DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00648US2
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VLSI Technology LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-01199
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,247,552
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VLSI Technology LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-01199
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,247,552
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Argument ......................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Plain Meaning of “Being Used for Electrical Interconnection”
`Does Not Require Connection to Active Circuitry. .............................. 3
`1.
`PO Belatedly Seeks a Narrow Construction. .............................. 3
`2.
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support a Claim Construction
`That “Used For Electrical Interconnection” Requires
`Connection to Active Circuitry. .................................................. 5
`The Extrinsic Evidence Does Not Support a Claim Construction
`That “Used For Electrical Interconnection” Requires
`Connection to Active Circuitry. ................................................ 12
`Because Kanaoka’s M1 is Used to Provide Structural Support for
`Electrical Interconnections to M2 (and Vice-Versa), M1 and M2 Are
`Used For Electrical Interconnection to Each Other. ........................... 16
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition provides a straightforward case for obviousness of challenged
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`I.
`
`claim 20 of the ’552 patent in view of Kanaoka in combination with Weling, and
`
`Reddy or Vuong. The Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) does not challenge any
`
`aspect of the allegations in the Petition vis-à-vis Weling, Reddy, or Vuong. Nor
`
`does Patent Owner (“PO”) challenge the arguments in the Petition for combining
`
`Kanaoka with Weling, and Reddy or Vuong.
`
`Indeed, the only argument made by PO in the POR is that Kanaoka allegedly
`
`does not teach the claim limitation “being used for electrical interconnection.” But
`
`Kanaoka explicitly teaches what is required by this limitation when it explains that
`
`“[t]he second-layer M2 and the first-layer wiring M1, which are, respectively, an
`
`underlying layer of the dummy pad P[D]16, are electrically connected to each
`
`other through a plurality of through-holes TH1.” Ex. 1103, 14:6-10; id., 13:16-19;
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶ 89.1 These metal layers M1 and M2, and especially the metal vias
`
`(“through-holes TH1”) electrically interconnecting those two layers, are used to
`
`provide structural support underneath the dummy bond pad PD16 (as shown in
`
`Figure 45), allowing the “dummy pad P[D]16 to have a height further close to the
`
`height at the upper surfaces of other pads PD.” Ex. 1103, 14:13-22. M1 and M2
`
`
`1 All emphases are added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`are thus both “being used for electrical interconnection” between them. See
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Petition, 44-48, 70, Ex. 1102, ¶¶87-91, 136.
`
`The POR does not elucidate any new facts or factual assertions about
`
`Kanaoka’s M1 and M2, or about how they are electrically connected, that are
`
`different from or in addition to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”).
`
`Instead, the POR makes a new and erroneous claim construction argument – i.e.,
`
`that claim 20 requires that the portion of the metal-containing layer must be
`
`“connect[ed] to active devices” (POR, 3, 5, 6, 12, 15-17, 35, 44), carry active
`
`“electrical signal” (id., 13), and “provide interconnection to the rest of the
`
`integrated circuit” (id., 15). Indeed, the entire POR now relies on the claim
`
`construction argument that claim 20 requires electrical interconnection to active
`
`circuitry.
`
`However, claim 20 merely requires that the portion of the metal layer in
`
`question be “used for electrical interconnection.” It nowhere specifies that such
`
`electrical interconnection must be to active circuitry. Further, the POR completely
`
`ignores that claim 1 of the ’552 patent, not claim 20, explicitly requires connection
`
`to “active circuitry.” ’552 patent, claim 1. The ’552 applicants knew how to claim
`
`connection to “active circuitry”– but they did not include such a requirement,
`
`either explicitly or implicitly, in claim 20.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Thus, it is not relevant whether M1 and M2 in Kanaoka are interconnected
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`with other active circuitry because M1 and M2 are clearly being used for their
`
`electrical interconnection with each other. For these reasons, and as discussed
`
`further below, PO has failed to rebut the clear evidence of unpatentability in the
`
`Petition. Petitioner thus respectfully requests that the Board cancel claim 20 of the
`
`’552 patent.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Plain Meaning of “Being Used for Electrical Interconnection”
`Does Not Require Connection to Active Circuitry.
