Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHIEN-MIN SUNG
`
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2024-00535
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF STANLEY SHANFIELD, PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`CLAIMS 1-21
`
`IPR2024-00535
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al v. Chien-Min Sung
`Samsung's Exhibit 1002
`Ex. 1002, Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Relevant Law ................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`
`III.
`
`Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. Technology Background ................................................................................ 11
`
`A.
`
`Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) ........................................ 11
`
`V. Overview of the ’802 Patent .......................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary Of The ’802 Patent .............................................................. 21
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’802 Patent .................... 23
`
`Priority Date of the ’802 Patent........................................................... 28
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 34
`
`VII. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ............................................. 35
`
`A. Overview of Tsai ................................................................................. 35
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Sung’026 ........................................................................ 38
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 41
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“superabrasive” ................................................................................... 41
`
`“particle” ............................................................................................. 42
`i
`
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`
`“working superabrasive particle” ........................................................ 42
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“profile” ............................................................................................... 42
`
`“support substrate” .............................................................................. 43
`
`“tip” ..................................................................................................... 43
`
`“protrusion” ......................................................................................... 43
`
`“about” ................................................................................................. 44
`
`IX. Specific Invalidity Grounds ........................................................................... 44
`
`A. Ground I: Tsai Anticipates or Tsai Renders Obvious Claims 1-5,
`13, 15, and 19-21 ................................................................................. 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 13 and 15 ........... 44
`
`Dependent Claims 2 and 3 ........................................................ 66
`
`Dependent Claims 4 and 5 ........................................................ 67
`
`Dependent Claims 19-21 ........................................................... 75
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Tsai in Combination with Sung’026 Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-18 ................................................................ 79
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 79
`
`Dependent Claims 2 and 3 ........................................................ 80
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 7, and 16-18 ............................................ 85
`
`Dependent Claims 8-12 ............................................................. 89
`
`Dependent Claims 13 and 14 .................................................... 99
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Sung’146 in Combination with Sung’026 Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-7 and 13-21.......................................................... 106
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`X.
`
`Availability for Cross-Examination ............................................................ 114
`
`XI. Right to Supplement .................................................................................... 114
`
`XII.
`
`Jurat .............................................................................................................. 115
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`I, Stanley Shanfield, declare as follows.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My Name is Stanley Shanfield.
`
`I received a B.S. Degree in Physics cum laude from University of
`
`California, Irvine in 1977. I received a Ph.D. in Physics from Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology in 1981.
`
`3.
`
`After obtaining my Ph.D. in 1981, I was a Staff Scientist at Spire
`
`Corporation in Bedford, Massachusetts. From 1985-1999, I worked at Raytheon
`
`Corporation. As staff and later as section manager, among many other projects, I
`
`developed reactive ion etching (RIE) processes for patterning dielectrics (silicon
`
`dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, etc.), conductive layers (aluminum-
`
`copper, copper-silicon, W-silicide, TaN, doped polysilicon, etc.) and organic layers
`
`(photoresist, polyimide, etc.). In 1996, I became the Manager of Semiconductor
`
`Operations at Raytheon. As Manager, I built and led a 300 employee, $60 million
`
`revenue-generating semiconductor development, commercial system design, and
`
`electronic module manufacturing operation. I worked directly with engineers in the
`
`selection, installation, and optimization of several chemo-mechanical polishing
`
`systems (CMP), including analysis of operational maintenance and performance
`
`monitoring. The manufacturing facility eventually used multiple production CMP
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`systems, and I directly participated in establishing the required metrology (optical
`
`thickness monitoring) for maintaining polishing uniformity standards.
`
`4.
`
`In 1999, I was a co-founder and became Vice President of Operations
`
`at AXSUN Technologies in Bedford/Billerica, Massachusetts and later became
`
`Director of Manufacturing and Wafer Fab Technology.
`
`5.
`
`In 2003, I joined the Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`Currently, I am the Division Leader of Advanced Hardware Development, with
`
`around 80 staff members; a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff; and
`
`Technical Director. I led the Advanced Hardware Development division in
`
`relaunching a multi-chip integrated circuit module facility. The laboratory has
`
`acquired several semiconductor-grade CMP systems for the purpose of fabricating
`
`multi-chip modules and for planarization operations in MEMS devices, and I have
`
`been involved in their operation and optimization. I invented and led the
`
`implementation of an ultra-miniature electronics fabrication technology. I also
`
`developed fabrication technology for semiconductor-based low phase noise
`
`oscillator design. I have received many awards at Draper, including the 2010
`
`Distinguished Performance Award and the 2010 Best Patent Award.
