`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`
`KINIK COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHIEN-MIN SUNG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`Issue Date: August 8, 2017
`
`Title: CMP PAD DRESSERS
`HAVING LEVELED TIPS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-00638
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. STANLEY SHANFIELD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 4
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION ........................................................................... 4
`II.
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................................... 5
`III.
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW.................................................... 6
`Types of Claims - Independent and Dependent ................................................ 6
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Interpretation ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness ........................................................ 7
`
`D. Motivation to Combine ........................................................................................ 8
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Secondary or Objective Evidence of Obviousness or Nonobviousness ........... 9
`
`Relevant Time Period For The Obviousness Analysis.................................... 10
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art In The Relevant Timeframe .................. 10
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON ................................................................................... 11
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION ............................... 13
`A.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0302146A1 (the “146 Publication”)
`[Ex. 1010] ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0155298A1 (the “298
`Publication”) [Ex. 1011] .................................................................................... 18
`
`TW Patent Application Publication No. TW 201341113 (the “Taiwan
`113 Publication”) [Ex. 1013] ............................................................................. 21
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. US 9,138,862 B2 (the “862 FH Art”)
`[Ex. 1014] ............................................................................................................ 24
`
`“The Fabrication of Ideal Diamond Disk (IDD) by Casting Diamond
`Film on Silicon wafer,” James C. Sung et al., International
`Conference on Planarization/CMP Technology, Oct. 25–27, 2007
`(“CMP Reference”) [Ex. 1015] ......................................................................... 27
`
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’802 PATENT ............................................... 30
`VIII. THE ’802 PATENT........................................................................................................ 32
`IX. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM INVALIDITY ANALYSIS ....................................................... 33
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1–5, 13, and 20 are anticipated by the 146
`Publication. ......................................................................................................... 33
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 33
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 40
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 41
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 42
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 42
`Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 43
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 44
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1–7 and 13–21 are unpatentable because they are
`obvious over the 146 Publication in view of the 298 Publication ................... 45
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 45
`1.
`Claims 2–5, 13, and 20 ........................................................................... 47
`2.
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 48
`3.
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 49
`4.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................................. 50
`5.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................................. 51
`6.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................................. 52
`7.
`Claim 17 .................................................................................................. 53
`8.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................. 53
`9.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 54
`10.
`Claim 21 .................................................................................................. 55
`11.
`Ground 3: Claims 1–7, and 13-21 are unpatentable because they are
`obvious over the Taiwan 113 Publication in view of the 298
`Publication .......................................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 56
`1.
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 63
`2.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 64
`3.
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 65
`4.
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 65
`5.
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 66
`6.
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 67
`7.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 67
`8.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................................. 68
`9.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................................. 69
`10.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................................. 69
`11.
`Claim 17 .................................................................................................. 70
`12.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................. 71
`13.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 71
`14.
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 72
`15.
`Claim 21 .................................................................................................. 73
`16.
`Ground 4: Claims 8–12 are unpatentable because they are obvious
`over the Taiwan 113 Publication in view of the 298 Publication and
`the CMP Reference ............................................................................................ 74
`
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 74
`1.
`Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 75
`2.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 76
`3.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................................. 76
`4.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................................. 77
`5.
`Ground 5: Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-20 are unpatentable under
`because they are anticipated by the 862 FH Art ............................................. 78
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 78
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 84
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 84
`
`ii
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 85
`4.
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 86
`5.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 86
`6.
`Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 87
`7.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 88
`8.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................................. 89
`9.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 90
`10.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................................. 92
`11.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................................. 92
`12.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................................. 93
`13.
`Claim 17 .................................................................................................. 94
`14.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................................. 94
`15.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 95
`16.
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 96
`17.
`Ground 6: Claims 4-5 are unpatentable because they are obvious over
`the 862 FH Art by itself or in view of the 146 Publication ............................. 97
`
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 97
`1.
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 98
`2.
`Ground 7: Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over the 862 FH Art in
`view of the CMP Reference ............................................................................... 98
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................................. 98
`1.
`OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 99
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of twenty one (21) and am competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Kinik Company (“Kinik” or “Petitioner”) to
`
`provide my opinions concerning claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 (“the
`
`’802 Patent”). I am being compensated for my time by the hour in preparing this
`
`declaration, but my compensation is not tied to the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`
`3.
`
`I earned a B.S. Degree in Physics cum laude from University of
`
`California, Irvine in 1977 and a Ph.D. in Physics from Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology in 1981.
`
`4.
`
`After obtaining my Ph.D. in 1981, I joined Spire Corporation in
`
`Bedford, Massachusetts as a Staff Scientist. I joined Raytheon Corporation in
`
`Lexington/Andover, Massachusetts in 1985 as a Section Manager in
`
`Semiconductors and Integrated Circuits and later became Manager of
`
`Semiconductor Operations. In 1999, I joined AXSUN Technologies in
`
`Bedford/Billerica, Massachusetts as Vice President of Operations and later
`
`Director of Manufacturing and Wafer Fab Technology. I joined Clarendon
`
`Photonics in Newton, Massachusetts in 2001 as Director of Packaging and
`
`Integration.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`I came to Draper Laboratory in Cambridge Massachusetts in 2003
`
`after spending fourteen years at Raytheon. I am currently Division Leader of
`
`Advanced Hardware Development (with around 80 staff members), a
`
`Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, and Technical Director. I have led the
`
`Advanced Hardware Development division in re-invigorating a multi-chip
`
`integrated circuit module facility. I have invented and led implementation of an
`
`ultra-miniature electronics fabrication technology. I have also developed
`
`fabrication technology for semiconductor-based low phase noise oscillator design.
`
`During my time at Draper, I have received many awards, including the Draper
`
`2010 Distinguished Performance Award and the 2010 Best Patent Award.
`
`6.
`
`I have nearly four decades of extensive experience working on and
`
`dealing with semiconductors.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1004.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1–21 of the ’802 Patent are invalid as
`
`anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`9.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have reviewed and relied on the ’802 Patent
`
`itself (Ex. 1001), the file history of the ’802 Patent (Ex. 1002), the prior art exhibits
`
`to the Petition for the IPR of the ’802 Patent (Exs. 1010-1017), the declaration by
`
`Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis and supporting documents (Exs. 1018-1022), my own
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`experience and expertise in this field, and my belief as to the knowledge of the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in the 2014 timeframe.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner may submit evidence in rebuttal to
`
`my declaration. I intend to review any such evidence and update my opinions if
`
`allowed and appropriate.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW
`
`11.
`
`I am not an attorney. However, I have been provided with a summary
`
`of the applicable law.
`
`12. Specifically, I am informed that an invalidity analysis involves two
`
`primary steps. First, the claim language must be construed to determine its proper
`
`scope and meaning. Second, the claim language, as construed, must be compared
`
`to the prior art using the guidelines below.
`
`A. Types of Claims - Independent and Dependent
`
`13.
`
`I understand that there are two types of U.S. patent claims: 1)
`
`independent claims and 2) dependent claims. I understand that independent claims
`
`only include the aspects stated in the independent claim. I further understand that
`
`dependent claims include the aspects stated in that dependent claim, plus any
`
`aspects stated in any other claim(s) from which that dependent claim depends.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`14. Based on my review of the ’802 Patent, the claim term “a designated
`
`profile” refers to “a predetermined contour above a support substrate to which a
`
`plurality of superabrasive particles are intended to align,” as provided in the ’802
`
`Patent. (Ex. 1001 at 6:21–25.) Based on my experience, this definition is
`
`consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have given to each claim term as of the priority
`
`date of the ’802 Patent (October 3, 2014).
`
`C.
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or rendered
`
`obvious by prior art. I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every
`
`element of a claim is disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art
`
`reference, arranged as in the claim. With regard to inherency, I understand that
`
`anticipation by inherency requires that a POSITA would have recognized that the
`
`missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the subject matter described in
`
`the reference.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim
`
`be obvious from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand the scope
`
`of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that
`
`the invention would be obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. An
`
`invention may be shown to be obvious based on the teachings of a single prior art
`
`reference. An invention may also be shown to be obvious based on the teachings
`
`of multiple prior art references, for example, by showing that it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA to combine the multiple prior art references.
