UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREENTHREAD LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,421,195
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,421,195
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Related Matters
`
`Counsel Service Information
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Printed Publications
`
`Relief Requested
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`VII. THE ’195 PATENT AND BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’195 Patent’s Purported Improvements
`
`B. General Background On Static Unidirectional Electric Drift Fields as
`Related to Semiconductor Layers Having Graded Dopant Profiles
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Representation of Claim Scope
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS
`
`A. Ground I: Onoda Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Preamble: “A CMOS semiconductor device comprising:”
`
`Element [1.1]: “a surface layer;”
`
`Element [1.2]: “a substrate;”
`
`i
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`7
`
`7
`
`9
`
`13
`
`17
`
`17
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Element [1.3]: “an active region including a source and a drain, disposed
`on one surface of said surface layer;”
`24
`
`Element [1.4]: “a single drift layer disposed between the other surface
`of said surface layer and said substrate, said drift layer having a graded
`concentration of dopants extending between said surface layer and said
`substrate,”
`28
`
`Element [1.5]: “said drift layer further having a first static
`unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of minority
`carriers from said surface layer to said substrate; and”
`
`32
`
`Element [1.6]: “at least one well region disposed in said single drift
`layer, said well region having a graded concentration of dopants and a
`second static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of
`minority carriers from said surface layer to said substrate.”
`34
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “The CMOS semiconductor device of claim 1
`wherein the said drift layer is a deeply-implanted layer.”
`
`Dependent Claim 3: “The CMOS semiconductor device of claim 1
`wherein the said drift layer is an epitaxial layer.”
`
`40
`
`42
`
`Dependent Claim 5: “The CMOS Semiconductor device of claim 1,
`wherein said graded concentration follows a quasi-linear gradient.” 43
`
`Dependent Claim 6: “The CMOS Semiconductor device of claim 1,
`wherein said graded concentration follows an exponential gradient.” 44
`
`Ground II: Onoda in view of Nishizawa Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2,
`3, 5, and 6.
`46
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Preamble: “A CMOS semiconductor device comprising:”
`
`Elements [1.1]-[1.4]
`
`Element [1.5]: “said drift layer further having a first static
`unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of minority
`carriers from said surface layer to said substrate; and”
`
`49
`
`49
`
`50
`
`50
`
`Element [1.6]: “at least one well region disposed in said single drift
`layer, said well region having a graded concentration of dopants and a
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`second static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of
`minority carriers from said surface layer to said substrate.”
`
`52
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “The CMOS semiconductor device of claim 1
`wherein the said drift layer is a deeply-implanted layer.”
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Kawagoe Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
`
`52
`
`53
`
`54
`
`54
`
`55
`
`58
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Preamble: “A CMOS semiconductor device comprising:”
`
`Element [1.1]: “a surface layer;”
`
`Element [1.2]: “a substrate;”
`
`Element [1.3]: “an active region including a source and a drain, disposed
`on one surface of said surface layer;”
`59
`
`Element [1.4]: “a single drift layer disposed between the other surface
`of said surface layer and said substrate, said drift layer having a graded
`concentration of dopants extending between said surface layer and said
`substrate,”
`63
`
`Element [1.5]: “said drift layer further having a first static
`unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of minority
`carriers from said surface layer to said substrate; and”
`
`70
`
`Element [1.6]: “at least one well region disposed in said single drift
`layer, said well region having a graded concentration of dopants and a
`second static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of
`minority carriers from said surface layer to said substrate.”
`74
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “The CMOS semiconductor device of claim 1
`wherein the said drift layer is a deeply-implanted layer.”
`
`Dependent Claim 3: “The CMOS semiconductor device of claim 1
`wherein the said drift layer is an epitaxial layer.”