`1. PO Belatedly Seeks a Narrow Construction.
`Neither party to this IPR sought an express construction for the term “being
`
`used for electrical interconnection” in the parallel district court litigation, in the
`
`Petition, or in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See Petition, 30, 44-48, 70;
`
`POPR, 44-62. Indeed, the Board found that a construction was not required for the
`
`purposes of its Institution Decision. See Institution Decision, 13-16 (construing the
`
`term “modifying the layout by adding dummy metal lines to the plurality of metal-
`
`containing interconnect layers,” and further finding that “[n]o further construction
`
`of claim 20 is required for purposes of this Decision”). Nonetheless, PO has now
`
`asserted a very specific claim construction for “used for electrical interconnection,”
`
`i.e., that there must be connection to “active” circuitry:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
` “The language ‘used for electrical interconnection’…, applying
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`principles of claim construction, requires actual use for electrical
`
`interconnection, that is connection to active devices.” POR, 12; see
`
`also id., 5, 15, 16, 17, 44.
`
`PO’s reason for belatedly requesting an extremely narrow construction is
`
`evident: it is a last-chance effort to avoid the prior art. PO does not explain why
`
`the Board supposedly erred (in PO’s view) when it held in the Institution Decision
`
`that no claim construction for the term “being used for electrical interconnection”
`
`was necessary. PO also does not explain why it never sought a construction for the
`
`term in its POPR, or in the parallel district court litigation. PO never explains why
`
`its own expert failed to proffer a construction for the term, who admitted during
`
`cross-examination that he performed no claim construction analysis for any term
`
`of claim 20 of the ’552 patent. Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 10:20-11:1 (“Q. … Are
`
`you saying that you did not provide any claim constructions in your declaration?
`
`A. No, I did not.”); 152:1-2 (“A. So, to be clear, I’ve not formed any such opinion.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`I haven’t done any claim construction….”); 167:8-9 (“A. I’ve not been asked to do
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`any claim construction….”).2
`
`2. The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support a Claim
`Construction That “Used For Electrical Interconnection”
`Requires Connection to Active Circuitry.
`PO argues that the language of claim 20 itself supports a claim construction
`
`for “used for electrical interconnection” requiring connection to active circuitry.
`
`POR, 12-15. But claim 20 does not reference or require “active circuitry,” much
`
`less connection to “active circuitry.” PO is erroneously seeking to import that
`
`limitation into claim 20.
`
`Clams 1 and 6 of the ’552 patent further demonstrate why it would be
`
`erroneous to import that limitation into claim 20. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Other claims of the patent in
`
`question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of
`
`enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”). Claim 1 of the ’552 patent,
`
`
`2 Dr. Neikirk acknowledges in his declaration that “claim terms are given their plan
`
`[sic] and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in light of
`
`the claim language and the patent specification,” (Ex. 2024, ¶20), and discussed
`
`the explicit construction of the term “force region” from the district court litigation,
`
`even though he did not provide his own claim construction analysis. See id., ¶22.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`unlike claim 20, does use the phrase “used for wiring or interconnect to the active
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`circuitry.” Claim 6 also uses the phrase “active circuitry” but does not explicitly
`
`require connection to that active circuitry. In contrast, claim 20 does not use the
`
`phrase “active circuitry” at all, and does not require connection to any active
`
`circuitry. The differences in language between these claims illustrate the fallacy of
`
`PO’s argument that claim 20 requires connection to active circuitry:
`
`’552 Patent, Claim 1
`“a substrate having active
`circuitry”
`…
`
`
`
`
`“a functional metal line
`underlying the bond pad
`that… is used for wiring
`or interconnect to the
`active circuitry.”
