitation “regardless of whether spacers 23
`
`are constructed out of silicon nitride.” Ex. 1201, ¶115; Petition, 42. As discussed
`
`in the sections that follow, Patent Owner fails to rebut Petitioner’s additional
`
`showing for the embodiments where the spacers 23 are made of silicon nitride.
`
`PO’s arguments also fail for the simple reason that they are based on the incorrect
`
`premise that spacers 23 are necessarily made of silicon nitride – they are not.
`
`Patent Owner offers no response for Misra’s embodiments where spacers 23 are
`
`made of other materials such as silicon oxide.
`
`10. Misra expressly states that the spacers 23 may be replaced with other
`
`materials formed through a thermal growth: “While nitride spacers formed by
`
`deposition may be replaced or composited with a sidewall thermal growth, some
`
`silicides do not oxidize effectively and may at least some deposition process to
`
`obtain adequate source/drain to gate isolation.” Ex. 1204, 6:54-58 (emphasis
`
`added). This disclosure refers to a silicon oxide formed on top of the silicide layer
`
`in an oxidizing environment at an elevated temperature. The silicon oxide is
`
`grown as thermally-driven diffusion of excess silicon in the silicide is oxidized
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`(e.g. in an oxidizing environment of nitrous oxide or ozone). In this scenario, the
`
`gate spacers 23 are silicon dioxide, not silicon nitride.
`
`11. Well aware of this disclosure in Misra, Patent Owner specifically
`
`questioned me on this language during cross-examination. Ex. 2210, 262:6-24. In
`
`response to Patent Owner’s questioning, I confirmed that the silicon nitride may be
`
`“replac[ed] with sidewalk thermal growth.” Ex. 2210, 262:6-24. Patent Owner
`
`next asked whether this disclosure in Misra was at least “describing that it is
`
`preferred to have some deposition portion, at least some silicon nitride 23.” I then
`
`confirmed that it was not stating a preference for making spacers 23 out of silicon
`
`nitride: “No, it’s explaining that you can form spacers, or you can replace the
`
`nitride spacers with sidewall thermal growth, but this [some silicides not oxidizing
`
`effectively] is something to watch out for.” (Ex. 2210, 263:6-14.)
`
`12. Patent Owner ignores this disclosure and testimony, offering no
`
`response for Misra’s embodiments where the spacers 23 are made of other
`
`materials than silicon nitride. Patent Owner’s arguments are each based on the
`
`incorrect premise that the spacers 23 are necessarily made of silicon nitride. The
`
`express disclosure of Misra confirms the silicon nitride may be replaced with other
`
`materials formed through thermal growth. Thus, the showing that Misra discloses
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`the “protruding gate” limitation stands unrebutted. Ex. 1201, ¶¶112-115; Petition,
`
`40-42.
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, Patent Owner’s attempt to rebut Petitioner’s additional
`
`showing that Misra discloses the “protruding gate” limitation even for
`
`embodiments where “spacers 23 are constructed out of silicon nitride,” (Petition,
`
`42) is also incorrect for the reason discussed below.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Silicon Nitride Film” Applies an
`Unreasonable Interpretation of “Layer”
`14. Patent Owner argues that Misra’s silicon nitride film 20 and its
`
`sidewall spacers 23 are somehow multiple layers of a single film. This is the same
`
`argument Patent Owner advanced in the POPR through an unduly narrow
`
`construction of the term “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.” The POPR proposed the following construction: “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.” POPR, 58. The Board properly rejected this argument in the
`
`Institution Decision (“DI”), explaining: “Patent Owner, however, mischaracterizes
`
`Petitioner’s argument. Nowhere does Petitioner argue that the claims exclude a
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`silicon nitride film having multiple layers. Petitioner simply argues that a silicon
`
`nitride film need not include every silicon nitride structure in a prior art device.”
`
`DI, 8; see also, id., 8-9 (“[W]e disagree that the claim requires that the silicon
`
`nitride film must encompass all silicon nitride structures in a prior art device.”).
`
`15. Now in its Response, Patent Owner has merely restructured its prior
`
`construction and still attempts to interpret the claim in the same way already
`
`rejected by the Board (compare “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” as “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,” POPR, 58, with “silicon
`
`nitride film” as “thin coating of one or more layers of silicon nitride.” Response,
`
`28.)
`
`16. Patent Owner then applies an unreasonable interpretation of “layer” to
`
`this construction to repeat the same arguments that were rejected in the POPR.