`
`80
`
`81
`
`Dependent Claim 5: “The CMOS Semiconductor device of claim 1,
`wherein said graded concentration follows a quasi-linear gradient.” 83
`
`Dependent Claim 6: “The CMOS Semiconductor device of claim 1,
`wherein said graded concentration follows an exponential gradient.” 85
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`IX. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE IPR
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Prior Petitions Do Not Warrant Denying Institution
`
`87
`
`87
`
`88
`
`91
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019- 01469 .................................................................................................. 89
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01667, Paper No. 7, 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2020) ......................... 91
`
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................... 88
`
`Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) .......................................... 89
`
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................ 89
`
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 44, 46, 85, 87
`
`Intel Corp. v. Greenthread, LLC,
`IPR2023-00548 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C. ................................................. 5
`
`PopSockets LLC v. Flygrip, Inc.,
`IPR2022- 00938 .................................................................................................. 88
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., v. Greenthread, LLC,
`IPR2020-00289 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLC,
`IPR2020-01568, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2021) .................................... 91
`
`OTHER CASES
`
`Ex Parte Nico Hawley-Weld, Dan Volpe, & Ben Silverman,
`No. APPEAL 2023-000345, 2022 WL 17495059 ........................... 44, 46, 85, 87
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00369 ........................................................................... 1
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00105, Dkt. 96 ......................................................................... 6
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 6:22-cv-105-ADA ........................................................................ passim
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation,
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-01293 ........................................................................... 2
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Dell Inc., and Dell Technologies
`Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00105 ........................................................................... 2
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al.,
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00333 ........................................................................... 2
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00579 ........................................................................... 1
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00212 ........................................................................... 1
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. OSRAM GmbH et al,
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00179 ........................................................................... 1
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`Case No. 2-19-cv-00147 ................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`Greenthread, LLC v Texas Instruments Incorporated,
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00157 ........................................................................... 1
`
`Greenthread, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation et al,
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00326 ........................................................................... 2
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 87, 88
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 88, 89
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`pre-America Invents Act ............................................................................................ 4
`
`RULES
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a) ...................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 (the “’195 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Prosecution History of the ’195 Patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen Campbell
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Stephen Campbell
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,684,971 (“Payne”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,907,058 to Sakai (“Sakai”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,043,114 to Kawagoe, et al., (“Kawagoe”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Wolf and Tauber, Silicon Processing For The VLSI Era, Vol 1,
`Lattice Press (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,160,985 (“Kamins”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,481,522 (“Jastrzebski”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0042511 (“Rhodes”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0102783
`(“Fujimoto”)
`Wang and Agrawal, Single Event Upset: An Embedded Tutorial,
`21st Intl Conf on VLSI Design, IEEE 2008 (“Wang”)
`Publication Declaration of Alyssa G. Resnick for Wolf.1 and
`Wolf.2 (“Resnick Decl.”)
`Publication Declaration of Rachel J. Watters for Wolf.3 and
`Wolf.4 (“Watters Decl.”)
`IPR2020-00289, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,121,222 (the “’222 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,316,014 (the “’014 Patent”)
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00147-JRG, Dkt. 67 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20,
`2019)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No. 11,121,222
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No. 11,316,014
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0063288
`(“Kenney”)
`Jaeger, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, Vol. V,
`Addison-Wesley Modular Series on Solid State Devices (1988)
`(“Jaeger”)
`U.S. District Courts – Case Statistics, obtained at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/
`federal-court-management-statistics, dated June 30, 2023
`U.S. Patent No. 4,435,896 (“Parrillo”)
`
`L.C. Parrillo, R.S. Payne et al., Twin-Tub CMOS - A Technology
`for VLSI Circuits, IEEE 1980 (“Parrillo2”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0045682 to Hong et
`al. (“Hong”)
`The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, Oxford
`University Press (1996)
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Patent Owner’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions in the District Court Case
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Redacted District Court Case Transfer Order
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00147-JRG, Dkt. 105 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9,
`2020)
`Publication Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis for Wolf
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`Dec. 21, 2022 Preliminary Claim Constructions in 6:22-CV-00105
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0183856 to
`Wieczorek (“Wieczorek”)
`Parrillo IEEE Citation List
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Dictionary of Engineering, McGraw Hill (2003)
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`Ex. 1043
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`Rubin et al., Ranges and Moments of Depth Distributions of
`Boron and Phosphorus Implanted into Silicon in the Energy
`Range 1.7 -5.0 MeV with an Eaton NV-GSD/VHE Implanter,
`IEEE 1997 (“Rubin”)
`Certified translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H8-279598 (“Onoda”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H8-
`279598, published on October 22, 1996
`IPR2020-289, Termination Order
`
`Ex. 1045
`
`Oct. 31, 2022 Giapis Declaration, 6:22-CV-00105
`
`Ex. 1046
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,476 (the “’576 Patent”) (“Nishizawa”)
`
`Ex. 1047
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,900,091 (the “ ‘091 Patent”) (“Williams”)
`
`
`
`165387608.1
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 5, and 6 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`(Ex. 1001, the “’195 Patent”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’195 Patent is the subject of the following active proceedings:
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`1:23-cv-00579 in the District of Delaware, filed May 26, 2023 (“MPS
`
`Litigation”);
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00369
`
`in the Western District of Texas, filed March 31, 2023;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v Texas Instruments Incorporated, Civil Action No.