`
`’552 Patent, Claim 6
`“a substrate having
`active circuitry”
`“a stack of interconnect
`layers for
`interconnecting the
`active circuitry”
`…
`“at least one underlying
`interconnect layer …
`being used for wiring
`or interconnect”
`
`’552 Patent, Claim 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“a portion of the plurality
`of metal-containing
`interconnect layers
`underlying the first bond
`pad…used for electrical
`interconnection”
`
`
`
`The underlined limitations in claims 1, 6, and 20 shown in the chart above were all
`
`added on the same day during prosecution, after the Examiner had rejected the
`
`claims over U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0082577. Ex. 1113 [4/5/2007 Response
`
`to Office Action], 3-7; Petition, 11-12. It is clear that the applicant purposely
`
`chose to add different claim limitations in these claims to overcome the art.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, claim 1 originally required “a substrate having active circuitry”
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`and “functional metal lines.” In response to the Examiner’s rejection, the patentee
`
`amended claim 1 to further require that the “functional metal line” “underl[ies] the
`
`bond pad” and that the “functional metal line … is used for wiring or interconnect
`
`to the active circuitry,” (Ex. 1113, 3-7), expressly claiming that this portion of the
`
`interconnect layer is itself connected to functional, active circuitry. As PO’s expert
`
`Dr. Neikirk admitted, claim 1 thus “defines itself” with respect to what “used for
`
`wiring or interconnect” means:
`
`Q. Do you have an understanding of what “used for wiring
`or interconnect” means [in claim 1]?
`A. Well, to connect to active circuitry. I think it defines
`itself right there. “Wiring,” or “interconnect,” those are two
`somewhat interchangeable words, largely interchangeable,
`so I think they used both words. And they – “functional
`metal line” is what is being, I think, clarified here, that
`functional metal line is one that is used to connect to active
`circuitry.
`
`Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 146:11-20.
`
`Similarly, claim 6 originally required “a substrate having active circuitry”
`
`and “a stack of interconnect layers for interconnecting the active circuitry.” In
`
`response to the Examiner’s rejection, the patentee amended claim 6 to require that
`
`“at least one underlying interconnect layer … [is] used for … interconnect other
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`than directly to the bond pad,” without requiring that the interconnect layer be
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`connected to the active circuitry. Ex. 1113, 3-7.
`
`In contrast, claim 20 was amended to include different language than in
`
`either of claims 1 or 6, with a scope that is broader in three important ways. First,
`
`claim 20 was not amended to require a “functional” metal line, but instead the
`
`broader “portion of the plurality of metal containing interconnect layers.” This
`
`“portion” is not required to be “functional” in claim 20. Second, claim 1 explicitly
`
`requires that the “functional metal line” be used for interconnection to “active
`
`circuitry,” whereas claim 20 merely requires that the “portion” be used for
`
`“electrical interconnection.” Third, claim 6 requires “a stack of interconnect layers
`
`for interconnecting the active circuitry,” without requiring the particular
`
`“underlying interconnect layer” be connected to active circuitry. Claim 20 on the
`
`other hand does not require “active circuitry” at all, and thus does not “define
`
`itself” to require connection to active circuitry like claim 1 does. Claim 20 is
`
`fundamentally different than claims 1 and 6, and under the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation, and because different limitations were added during prosecution, it
`
`should not be construed to require connection to active circuitry. See Karlin Tech.
`
`Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation is “based on the common sense notion that
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the
`
`claims have different meanings and scope.”).
`
`PO also argues without any evidentiary support that the inclusion of the verb
`
`“used for” in the claim element “used for electrical interconnection” must mean
`
`that the “electrical connection” has to be to active circuitry. POR, 12-13, 15. But
`
`this is simply a deliberately narrow reading of a broader claim term. Metal in
`
`metal interconnect layers, and the electrical connections between those metal
`
`layers, can be “used” for multiple purposes, including for connecting to active
`
`circuitry or for other purposes. See, e.g., Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 64:17-22 (“So I
`
`think one of ordinary skill would know that you can use layers in a stack for a
`
`variety of purposes.”). The language of claim 20, unlike claims 1 and 6, is broad
`
`enough to cover these multiple types of uses.