`
`That is, Patent Owner argues that two adjacent structures made of silicon nitride
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`are somehow layers of the same film, even when they are separate structures,
`
`formed through separate processes, different functions. See e.g., Response, 31.
`
`17. This interpretation of “layer” is plainly contradicted by the
`
`specification of the ’501 patent. Specifically, the ’501 patent depicts two adjacent
`
`silicon nitride films 8a and 8b in Fig. 1:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1201, Fig. 1. Although films 8a and 8b are both made of silicon nitride and are
`
`both stress films, the ’501 patent refers to them as separate films, namely, “a first-
`
`type internal stress film 8 a” and a “a second-type internal stress film 8 b formed.”
`
`Nowhere does the patent refer to films 8a and 8b as somehow being different
`
`“layers” of a single film.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`18.
`
`In the case of Misra, even a cursory visual inspection of Fig. 5 shows
`
`that silicon nitride film 20 and spacers 23 are two separate structures, not different
`
`layers of a single film.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19. Moreover, no person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`considered silicon nitride film 20 and spacers 23 to be two layers of a single film
`
`because they are separate structures, they are formed through separate process
`
`steps, and they perform different functions, as demonstrated in my initial
`
`declaration and discussed further below. Ex. 1201, ¶¶114-118; Petition, 42-43.
`
`20. The ’501 patent simply states that “each of the internal stress films 8a
`
`and 8b does not have to be a single layer but may include multiple layers, as long
`
`as each of the internal stress films 8a and 8b can apply a stress to the substrate as a
`
`whole.” Ex. 1201, 5:60-63 (emphasis added). This description merely recognizes
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`that a film can have multiple layers deposited on top of each other. Nowhere does
`
`the ’501 patent state that two adjacent films, such as films 8a and 8b, would be
`
`considered “layers” of a single film, much less than any two adjacent structures
`
`made of the same material are somehow “layers” of a single film. In my opinion,
`
`such an interpretation is plainly not the reasonable. The ’501 patent itself merely
`
`recognizes that the film 8a could be deposited with a single layer or it could be
`
`deposited in multiple layers (and the same for goes for the separate, adjacent film
`
`8b). This does not mean that other, partially adjacent, or even fully adjacent,
`
`structures necessarily become part of the same film simply as a result of being
`
`adjacent.
`
`21. Finally, as discussed in more detail below, Patent Owner also repeats
`
`its rejected argument that the silicon nitride film must be “located closest to both
`
`side surfaces of the gate electrode,” this time without expressly including this
`
`requirement in its claim construction. See e.g., Response, 11, 20, 58. In my
`
`opinion, this argument again is incorrect.
`
`III. No POSITA Would Have Thought the Layer 20 and the Spacer 23 Were
`the Same Film
`A.
`The Petition is Confirmed by the Prosecution History
`22. Patent Owner argues that the Petition’s interpretation of Misra is
`
`inconsistent with the prosecution history, in that the claims “would not distinguish
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`over Xiang or Matsuda, and would read on those references in the same manner the
`
`Petitions seek to read the claims onto Misra.” Response, 63-66. I disagree with
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`23.
`
`In Xiang, both “etch stop layers” 80 and 82 (208 and 210 in Fig. 10)
`
`perform the same function (“etch stop”) and are deposited in the same
`
`manufacturing step. Ex. 2202, 4:9-14, 6:35-36 (“As illustrated in FIG. 10, etch
`
`stop layers 208 and 210 are deposited in step 212.”) Likewise, in Matsuda,
`
`“protective insulating film 9a” is deposited together with “sidewall insulating film
`
`10” and “underlying insulting film 8” during a single manufacturing step, forming
`
`“sidewalls 11.” Ex. 2203, 8:11-14 (“[I]n a process step shown in FIG. 3B, the
`
`sidewall insulating film 10, the protective insulating film 9 and the underlying
`
`insulating film 8 are etched in this order by anisotropic dry etching, thereby
`
`forming sidewalls 11 each having a multilayer structure including an underlying
`
`insulating film 8 a, a protective insulating film 9 a and a sidewall insulating film 10
`
`a.”) Accordingly, in both Xiang and Matsuda, the layers cited during prosecution
`
`are each: deposited in a single step; perform a single function; and comprise a
`
`singular structure.
`
`24.