`
`2:23-cv-00157 in the Eastern District of Texas, filed April 6, 2023;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. OSRAM GmbH et al, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-
`
`00179 in the Eastern District of Texas, filed April 19, 2023; and
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`2:23-cv-00212 in the Eastern District of Texas, filed May 10, 2023.
`
`The ’195 Patent was previously subject to the following proceedings, which are
`
`no longer pending:
`
`165387608.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Dell Inc., and Dell Technologies
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00105 in the Western District of Texas
`
`(“Intel Litigation”), filed January 27, 2022;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-01293
`
`in the Western District of Texas, severed December 21, 2022, and
`
`transferred to District of Oregon as 3:22-cv-02001;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation et al, Civil Action No.
`
`1:23-cv-00326 in the District of Delaware, filed March 24, 2023;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
`
`1:23-cv-00333 in the District of Delaware, filed March 24, 2023;
`
`• Greenthread, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 2-19-cv-
`
`00147, filed on April 30, 2019.
`
`• Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2020-00289,
`
`filed on December 23, 2019.
`
`• Intel Corp. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-00548, filed on January 30,
`
`2023.
`
`The’195 Patent is or was involved in the following PTAB proceedings as of
`
`today:
`
`165387608.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`
`
`C. Counsel Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints
`
`Miguel Bombach (Reg. No. 68,636) as its lead counsel, and Bing Ai (Reg. No. 43,312),
`
`John D. Esterhay (Reg. No. 73,512), John P. Schnurer (Reg. No. 52,196), Brianna
`
`Kadjo (Reg. No. 74,307), and Runkun (Justin) Jiang (Reg. No. 78,118) as its back-up
`
`counsel.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`Petitioner concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents
`
`to electronic service directed
`
`to
`
`the
`
`following email address:
`
`PerkinsServiceMPS-GreenthreadIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-0665. Review of claims 1-3,
`
`and 5-6 is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional
`
`fees that may be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’195 Patent is available for IPR
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`165387608.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Printed Publications
`
`The ’195 Patent claims priority to September 3, 2004. Petitioner’s challenge is
`
`based on the following prior-art references, none of which were before the Patent Office
`
`during prosecution of the ’195 Patent:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Onoda – Japanese Application H8-279598 to Onoda (Ex. 1043, certified
`
`translation 1042) published on October 22, 1996 and is prior art under
`
`§102(b).1
`
`Kawagoe: U.S. Patent No. 6,043,114 to Kawagoe et al. (Ex. 1007)
`
`issued on March 28, 2000 and is prior art under §102(b).
`
`Nishizawa: U.S. Patent No. 5,384,476 to Nishizawa et al. (Ex. 1046)
`
`issued on January 24, 1995 and is prior art under §102(b).
`
`B. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below and are
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Campbell (Ex.1003).
`
`Ground
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims Reference(s)
`
`I
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5-6
`
`Onoda
`
`
`1 Citations to §§102/103 are to the pre-America Invents Act (pre-AIA) versions.
`
`165387608.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5-6
`
`Onoda and Nishizawa
`
`
`
`II
`
`III
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5-6
`
`Kawagoe
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the subject matter of the ’195
`
`Patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, material science,
`
`applied physics, or a related field, and four years of experience in semiconductor design
`
`and manufacturing or equivalent work experience. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 17.) Additional
`
`education might compensate for a deficiency in experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claims in an IPR are construed under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). No terms need to be construed to
`
`resolve the issues presented in this Petition.2
`
`
`2 The Eastern District of Texas construed “single drift layer . . . having a graded
`
`concentration of dopants . . . said drift layer further having a first static unidirectional
`
`electric drift field” as “single drift layer . . . having a concentration of dopants at the
`
`interface of the single drift layer and surface layer that is different than the
`
`concentration of dopants at the interface of the single drift layer and the substrate . . .
`
`said drift layer further having a first static unidirectional electric drift field.” Ex.
`
`1019 at 17 (Greenthread, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No.
`
`165387608.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`The file history of the ’195 Patent shows that the originally filed specification of
`
`the ’195 Patent does not use or mention the claim terms of “surface layer” and “drift
`
`layer”/ “single drift layer.” (Ex. 1002 at 8) See, for example, the published patent
`
`publication No. US20070158790A1 which is the original filed application for the ’195
`
`Patent. On May 14, 2010, Patent Owner added new claims that became the patented
`
`claims in a response to the 4th, final office action dated Dec. 30, 2009 by introducing
`
`the above claim terms. (Ex. 1002 at 163-66)
`
`In the Intel Litigation, Patent Owner took positions on the meaning of certain
`
`claim terms, which are listed below. (Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp. et al., Case No.