`
`PO is further incorrect that the specification supports its assertion that claim
`
`20 requires connection to active circuitry. First, PO contends that claim 20
`
`specifically requires that the “portion” of the metal-containing interconnect layer
`
`be connected to active circuitry because claim 20 supposedly reflects a solution
`
`that “allow[s] each of the interconnect layers underlying a bump to be ‘functionally
`
`independent,’” addressing a problem experienced by a scaffold-like prior art
`
`structure described in the ’552 specification’s Related Art section. POR, 6-9. But
`
`that description of the “Related Art” expressly states that the problem was not with
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`the interconnection of the layers vis-à-vis each other, but instead with the
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`interconnection of the layers vis-à-vis the bond pad: “a majority portions of the
`
`underlying metal layers and the bonding pad are all electrically connected to
`
`each other and thus are not functionally independent of each other.” Ex. 1101
`
`[’552 patent], 1:53-58. Accordingly, claim 20 was amended to explicitly require
`
`that the “portion” of the metal-containing interconnect layers beneath the bond pad
`
`be “used for electrical interconnection not directly to the bond pad.” In other
`
`words, the applicant was addressing what the “portion” could not be attached to
`
`(i.e., the bond pad), rather than limiting what the “portion” must be connected to.
`
`Second, PO argues that Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the ’552 patent support its
`
`proposed construction for “used for electrical interconnection” requiring
`
`connection to active circuitry. POR, 25-29. Specifically, PO argues that these
`
`three figures show “metal lines…which extend beyond the figures, allowing them
`
`to provide electrical connection to active elements.” Id., 28-29. But PO fails to
`
`note that the ’552 patent nowhere describes any of these lines – including any of
`
`lines 48, 50, 58, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, or 76 (i.e., all of the lines under bond pad 32) –
`
`as being electrically connected to any active circuitry; they are simply described as
`
`metal lines on one of the interconnect layers 22 and 26. Ex. 1101, 3:31-42, 3:60-
`
`63, 4:26-36; see also Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 86:16-22 (“Q. Would a person of
`
`skill in the art reading this patent understand 66, 68 and 70 to be active metal lines?
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Again, you know, I haven’t gone through to try and parse that particular thing
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`out. I’m not saying they’re not. I just haven’t found the wording that explicitly
`
`describes them that way.”).
`
`As the Petition showed, the only example of electrically interconnected lines
`
`described in the specification are lines connected to each other. Specifically, the
`
`Petition identified line 50 in layer 22 and line 58 in layer 26 from Figure 1 of the
`
`’552 patent as two exemplary lines and layers that are “electrically interconnected”
`
`to each other. Petition, 47-48.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 1. This is the only example from the figures of the ’552 patent that
`
`show circuit elements in the metal-containing interconnect layers “being used for
`
`electrical interconnection.” The Petition further identifies the following passage
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`from the ’552 specification describing these two metal lines within the layers, and
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`the “via 59” which acts as the electrical interconnection between them:
`
`The metal line 50 of the second-from-last interconnect layer 22
`is electrically connected to the metal line 58 of the third from-
`last interconnect layer 26 by a via 59 that intersects dielectric
`24. Thus, electrical connection exists between a portion of the
`second-from-last interconnect layer 22 and the third-from-last
`interconnect layer 26.