`
`In contrast, Misra’s layer 20 and spacer 23 are formed through
`
`different process steps, serve different functions, and are part of separate
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`structures. As Misra describes for layer 20: “FIG. 2 illustrates that a thin plasma-
`
`enhanced nitride (PEN or like material) layer 20 is deposited overlying the trench
`
`isolation regions 14 and the silicide layer 18. Preferably, the plasma enhanced
`
`nitride layer is deposited to a thickness of roughly 500 angstroms. Plasma
`
`enhanced nitride layer 20 is provided for use as an etch stop layer when
`
`subsequently forming contact openings to source and drain electrodes of the MOS
`
`transistors.” Ex. 1204, 5:20-27 (emphasis added).
`
`25. Misra then describes a separate process to form spacer 23: “After
`
`formation of the sacrificial oxide 25, silicon nitride is deposited and reactive ion
`
`etched to form silicon nitride spacers 23 on top of the sacrificial oxide 25. The etch
`
`used to form silicon nitride spacers 23 is selective to the sacrificial oxide 25….
`
`Notice that the spacers 23 provides a necessary offset not only to compensate for
`
`lateral diffusion of the source and drain regions 26 and 28, but to electrically
`
`isolate subsequent gate electrode formations from the silicide regions 18 whereby
`
`Miller effects may be reduced.” Ex. 1204, 6:37-54.
`
`26. As shown in the figures below, the steps to form silicon nitride film
`
`20 in Fig. 2 and spacers 23 in Fig. 5 are not only separate steps that form
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`completely different structures, they are also separated by multiple intervening
`
`steps shown in Figs. 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1204, Figs. 2-5.
`
`27.
`
`I note that Dr. Glew confirmed this understanding during his
`
`deposition, agreeing that Misra describes forming silicon nitride layer 20 during
`
`the process shown in Figure 2 (above), and that Figures 3 and 4 show intervening
`
`process steps that occur before the spacers 23 are formed in Figure 5:
`
`Q. If we look first at Figure 2 in Misra.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`A. I have Figure 2 before me.
`Q. So Figure 2 shows an embodiment of Misra at an
`intermediate stage in the manufacturing process, correct?
`A. Yes, Figure 2 is part of a sequence of -- the sequence
`represented methods in Figures 1 through 7.
`Q. In Figure 2, the silicon nitride film 20 has already been
`deposited, right?
`A. Layer 20 is shown being deposited in Figure 2. It's
`described in Column 5, Line 20 as Figure 2 illustrates that
`a thin plasma enhanced nitride pen or like material layer
`20 is deposited overlying the trench isolation region 14
`and the silicide layer 18. I see layer 20.
`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.
`Q. Figure 5 shows a later stage in the manufacturing
`process that includes both 20 and 23, correct?
`A. Yes, Figure 5 is later in the process, and shows both 20
`and 23.
`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?
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`A. Yes, Figure 3 are intermediate in between Figures 2
`and 5 in the manufacturing process.
`Ex. 1231, 130:2-131:12 (emphasis added).
`28. The disclosure in Misra for the silicon nitride layer 20 and the spacers
`
`23 is just like the description in the ’501 patent, where the silicon nitride film 8a
`
`and the spacers 7 are formed through separate steps shown in Figs. 2A-2C.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1201, Figs. 2A-2C.
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`29. By contrast, in Xiang and Matsuda, the film is deposited in a single
`
`step. As shown below, “etch stop layers” 208 and 210 in Xiang are formed during
`
`a single manufacturing step (namely, step 212, “Deposit Etch Stop Layer”).
`
`
`
`Consistent with the disclosure in Xiang, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`etch stop layer 208 on the left side of the gate and etch stop layer 210 on the right
`
`side of the gate are formed by depositing a single silicon nitride film on each side
`
`of the gate and that the activities associated with this deposition process would be
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`considered a single manufacturing step. Ex. 2202, 4:9-14, 6:35-36 (“As illustrated
`
`in FIG. 10, etch stop layers 208 and 210 are deposited in step 212.”), Figs. 2, 9, 10.
`
`30. Likewise, in Matsuda, “protective insulating film 9a” is deposited
`
`together with “sidewall insulating film 10” and “underlying insulting film 8”
`
`during a single manufacturing step to form “sidewalls 11.” Ex. 2203, 8:11-14.
`
`
`
`
`
`31. Additionally, and contrary to Dr. Glew’s assertions (Ex. 2208, ¶¶146-
`
`147), a POSITA would have understood that the references to “etch stop layers 80
`
`and 82” in Xiang’s Fig. 1 refer to the etch stop layer 80 on the left side of the gate
`
`and etch stop layer 82 on the right side of the gate, not to vertical and horizontal
`
`portions of each etch stop layer. This is confirmed by the consistent usage of pairs
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`of identifiers for the left and right structures (e.g., left spacer 70 and right spacer
`
`72, left filler layer 84 and right filler layer 86, left silicide region 26 and right
`
`silicide region 28, etc.).