`
`6:22-cv-00105, Dkt. 96, Ex. 1030.)
`
`Claim Term
`
`“surface layer”
`
`“substrate”
`
`“active region”
`
`“unidirectional electric drift field”
`
`“to aid carrier movement from …
`[to/towards] …”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning (“a layer at
`the surface”) (Ex. 1030 at 9-15.)
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`(“underlying layer”) (Ex. 1030 at 15-
`18.)
`Plain and ordinary meaning (“a doped
`silicon region at the surface of a
`semiconductor device where a transistor
`can be formed”) (Ex. 1030 at 19-20.)
`Plain and ordinary meaning (Ex. 1030 at
`20-25.)
`Plain and ordinary meaning (Ex. 1030 at
`25-30.)
`
`
`2:19-cv-00147-JRG (Dkt. 67) (April 20, 2020).) Whether or not this construction is
`
`proper is not material to institution, and no construction need be entered.
`
`165387608.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`“well region”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning (“a doped
`region that surrounds the active region
`of a semiconductor device”) (Ex. 1030
`at 30-31.)
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Intel Litigation, the Court provided its “preliminary constructions” in
`
`advance of the claim construction hearing, in which the Court offered a “preliminary
`
`construction” of plain and ordinary meaning as to each of the above-listed terms.3 (See
`
`Ex. 1037 (Intel’s Ex. 1037).) Petitioner does not believe any terms need be construed
`
`to resolve the issues presented in this Petition. Petitioner reserves the right to respond
`
`to any purported claim constructions that Patent Owner raises.
`
`VII. THE ’195 PATENT AND BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’195 Patent’s Purported Improvements
`
`The ’195 Patent is directed to a CMOS semiconductor device whose
`
`semiconductor layers have a graded dopant concentration that creates an electric drift
`
`field that sweeps minority carriers from the semiconductor’s active region at the
`
`surface to its substrate. (’195 Patent at Abstract & 3:30-33.)
`
`The ’195 Patent states that some prior art bipolar junction transistors employed
`
`
`3 The court in the Western District of Texas did provide a note that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of well region does not include portions of a well. (Intel Litigation
`
`Preliminary Constructions, Ex. 1037 at 4 (stating that “portions of a well are not well
`
`regions”).)
`
`165387608.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`a graded dopant base to create an “‘aiding drift field’ to enhance the diffusing minority
`
`carrier’s speed from emitter to collector.” (’195 Patent at 1:34-36.) According to the
`
`’195 Patent, however, “most semiconductor devices … still use a uniformly doped drift
`
`epitaxial region in the base.” (Id. at 1:36-40.) The ’195 Patent claims the prior art
`
`semiconductor devices could be improved by providing a graded dopant region
`
`between the surface and the substrate to carry minority carriers from the surface to the
`
`substrate as quickly as possible (indicated by arrows in FIG. 5(b)). (Id. at 3:30-35; see
`
`also id. at 4:28-29; 2:51-67 (stating that the dopant gradient exists in the epitaxial
`
`layer).) This purported improvement is illustrated below from FIG. 5(b).)
`
`
`
`(’195 Patent at FIG. 5(b).)
`
`The ’195 Patent did not, however, use a new or unknown dopant profile to
`
`achieve the purported novelty. Rather, it utilized known doping techniques to known
`
`physical layers. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 23, 25-28.). A POSITA would have understood that
`
`semiconductor layers and regions are doped to control their conductance and electric
`
`165387608.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`drift fields, including by using gradient doping profiles. (Id. at ¶ 27-31.) This was
`
`admitted as known by the ’195 Patent, at least with regard to the base portion of some
`
`prior art transistors (’195 Patent at 1:34-36; FIG. 1 (illustrating a doping impurity
`
`gradient in the base portion of a bipolar junction transistor that varies with depth)). In
`
`any event, the existence of, benefits from, and technologies necessary to achieve such
`
`gradient doping were known to a POSITA at the time, as the Patent Owner
`
`subsequently admitted during prosecution. Furthermore, when describing various
`
`dopant profiles that could be used (e.g., “linear, quasi linear, exponential”), the ’195
`
`Patent merely lists them as possible options (id. at 2:40-42), confirming that they were
`
`known and that a POSITA would know how to implement them without further
`
`explanation.
`
`The purported novelty in the ’195 Patent is merely taking known doping
`
`techniques, applied to known layers, to create electric drift fields to diffuse minority
`
`carriers to a substrate. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 27-31.) As demonstrated by Petitioner’s prior
`
`art (Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe), all of this was well-known and obvious at the
`
`time of the purported invention.