`
`Ex 1101, 3:38-44; Petition, 48. The ’552 patent does not describe lines 50 or 58 as
`
`being connected to active circuitry, but it does describe them as being
`
`“electrical[ly] connect[ed]” “portions” of interconnect layers. See Ex. 1101, 2:63-
`
`3:54. For this reason, lines 50 and 58, and via 59 electrically interconnecting them,
`
`are exemplary embodiments of claim 20 (for this portion of the limitation), but
`
`they do not support the importation of an “active circuit” requirement into the term
`
`“used for electrical interconnection.”3
`
`3. The Extrinsic Evidence Does Not Support a Claim
`
`3 Even if VLSI had demonstrated that ’552 patent’s lines 50 and 58 were connected
`
`to active circuitry, it would not be sufficient to import such a limitation into claim
`
`20. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected the
`
`contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the
`
`patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Construction That “Used For Electrical Interconnection”
`Requires Connection to Active Circuitry.
`The only extrinsic evidence that PO cites to support its assertion that “used
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`for electrical interconnection” requires a connection to active circuitry is the Expert
`
`Declaration of its expert, Dr. Neikirk. POR, 15-17. But Dr. Neikirk repeatedly
`
`acknowledged at his deposition that he had not performed any claim construction
`
`analysis of any of the terms in claim 20, and that he had not been asked to perform
`
`any such analysis. Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 10:20-11:1 (“Q. Are you saying that
`
`you did not provide any claim constructions in your declaration? A. No, I did
`
`not.”); 152:1-2 (“A. So, to be clear, I’ve not formed any such opinion. I haven’t
`
`done any claim construction….”); 167:8-9 (“A. I’ve not been asked to do any
`
`claim construction….”). Because Dr. Neikirk did not perform any claim
`
`construction analysis entailing review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, his
`
`Declaration should be given no weight with respect to the meaning of the term
`
`“used for electrical interconnection.” See, e.g., Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications
`
`Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (rejecting expert opinion
`
`where the expert “did not analyze the intrinsic evidence”).
`
`Further, to the extent that Dr. Neikirk did provide any opinions on “active
`
`circuitry,” it appears that his understanding was based on his analysis of claim 1,
`
`and not claim 20. Specifically, at his deposition, Dr. Neikirk testified as follows:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Q. If you didn’t perform a claim construction inquiry with
`respect to the term “interconnect,” how did you determine that
`interconnects need to be connecting to active circuitry?
`
`A. Because in Claim 1, that’s required.
`
`Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 171:2-6. This may be the right conclusion to draw for
`
`claim 1, but it is precisely the wrong conclusion to draw with respect to the term
`
`“interconnect” in the other claims, including claim 20. The fact that claim 1
`
`expressly requires the “interconnect” to be connected to “active circuitry” does not
`
`define “interconnect” for other terms. Instead, the inclusion of an express
`
`requirement in claim 1, and failure to include such an express requirement in claim
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`20, is strong evidence that it is not required in claim 20. See Karlin Tech, 177 F.3d
`
`at 971–72.4
`
`Further, claim 20 merely requires use for “electrical interconnection,” and
`
`dictionary definitions for “interconnect” simply define it synonymously with “to
`
`connect” or as “to be connected with each other.” See Ex. 1127 [American
`
`Heritage Dictionary], 437 (“Interconnect: … to connect or be connected with each
`
`other.”); Ex. 1128 [Concise Oxford Dictionary], 737 (“Interconnect: … connect
`
`with each other.”). The use of “interconnect” in claim 20 of the ’552 patent is in
`
`line with these definitions – the claimed “portion” of the interconnect layers must
`
`be connected to another device (not the bond pad) with an electrical connection,
`
`
`4 In contrast to Dr. Neikirk’s inconsistent declaration and deposition testimony,
`
`Petitioner’s expert Dr. Bravman has been entirely consistent. First, he provided a
`
`Declaration explaining that Kanaoka discloses the limitation “used for electrical
`
`interconnection” under the plain meaning and without need for a special
`
`construction. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 62, 89-91. Dr. Bravman was then asked minimal
`
`questions about claim 20 at his deposition, and certainly did not retract or
`
`contradict anything from his declaration. In its POR, PO cites no admissions or
`
`contrary testimony from Dr. Bravman’s deposition regarding the meaning of the
`
`term “used for electrical interconnection.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`and in so doing forms an “electrical interconnection.” That is all that claim 20
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`requires.