`
`D. Motivation to Combine
`
`18.
`
`I understand that there are multiple factors that may be considered in
`
`determining whether a POSITA would be motivated to combine multiple prior art
`
`references. Factors that may support a conclusion of obviousness may include:
`
` combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
` simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predicable results;
`
` use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
` applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
` “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
` known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to a
`
`POSITA;
`
` some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
` design need;
`
` market pressure; and
`
` when there are a finite number of predictable solutions to a problem.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that I cannot rely on hindsight. In other words, I
`
`cannot rely on the teachings of the patent or its claims to show that the claims are
`
`obvious. I am informed that a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton, and that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`purposes. In many cases, a POSITA will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`patents or prior art together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`E.
`
`Secondary or Objective Evidence of Obviousness or
`Nonobviousness
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that secondary (or objective) considerations are relevant
`
`to the determination of whether a claim is obvious. Such secondary (or objective)
`
`considerations may include evidence of commercial success caused by an
`
`invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an invention, evidence
`
`that others copied an invention, or evidence that an invention achieved a surprising
`
`result. I understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to
`
`the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness of the claim. I am presently unaware of any such secondary
`
`considerations in relation to claims 1-21 of the ’802 Patent.
`
`F. Relevant Time Period For The Obviousness Analysis
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that the application that led to the ’802 Patent was
`
`filed on October 3, 2014. Therefore, for the purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`analyzed invalidity as of October 3, 2014, and more generally as of the 2014 time
`
`frame.
`
`G. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art In The Relevant Timeframe
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention, which is
`
`October 3, 2014 in this proceeding. Factors that may be considered in determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) type of problems encountered
`
`in the art; (B) prior art solutions to those problems; (C) rapidity with which
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`innovations are made; (D) sophistication of the technology; and (E) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be
`
`present, and one or more factors may predominate.
`
`23.
`
`I believe that a relevant POSITA of the ’802 Patent at its priority date
`
`(i.e., October 3, 2014) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in an engineering
`
`related field, such as electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material
`
`science, or physics, and a minimum of two to three years of experience in the field
`
`of integrated circuit processing and fabrication techniques. This description is an
`
`approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for
`
`less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`24.
`
`I believe I have a sufficient level of knowledge, experience, and
`
`education to provide an expert opinion in the field of the ’802 Patent at its priority
`
`date, including what a POSITA would have understood from the prior art in this
`
`field at that time.
`
`V. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
`
`25.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon the following documents:
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 to Chien-Min Sung (the “’802 Patent”)
`
`File History of the ’802 Patent
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`
`11
`
`

`

`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`
`Complaint, Sung v. Kinik Co., No. 1:20-cv-00247-RGA (D. Del.
`Feb. 20, 2020), ECF No. 1
`
`Summons, Sung v. Kinik Co., No. 1:20-cv-00247-RGA (D. Del.
`Feb. 20, 2020), ECF No. 6
`
`Oral Order, Sung v. Kinik Co., No. 1:20-cv-00247-RGA (D. Del.
`Sept. 28, 2020), ECF No. 24
`
`Plaintiff’s Letter in Response to the Court’s Oral Order, Sung v.
`Kinik Co., No. 1:20-cv-00247-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2020), ECF
`No. 25
`
`Order Denying Stay, Sung v. Kinik Co., No. 1:20-cv-00247-RGA
`(D. Del. Dec. 10, 2020), ECF No. 26
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0302146 (the “146 Publication”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0155298 (the “298 Publication”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0078895 (the “895 Publication”)
`
`Taiwan Patent Publication No. TW201341113 (“Taiwan 113
`Publication”)
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862 (the “862 FH Art”)
`
`“The Fabrication of Ideal Diamond Disk (IDD) by Casting
`Diamond Film on Silicon wafer,” James C. Sung et al.,
`International Conference on Planarization/CMP Technology, Oct.