`
`32. Dr. Glew’s testimony is also contrary to Figs. 10-12 in Xiang, where
`
`the labels 208 and 210 both point to the same respective portions of the left and
`
`right etch stops, confirming that the numerals identify a left etch stop and a right
`
`etch stop, not upper and lower portions of each etch stop. This is also confirmed
`
`by the shading in the figures in Xiang, where etch stop layer 80 and etch stop layer
`
`82 (as well as etch stop layers 208 and 210) are each shaded in a single pattern of
`
`vertical lines. There is no distinction or separation within either etch stop layer 80
`
`or etch stop layer 82 to suggest that either etch stop somehow comprises multiple
`
`separate structures. Likewise, in Matsuda, layer 9a is shaded in a consistent
`
`pattern of diagonal lines, with no distinction or separation made to denote two
`
`separate structures.
`
`33. Therefore, simply positioning Misra’s silicon nitride film 20 and
`
`spacer 23 next to each other cannot make them a single structure when they have
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`each been formed using a different technique and, in my opinion, will undisputedly
`
`have significant differences in their individual properties and functions.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Overcome the Evidence with its Narrow
`Interpretation of “Silicon Nitride Film”
`34. As described above, Patent Owner again argues that the plasma
`
`enhanced layer 20 and silicon nitride spacers 23 of Misra are both part of a single
`
`“silicon nitride film” because a film can have multiple layers under its proposed
`
`interpretation. As noted previously, ’501 patent merely recognizes that a film may
`
`have multiple layers in the context of a film formed by stacking additional layers
`
`on top of previous layers: “Furthermore, each of the internal stress films 8a and 8b
`
`does not have to be a single layer but may include multiple layers, as long as each
`
`of the internal stress films 8a and 8b can apply a stress to the substrate as a whole.”
`
`Ex. 1201, 5:60-63. The ’501 patent provides no support for the notion that two
`
`adjacent structures would be considered multiple layers of a single film.
`
`35. Dr. Glew’s own testimony confirms that the term “layer” simply
`
`refers to different layers of a film formed on top of each other. E.g., Ex. 2208, ¶71
`
`(“It is somewhat akin to spray painting where each spray of paint (even if from the
`
`same spray paint can) is a different process that produces a layer.”). That is, a film
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`can be applied in a single layer or multiple layers, but that does not mean that
`
`adjacent structures are somehow part of the same film.
`
`36. The processes of applying multiple layers of paint on top of each other
`
`or depositing a film in a semiconductor device with multiple layers stacked on top
`
`of each other is completely distinct from Misra. As described above, layer 20 and
`
`spacer 23 are two different structures, formed through different process steps, and
`
`performing different functions. That they happened to be adjacent does not make
`
`them into a single film.
`
`37. There is a distinction between multiple stacked layers (as
`
`contemplated and described by the ’501 patent and confirmed by Dr. Glew) and
`
`multiple separate structures that are adjacent to each other. For example, looking
`
`at the diagram of stacked layers provided in the Response (Response, 33), the
`
`stress field adds and compressive stress is approximately double on the bottom. As
`
`the ’501 patent describes, “Furthermore, each of the internal stress films 8a and 8b
`
`does not have to be a single layer but may include multiple layers, as long as each
`
`of the internal stress films 8a and 8b can apply a stress to the substrate as a whole.”
`
`Ex. 1201, 5:60-63. That is, the film applies a stress based on the sum of the
`
`stresses of the stacked layers. By contrast, for separate structures that are adjacent
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`to each other, the tensile stress profile of each structure dips on the edge of each
`
`structure because there is nothing for it to act on.
`
`38. To illustrate this distinction, as would be understood by a POSITA, I
`
`refer to the following diagrams. The first diagram illustrates a single thin film (in
`
`gray) with intrinsic tensile stress that is deposited on a silicon substrate (blue).
`
`This single thin film applies a compressive stress (indicated by the arrows)
`
`downward into the substrate. The compressive stress has a magnitude and depth as
`
`shown by the compressive stress field profile (peach). The region of maximum
`
`substrate stress is measured at the approximate center of the substrate in this
`
`arrangement, where the compressive stress profile (peach) is at its maximum depth.
`
`The stress level induced in the underlying substrate drops to approximately zero at
`
`each edge of the thin film.