`
`B.
`
`Because Kanaoka’s M1 is Used to Provide Structural Support for
`Electrical Interconnections to M2 (and Vice-Versa), M1 and M2
`Are Used For Electrical Interconnection to Each Other.
`PO and PO’s expert Dr. Neikirk concede that Kanaoka teaches that M1 and
`
`M2 are made from electrically conductive materials, and that they are “electrically
`
`connected” to each other by several electrically conductive vias TH1. POR, 5
`
`(“[T]here can be no question that M1 and M2 under PD16-each alleged to be a
`
`portion of the plurality of metal interconnect layers underlying the first bond pad-
`
`are, at best ‘electrically connected to each other’ by virtue of being metal structures
`
`attached by metal vias.”); Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.], 154:20-155:3 (“Q. You agree
`
`that M1 and M2 are electrically connected to each other, correct? A. Yes, it –
`
`explicitly shows vias connecting M1 and M2.”); id., 157:3-6 (“Q. You agree that
`
`M1 and M2 are connected by an electrically conducting material, correct? A. I
`
`would agree with that, yeah. The vias are electrically conducted.”); see also
`
`Petition, 46-48; Ex. 1102 [Bravman Dec.], ¶ 89. Thus, there cannot be any dispute
`
`that M1 and M2 are electrically interconnected to each other through the
`
`electrically conductive vias TH1, as illustrated below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1103, Fig. 45; see also id., 13:16-19, 14:6-10; Petition, 46-48; Ex. 1102
`
`[Bravman Dec.], ¶ 89.
`
`In addition, there can be no dispute that M1 and M2 are “used for electrical
`
`interconnection.” PO and Dr. Neikirk admit that M1 and M2, and the through-
`
`holes between them, are used to provide structural support between the two metal
`
`layers. Ex. 1103 [Kanaoka], 14:12-23; POR, 5 (“In use, M1 and M2 under PD16
`
`are part of a scaffold-like element….”); id., 30-31; Ex. 1129 [Neikirk Dep.],
`
`160:13-17 (“This is done to provide geometrical uniformity, as much as possible,
`
`so that during the rest of the deposition steps and fabrications, the final surfaces are
`
`close to the heights – all of them are close to the same height.”); id., 161:9-16 (“Q.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`The through holes in Figure 45 serve a purpose, correct? A. A purpose to promote
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`planarity. It stated right there in line 16 through 19 – through 18 [of Kanaoka
`
`column 4].”). This structural support, in turn, is precisely what provides the
`
`electrical interconnection between M1 and M2. Petition, 46-48; Ex. 1102
`
`[Bravman Dec.], ¶ 89.
`
`Kanaoka explains how M1 and M2 are used to create an electrical
`
`interconnection between them. Specifically, “first-layer wiring M1” acts as a
`
`structural base for the electrically conductive vias (“through-holes TH1”) that are
`
`placed above M1 and below M2. M1 and M2, and more critically the vias between
`
`them, in turn provide structural support and enable dummy pad PD16 to have a
`
`height close to the height of other dummy pads:
`
`Especially, with the first-layer wiring M1, a plurality of
`through-holes TH1 are provided in the underlying layer of
`the pad PD16 so as to provide the same structure as with the
`underlying layers of other pads PD. This enables the upper
`surface of the dummy pad P[D]16 to have a height further
`close to the height at the upper surfaces of other pads PD.
`More particularly, the height at the top of the bump 11
`bonded to the dummy pad PD16 can be made more closely
`to the height at the tops of the bumps 11 bonded to other pads
`PD.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex. 1103 [Kanaoka], 14:13-27. As described in this passage, the metal in M1 is
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`“especially” included below pad PD16 to support the electrical interconnections in
`
`the form of through-holes TH1. Thus, M1 is “used for electrical interconnection”
`
`to M2 via through-holes filled with metal, and likewise, M2 is “used for electrical
`
`interconnection” to M1.