`25–27, 2007 (“CMP Reference”)
`
`Taiwan Patent No. TW I417169B
`
`Taiwan Patent Publication No. 201100198
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis
`
`MARC record for the Proceedings of the International Conference
`on Planarization (ICPT) / CMP Technology obtained from the
`OCLC bibliographic database
`
`MARC record for the Proceedings of the International Conference
`on Planarization (ICPT) / CMP Technology obtained from the
`OCLC bibliographic database
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1022
`
`Program and invitation for the 2007 International Conference on
`Planarization (ICPT) / CMP Technology obtained from the
`program website
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION
`
`26. Semiconductor technologies rapidly advanced in the late 1990s and
`
`early 2000s through the time that the application for the ’802 Patent was filed,
`
`including technologies directed to chemical-mechanical planarization (“CMP”).
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that a wide variety of CMP dressers were
`
`already well-known before the time the ’802 Patent was filed (i.e., October 3,
`
`2014), as evidenced by a succession of patent applications directed to such
`
`technologies that pre-date October 3, 2014.
`
`28. For example, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0078895 (the “895
`
`Publication”), published on March 28, 2013, is directed to an “an abrasive tool for
`
`use as a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) pad conditioner, also referred to
`
`as a CMP pad dresser.” (Ex. 1012 at ¶ 56.) One of the disclosed embodiments of
`
`an abrasive tool in the 895 Publication includes “a CMP pad conditioner having a
`
`substrate including a first major surface, a second major surface opposite the first
`
`major surface, and a side surface extending between the first major surface and the
`
`second major, wherein a first layer of abrasive grains is attached to the first major
`
`surface and a second layer of abrasive grains is attached to the second major
`
`surface.” (Id. at 1 (Abstract).) In the 895 Publication, a “first set of protrusions
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`extend in an axial direction from a lower surface of the substrate” (id. at ¶ 89),
`
`where a “substrate can include materials such as metals” or be “made of a metal
`
`alloy, such as steel” (id. at ¶ 59) and “superabrasive materials such as cubic boron
`
`nitride or diamond can be used as the abrasive grains.” (Id. at ¶ 65.) In an
`
`embodiment, “the first layer of abrasive grains can have a flatness of . . . not
`
`greater than about 0.005 cm.” (Id. at ¶75.)
`
`29.
`
`In another example, Taiwan Patent No. TWI417169 B, issued on and
`
`publicly available at least since December 1, 2013, “relates to a diamond cutting
`
`tool, particularly to a cutting tool with a plurality of cutting tops.” (Ex. 1016 at 5
`
`(Technical Field).) TWI417169 B further discloses:
`
`Provided is a cutting tool with a plurality of cutting tops, comprising:
`
`a base, having a working face facing a work piece; and a plurality of
`
`grits, arranged on the working face of the base, wherein the grits are
`
`respectively processed and formed to have a processing top, the
`
`wedge angle of the tops is 30 to 150 degrees, the attack angle between
`
`the grits and the work piece is 30 to 150 degrees respectively, the
`
`mutual difference between heights of the tops protruding from the
`
`working face is within 20%, and the tops are connected to the upper
`
`ends of the crystal faces on the outer sides of the grits respectively to
`
`improve the wear resistance of the cutting tool, thereby improving the
`
`cutting efficiency and lengthening the service life.
`
`30. Taiwan Patent Publication No. TW 21100198 (published on January
`
`1, 2011) also “relates to a conditioner, particularly to a composite conditioner of a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`CMP pad a method for manufacturing the same.” (Ex. 1017 at 6.) It explains that
`
`“[c]hemical mechanical planarization (CMP) is currently the most attractive
`
`technology in the process of planarization of semiconductor wafers. In the CMP
`
`process, the function of a polishing pad is to stably and uniformly transport a
`
`polishing solution to between a wafer and the polishing pad.” (Id.) TW 21100198
`
`provides that its main object is “to provide a composite conditioner in a way that
`
`the same polishing end of a large substrate bonds most of the small substrates
`
`having grits, the cutting ends of a plurality of grits are kept at the same height
`
`easily and various grits of different sizes, shapes and materials are bonded more
`
`easily.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, as supported by disclosures above, as well as
`
`descriptions provided in each of the prior art references summarized below,
`
`technologies involving CMP dressers have been common and well-known for quite
`
`some time, at least since the early-to-mid 2000s.