`
`6.
`
`I have nearly four decades of extensive experience working on and
`
`with semiconductors.
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`I have authored over 25 publications in peer-reviewed academic
`
`7.
`
`
`
`journals, transactions, and books.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor in six issued U.S. patents.
`
`I am a member of multiple societies, including the IEEE and the
`
`American Physical Society (APS).
`
`10. A copy of my curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`11.
`
`I am familiar with the technology of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 (the
`
`“’802 Patent”).
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the priority date of the ’802 Patent – October
`
`3, 2014.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the ’802 Patent was filed on October 3, 2014, as a
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/506,476. I understand that this application claims
`
`priority to numerous U.S. Patent Applications dating back to May 16, 2005. I
`
`understand that the ’802 Patent’s priority date is, however, October 3, 2014.
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed the following references in preparing this declaration,
`
`all of which I understand to be prior art to the ’802 Patent:
`
` Tsai et al. “Organic diamond disk versus brazed diamond disk for
`
`dressing a chemical-mechanical polishing pad”, Diamond & Related
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`Materials, 23, 2012, 144-149 (“Tsai”) (EX1004), which published
`
`
`
`January 10, 2012;
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0060026 (“Sung’026”)
`
`(EX1005), which first published March 15, 2007.
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0302146 (“Sung’146”)
`
`(EX1029), which first published November 29, 2012.
`
`15.
`
`I have considered the following exhibits listed below in preparing this
`
`Declaration. In addition, I have reviewed and considered all other documents
`
`mentioned in my Declaration. My opinions are based on my personal knowledge of
`
`these documents as viewed from the lens of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`which I am familiar with based on my technical education, training, and experience
`
`in the field.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 (“’802 Patent”)
`File History of the ’802 Patent
`Tsai et al. “Organic diamond disk versus brazed diamond disk for
`dressing a chemical-mechanical polishing pad”, Diamond &
`Related Materials, 23, 2012, 144-149 (“Tsai”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0060026
`(“Sung’026”)
`“The Organic Diamond Disk (ODD) for Dressing of Polishing Pads
`of Chemical Mechanical Planarization”, International Conference
`on Planarization / CMP Technology, 25-27 October 2007
`Fenna, Donald. “Hardness Numbers,” A Dictionary of Weights,
`Measures, and Units, 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 2004.
`Tsai et al., “Effect of CMP conditioner diamond shape on pad
`topography and oxide wafer performances,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Technology, 55: 253-262 (2011)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0292869
`(“Sung’869”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0248595
`Declaration of Dr. [Chien-Min] James Sung In Support of
`Plaintiff’s Answering Brief In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion
`To Stay in Chien-Min Sung v. Kinik Co., 1:20-cv-00247-RGA
`Order Denying Stay in Chien-Min Sung v. Kinik Co., 1:20-cv-
`00247-RGA
`Ishizuka et al. “PCD Dressers for Chemical Mechanical
`Planarization with Uniform Polishing”, Proceedings of International
`Conference on Leading Edge Manufacturing in 21st Century:
`LEM21, 2007, Volume 2007.4
`U.S. Patent No. 5,036,015
`Pysher et al. “Design, Characteristics and Performance of Diamond
`Pad Conditioners”, Materials Research Society Symposium
`Procedures, Vol. 1249, 2010 (“Pysher”)
`Design, Characteristics and Performance of Diamond Pad
`Conditioners. SpringerLink.
`https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/PROC-1249-E02-04
`Exhibit 4 of Complaint in Sung v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et
`al, 4-23-cv-00752
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,862 (“’862 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0302146
`(“Sung’146”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1029
`
`
`
`16.
`
`I have been retained to serve as an expert for Samsung Electronics Co.
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (which I will collectively refer to as
`
`“Samsung”) in the field of semiconductor integrated circuit processing and
`
`fabrication.
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at my usual hourly rate of $460, and the
`
`17.
`
`
`
`conclusions or opinions that I reach and express in my declaration have no bearing
`
`on my compensation.
`
`18.
`
`I do not have any financial interest in the outcome of this case nor do I
`
`have any financial interest in Samsung.