`
`Further, as admitted in the “Related Art” section of the ’552 patent, such
`
`structures were well-known for their use to provide support. See Ex. 1101, 1:53-64
`
`(“A known method to address the stresses present underlying a bond pad is to use a
`
`dedicated support structure. A common structure is the use of at least two metal
`
`layers under the bonding pad that are connected together and to the bonding pad by
`
`large arrays of vias distributed across a majority of the bond pad area.”). Claim 20
`
`avoids reading directly onto this “common structure” by specifying that, although
`
`the metal layers are “used for electrical interconnection,” they are “not directly
`
`connected to the bond pad.”5 And as described above, Kanaoka’s M1 and M2
`
`clearly show such an electrical interconnection structure.
`
`Accordingly, M1 and M2 are both “used for electrical interconnection” to
`
`each other, and neither are directly connected to the bond pad above them, and thus
`
`
`5 Hence, in order to further provide structural reinforcement, claim 20 further
`
`requires “modifying the layout by adding dummy metal lines.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`both are covered by claim 20. For these reasons, the Petition demonstrates that
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Kanaoka teaches “a portion of the metal containing interconnect layers…used for
`
`electrical interconnection.”
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, PO fails to rebut Intel’s showing that claim 20 of the
`
`’552 patent is unpatentable.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Taeg Sang Cho/
`Taeg Sang Cho
`Registration No. 69,618
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,247,552
`
`Declaration of Dr. John C. Bravman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,102,223 to Kanaoka et al. (“Kanaoka”)
`“Digital Design Flow Options,” Sagar V. Reddy, M.S. Thesis, 2001
`(“Reddy”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,639,697 to Weling et al. (“Weling”)
`Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0098674 to Vuong et
`al. (“Vuong”)
`
`1107 May 25, 2007 Notice of Allowability
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gretchen L. Hoffman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,586,046
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,635,208
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,922,432
`
`Jan. 24, 2007 Non-Final Rejection
`
`Apr. 5, 2007 Response to Office Action
`
`Complete File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,247,552
`
`Carver & Mead, Introduction to VLSI Systems (1980)
`
`Transcript of Hearing Held on November 21, 2019
`
`Identification of Prior Art Combinations
`
`Stipulation Regarding Fact Discovery dated November 19, 2019
`
`PO’s Identification of Asserted Claims
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`1126
`
`1127
`
`1128
`
`1129
`
`PO’s Motion to Reintroduce Certain Asserted Patent Claims
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`PO’s Identification of 18 Asserted Claim
`
`Petitioner’s Identification of 30 Prior Art Combinations
`
`Stipulation Regarding Case Schedule and Discovery Disputes
`
`District Court’s Order dated January 13, 2020
`
`Declaration of S. Calvin Walden In Support of Motion For
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`American Heritage Dictionary
`
`Concise Oxford Dictionary
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Neikirk
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING WORD COUNT
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response contains 4030 words as measured by the word processing software used
`
`to prepare the document, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 (d).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Taeg Sang Cho/
`Taeg Sang Cho
`Registration No. 69,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 14, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of
`the foregoing materials:
`
`IPR2019-01199
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`• Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`• Exhibits 1127-1129
`• Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List (Ex. 1101-1129)
`• Certificate of Compliance Regarding Word Count
`
`to be served upon the following by ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
` Bridget Smith; smith@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Kenneth J. Weatherwax; weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Nathan Lowenstein; lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Flavio Rose; rose@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Edward Hsieh; hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Parham Hendifar; hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Patrick Maloney; maloney@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` Jason C. Linger; linger@lowensteinweatherwax.com
` VLSI_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Taeg Sang Cho/
`Taeg Sang Cho
`Registration No. 69,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 14, 2020
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`212-295-6490
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
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