`
`Single thin film applying compressive stress into substrate
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`39. The next diagram illustrates two films (one gray, one yellow), stacked
`
`one on top of the other as multiple layers that can apply a stress to the substrate
`
`(blue) as a whole, as is consistent with the disclosure of the ’501 patent (Ex. 1201,
`
`5:60-63: “Furthermore, each of the internal stress films 8a and 8b does not have to
`
`be a single layer but may include multiple layers, as long as each of the internal
`
`stress films 8a and 8b can apply a stress to the substrate as a whole.”) In this
`
`example, the two films apply a compressive stress field that is the sum of the two
`
`stacked layers, resulting in a greater compressive stress field (orange) in the
`
`substrate – approximately twice the magnitude of compressive stress as in the first
`
`example. Once again, the region of maximum substrate stress is measured at the
`
`approximate center of the substrate in this arrangement, where the compressive
`
`stress profile (orange) is at its maximum depth. The stress level induced in the
`
`underlying substrate drops to approximately zero at each edge of the thin film.
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`Multiple stacked film layers applying compressive stress into substrate
`
`40. The final diagram illustrates two films (gray and yellow) deposited
`
`side-by-side onto the substrate (blue). In this example, and in contrast with the
`
`stacked arrangement shown above, each film applies its own compressive stress
`
`into the substrate, resulting in two independent compressive stress fields (peach).
`
`Here, there is a region of near zero compressive stress at the boundary between the
`
`two side-by-side films, as identified by the large arrow. In other words, placing
`
`two separately deposited (and, in this case, identical) thin films side-by-side does
`
`not provide a higher magnitude stress field and, in contrast, results in each film
`
`generating its own separate stress film, with the condition of zero stress in the
`
`underlying substrate at the point between the two separate films.
`
`Two films deposited side-by-side, each applying its own compressive stress
`
`41. Dr. Glew provides similar examples of stacked layers and side-by-side
`
`films deposited on substrates in his declaration, but omits the stress fields
`
`
`
`- 27 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`illustrating how two side-by-side films differ from a single film (whether formed
`
`with a single layer or multiple stacked layers). Ex. 2208, ¶70, Figure 1. For
`
`consistency, I have annotated those examples in the same way as above to
`
`illustrate: (i) the single added compressive stress field (orange) of the stacked
`
`layers (purple); and (ii) the two separate compressive stress fields (peach) of each
`
`of the separate side-by-side films (green).
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Dr. Glew’s declaration (Ex. 2208) as annotated
`
`42. Accordingly, each structure applies different stresses because they are
`
`separate structures and there is a discontinuity in the stress profile at the boundary
`
`between the two structures, even when they are adjacent. In fact, that “non-
`
`uniform stresses exist near the edges of thin films as a result of satisfying the
`
`boundary conditions” has been a well-known mechanical property of thin films for
`
`decades. Ex. 1233.
`
`43. Because layer 20 and spacer 23 are separate structures, there will be a
`
`discontinuity at the boundary of 20 and 23 not present in Xiang or Matsuda. This
`
`is consistent with the position articulated in the my initial declaration (see e.g., Ex.
`
`- 28 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01843
`Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`
`1202, ¶¶138-142). Thus, a silicon nitride film can have one or more layers applied
`
`on top of each other, but two wholly different structures—namely, a silicon nitride
`
`film and a sidewall structure—cannot be considered layers of the same film, even
`
`if the edge of the silicon nitride film is adjacent to the sidewall.
`
`IV. Misra’s gate protrudes above the parts of the silicon nitride film
`44. Patent Owner’s argument that “Misra fails to satisfy the challenged
`
`claims even if silicon nitride layers 20, 23 are considered to be separate films” still
`
`implicitly requires that the plasma enhanced layer 20 and silicon nitride spacers 23
`
`both be part of the “silicon nitride film” in order for the silicon nitride spacers 23
`
`to be the closest part of the film, rather than a separate structure. Response, 71-76.
`
`45. Additionally, neither the plain language of the claims, the
`
`specification, nor the file history, prohibit there being a silicon nitride spacer
`
`between the gate electrode and the silicon nitride film. The claim language simply
`
`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.” The
`
`claims in fact expressly recognize that the silicon nitride film “located at both side
`
`surfaces of the gate electrode” need not be located closest to the side surfaces of
`
`the gate, but instead may be separated from the side surfaces of the gate by spacers.
`
`For example, claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the silicon nitride
`
`- 29 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
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