`
`B. General Background On Static Unidirectional Electric Drift Fields
`as Related to Semiconductor Layers Having Graded Dopant Profiles
`
`At the time of the alleged invention, Patent Owner represented that it was well-
`
`known that a graded dopant concentration creates a static unidirectional electric drift
`
`field. During prosecution, Patent Owner admitted that both upward and downward-
`
`165387608.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`sloping graded dopant concentrations were known and created an “inherent ‘built-in’
`
`unidirectional electric field’”:
`
`“[T]he graded dopant concentration itself creates a ‘built-in’ electrical
`
`field that forces the movement of carriers into a particular direction,
`
`whereby the ‘direction’ of the electrical field and the resulting direction
`
`of the carrier movement depends solely on the slope of the graded
`
`concentration of dopant.”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 289-290 (underlining in original).)
`
`Patent Owner further represented to the USPTO that “a unidirectional drift
`
`(electric) field necessarily affects all the present minority carriers in the same way…
`
`Depending on the particular slope of the graded concentration of dopant, all minority
`
`carriers are either swept ‘down’ … or ‘up…’” (Ex. 1002 at 289.) Patent Owner cited
`
`Jastrzebski in support. (Id. at 290.) In Jastrzebski, the graded-dopant concentration is
`
`“decreasing with depth” from the top surface 11 (purple) of the substrate 10, as shown
`
`in Figure 1b below. (Ex. 1010 at 5:14-22.)
`
`165387608.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1010 at FIGS. 1a, 1b.)
`
`Jastrzebski teaches that this downward-sloping graded-dopant concentration
`
`creates an electric drift field that “force[s] most of the charge carriers … deep into the
`
`substrate[.]” (Id. at 5:14-22; id. at 2:27-32 (“This is done by creating a field, such as a
`
`drift field, in the semiconductor substrate to sweep minority charge carriers…into the
`
`bulk [substrate], away from the electrode-bearing surface of the substrate.”).)
`
`Patent Owner made the same representation to the Patent Office regarding the
`
`Kamins prior art. (Ex. 1002 at 237-238, 253-254.) According to Patent Owner,
`
`Kamins’ Figure 3 shows “two electrical fields with opposing directions” (highlighted
`
`in blue and yellow) that correspond to increasing and decreasing graded-dopant
`
`165387608.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`concentrations, respectively. (Id. at 237, 253 (citing Ex. 1009 at 3:6-13, FIGS. 2-3).)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009 at FIG. 3.)
`
`Patent Owner explained that Kamins “show[s] minority carrie[r]s accelerated
`
`into the substrate.” (Id. (citing Ex. 1009, FIG. 2 and quoting Ex. 1009 at 3:6-13
`
`(“carriers… accelerated… away from the surface… into the substrate”)).) According
`
`to Patent Owner, the electric field associated with the downward-sloping graded
`
`concentration at depth beyond ~10μm causes “[minority] carriers created [in that
`
`region to be] … accelerated into the substrate ….” (Id. (citing Ex.1009 at 3:6-13, FIGS.
`
`2-3); Ex.1030 at 24 (Kamin’s “bottom electric field [(yellow)] draws a minority carrier
`
`from the substrate to a deeper part of the substrate.”); Ex.1009 at 2:67-3:14 (“The non-
`
`uniform dopant concentration in the substrate creates electric fields in the substrate
`
`indicated by arrows labeled ‘ε’ in [Kamins’] FIGS. 2 and 3” such that “[minority]
`
`165387608.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2024-00468
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`carriers created below the maximum dopant concentration are accelerated into the
`
`substrate.”), FIG. 2 (referring to these carriers as “photogenerated minority carriers”),
`
`2:11-16 (same).)
`
`Patent Owner also described “static,” and conceded that “Kamins (US
`
`4,160,985), just like the ’195 Patent, discloses the presence of a ‘static’ drift field:
`
`‘because the drift field is created by graded concentration of dopants which does not
`
`change over time.’” (Ex.1002 at 318 (citing Ex.1009, 2:15-16, 2:64-3:2, 1:38-46, 3:8-
`
`11 and Ex.1002, 302- 03), 333 (same).)
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Representation of Claim Scope
`
`In a prior litigation against Intel, Patent Owner provided a description of the ’195
`
`Patent’s claim terms with reference to its figures, which depict Patent Owner’s
`
`perceived claim scope. See Ex. 1030 (Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp. et al., Case No.
`
`6:22-cv-105-ADA). Provided below is a Patent-Owner-created graphic of claim 1 of
`
`the ’195 Patent:
`
`165387608.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2