`
`19.
`
`I do not personally know Dr. Chien-Min Sung and have never had any
`
`personal contact with him.
`
`II. Relevant Law
`
`20. Counsel has informed me about the following aspects of patent law,
`
`which I have applied in my analysis and conclusions.
`
`A.
`
`21.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent should be analyzed
`
`within the framework of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), which is
`
`a hypothetical individual. I have been told to assume that a POSITA would have
`
`been knowledgeable about the prior art that was publicly accessible at the time of
`
`the priority date of the patent. Here, the ’802 Patent has an earliest priority date of
`
`October 3, 2014.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been informed that factors considered in determining a
`
`level of POSITA include (1) sophistication of the technology, (2) challenges and
`
`types of problems faced within the field, (3) solutions to these problems known at
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`the priority date of the patent, (4) levels of education of professionals actively
`
`
`
`working in the field, including that of the named inventor, (5) types of testing
`
`described in the patent and the requisite skills needed to perform those tests, and
`
`(6) the general state of the technology overall.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`A POSITA is not an automaton and would be able to consider and put together
`
`teachings from multiple prior art references.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that to determine the meaning of the terms in the
`
`claims of the ’802 Patent for the purposes of the inter partes review, one should
`
`generally use the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at
`
`the time of the claimed priority date, taking into consideration the claim language
`
`and patent specification.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patentee can include a definition of a
`
`claim term in the specification. In such instances, I understand that the claim
`
`should generally be interpreted according to that definition provided in the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a patent’s claims, specification, and the file
`
`history (EX1003) should be analyzed to arrive at the proper interpretation of a
`
`claim term.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`I have been informed and understand a patent claim is considered
`
`27.
`
`
`
`“anticipated” by the prior art when each and every limitation of the claims is found
`
`within a single prior art reference either expressly or inherently, meaning the
`
`wording in a prior art reference does not need to match the claim. I understand that
`
`a reference is anticipatory if a POSITA, upon reviewing this single reference,
`
`would have been able to make and use the technology described in the reference in
`
`the manner claimed.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that a claim limitation that covers a range can be
`
`anticipated by a prior art reference that teaches a specific value (or a smaller range)
`
`within that claimed range. I further understand that a description of a single
`
`embodiment of broadly claimed subject matter can anticipate a claim. I further
`
`understand that a range disclosed in the prior art that overlaps with a claimed range
`
`may anticipate that claimed range if there is no criticality to the claimed range.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that drawings and pictures can teach a claim
`
`limitation if they clearly show the structure that is claimed.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be found unpatentable based on
`
`obviousness if a prior art reference, either alone or in combination with other prior
`
`art reference(s), teaches or suggests the claims.
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`31.
`
`
`I further understand that a claim limitation that covers a range can be
`
`
`
`rendered obvious by a prior art that teaches a range that overlaps with the claimed
`
`range, if the claimed range does not demonstrate any criticality, such as by
`
`demonstrating unexpectedly superior results.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is considered
`
`obvious to a POSITA in view of a single or multiple references if the differences
`
`between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the claim
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA before the priority date of the patent.
`
`Therefore, I understand that the challenged claims of the patent should be read
`
`from the point of view of a POSITA. For example, I have been informed that a
`
`claim would have been found unpatentable for being obvious if a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of two or more prior art references
`
`to achieve the claimed subject matter, and the POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success to do so.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that in an inter partes review, the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (the “Board”) evaluates obviousness of a claim under a
`
`preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that the Board determines
`
`that a claim is unpatentable for being obvious when the claim is more likely
`
`obvious than nonobvious.
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has held that the
`
`34.
`
`
`
`combination of known elements combined according to known methods that
`
`produces nothing more than predictable results is likely obvious. Additionally, I
`
`have been informed that the Supreme Court indicated that obviousness may be
`
`found if:
`
` there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led a POSITA to combine prior art reference teachings or
`
`modify the prior art to arrive at the claims;
`
` the modification is a combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods yields predictable results;
`
` the combination of prior art is a simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
` the combination of prior art elements is an application of a known
`
`technique to a known device (or method) ready for improvement to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
` the changed element(s) represent one of a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, and a POSITA would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success that such modification would work.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that an obviousness determination cannot be
`
`based on the benefit of hindsight gained from the patent under consideration.