`
`A. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0302146A1 (the “146
`Publication”) [Ex. 1010]
`
`32.
`
` It is my understanding that the 146 Publication was filed as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/479,148 on May 23, 2012, and was later published as
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0302146 on November 29, 2012.
`
`(Ex. 1010 at 1.) It is my understanding that the 146 Publication claims priority to
`
`May 23, 2011, based on U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/489,074. (Id.) It is
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`my understanding that the publication date of the 146 Publication is earlier than the
`
`priority date of the Challenged Claims (October 3, 2014) and that the 146
`
`Publication qualifies as prior art.
`
`33. The 146 Publication, for example, discloses “CMP pad dressers
`
`having leveled tips and associated methods.” (Ex. 1010 at 1 (Abstract).) The 146
`
`discloses many embodiments of CMP pad dressers that disclose the claimed
`
`features of the ’802 Patent. (Id. at 1.) In the 146 Publication, the terms
`
`“conditioner” and “dresser” is “used interchangeably, and refer to a tool used to
`
`condition or dress a pad, such as a CMP pad.” (Id. at ¶ 21.) “As used herein,
`
`‘superabrasive’ may be used to refer to any crystalline, or polycrystalline material,
`
`or mixture of such materials which has a Mohr’s hardness of about 8 or greater.”
`
`(Id. at ¶ 22.)
`
`34. The 146 Publication provides that the pad conditioners disclosed
`
`therein “can be advantageously utilized, for example, in dressing CMP pads that
`
`are used in polishing, finishing or otherwise affecting semiconductor materials.
`
`Specifically, the present disclosure concerns CMP pad dressers having
`
`superabrasive particles with substantially leveled tips.” (Ex. 1010 at ¶ 39.) “The
`
`present CMP pad dressers include a layer of superabrasive particles having
`
`Substantially leveled tips across the working surface of the finished CMP pad
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`dresser. A variety of techniques can be utilized to maintain tip leveling, and any
`
`such technique is considered to be within the present scope.” (Id. at ¶ 41.)
`
`35.
`
`In one of the embodiments disclosed in the 146 Publication, “a CMP
`
`pad dresser can include a matrix layer and a monolayer of a plurality of
`
`superabrasive particles embedded in the matrix, where each superabrasive particle
`
`in the monolayer protrudes from the matrix layer. (Ex. 1010 at 1 (Abstract).) In an
`
`embodiment disclosed in the 146 Publication, the “difference in the protrusion
`
`distance between the highest protruding tip and the next highest protruding tip of
`
`the monolayer of superabrasive particles is less than or equal to about 20 microns,
`
`and the difference in protrusion distance between the highest 1% of the protruding
`
`tips of the monolayer of superabrasive particles are within about 80 microns or
`
`less.” (Id.)
`
`36. Different embodiments of a CMP pad dresser are illustrated in Figures
`
`1 through 5 of the 146 Publication:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1010 at 2–3 (Figs. 1–5).)
`
`
`
`37. Even the claim language of 146 Publication closely resembles the
`
`claims of the ’802 Patent. For example, claim 1 of the 146 Publication is as
`
`follows:
`
`1. A CMP pad dresser, comprising:
`
`a matrix layer;
`
`a monolayer of a plurality of superabrasive particles embedded
`in the matrix layer,
`
`wherein each superabrasive particle in the monolayer protrudes
`from the matrix layer, and
`
`wherein the difference in protrusion distance between the
`highest protruding tip and the second highest protruding tip of the
`monolayer of superabrasive particles is less than or equal to about 50
`microns and the difference in protrusion distance between the highest
`1% of the protruding tips of the monolayer of superabrasive particles
`are within about 80 microns or less.
`
`(Ex. 1010 at 12 (cl. 1).)
`
`B. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0155298A1 (the
`“298 Publication”) [Ex. 1011]
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`38.
`
`It is my understanding that the 298 Publication was filed as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 11/560,817 on November 16, 2006, and was later published
`
`as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0155298 on July 5, 2007 (the
`
`“298 Publication”). (Ex. 1011 at 1.) It is my