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`Therefore, the patent’s claim or its description of the claimed subject matter cannot
`
`be used as a roadmap in considering combinations of prior art references.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a range taught in the prior art that encompasses or
`
`overlaps a claimed range may render obvious the claimed range if the prior art did
`
`not teach away from the claimed range or the claimed range does not show some
`
`unexpectedly superior results.
`
`III. Summary of Opinions
`
`37. For the reasons explained below, I conclude that claims 1-21 of the
`
`’802 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory Ground
`
`I
`II
`
`1-5, 13, 15, 19-21
`1-3, 6-14, 16-18
`
`III
`
`1-7, 13-21
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`Reference(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. §102/§103 Tsai
`35 U.S.C. §103
`Tsai in combination
`with Sung’026
`Sung’146 in
`combination with
`Sung’026
`
`35 U.S.C. §103
`
`IV. Technology Background
`A. Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP)
`
`38. Chemical Mechanical Planarization or Polishing (“CMP”) is a
`
`common, widely-used process that has been around since the late 1980s/early
`
`1990s. A typical setup for this process is shown in the Figure below. The
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`semiconductor wafer (labeled “wafer” in the Figure) is pressed against a rotating
`
`
`
`polishing pad, also known as a CMP pad. Additionally, a chemical slurry is
`
`introduced onto the polishing pad. EX1013, Fig. 2. See also id., 1:17-28, EX1014,
`
`1:13-48.
`
`
`
`EX1013, Fig. 2.
`
`39. The chemical slurry typically includes abrasive particles that assist in
`
`polishing the wafer surface. EX1004, 1:15-17; EX1008, 253. Such abrasives
`
`include ceria. EX1013, 1:19-24. The slurry also often includes additional agents
`
`that oxidize the wafer surface. Examples of such oxidizing agents include, e.g.,
`
`hydrogen peroxide. EX1013, 1:19-24.
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`40. The rotating polishing pad is typically made from a soft polymer. The
`
`
`
`most common polymer used for the polishing pad is polyurethane. EX1014, 1:44-
`
`46, EX1013, 1:17-18. The polishing pad can hold the slurry and polish the wafer
`
`because it contains small, micron-sized asperities on its surface. The more it is
`
`used to polish a wafer, the more wear and tear (and other factors) on the pad dulls
`
`the asperities, decreasing the CMP pad’s performance. Therefore, the pad must be
`
`reconditioned by regenerating the asperities for optimal and consistent wafer-
`
`polishing performance. EX1005, [0004].
`
`41. As schematically illustrated below, CMP pad dressers, which are also
`
`commonly called “pad conditioners,” “diamond dressers,” or “diamond
`
`conditioners,” condition CMP pads. CMP pad dressers contain superabrasive
`
`particles (most commonly diamond particles) that protrude from the surface and
`
`can cut the surface of the CMP pad as the pad dresser is rotated against the pad to
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`generate new asperities. EX1005, [0004]-[0005].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In the SEM image below, a new CMP pad with closed pores is shown
`
`in Fig. 14a. In Figs. 14d and e, the CMP pad has been conditioned by a DiaGrid
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`CMP pad dresser and the asperities have been generated.
`
`EX1008, Fig. 14.
`
`43. A conventional CMP pad dresser is a circular disk with diamond
`
`particles covering at least a portion of the disk, as shown below.
`
`EX1008, Fig. 3.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`44. The diamond particles (sometimes called “grits”) can be arranged in a
`
`
`
`regular pattern with regular spacing between the diamonds, as they are in Fig. 3 of
`
`EX1008. In the above example of a DiaGrid CMP pad dresser, the diamond
`
`particles are arranged in a grid with an inter-diamond spacing of 500 microns. See
`
`EX1008, 255, Fig. 3 (reproduced above).
`
`45. CMP pad conditioners typically have thousands of superabrasive
`
`particles. For example, the DiaGrid CMP pad dresser shown in Fig. 3 of EX1008
`
`(reproduced above) has approximately 12,000 diamond particles across the surface
`
`of the dresser. EX1008, Fig. 3, 258.
`
`46. At the time of the ’802 Patent, there were multiple known CMP pad
`
`dresser fabrication methods. Of particular interest were methods that enabled
`
`uniform protrusion of the diamond particles over the entire substrate surface. One
`
`such method is known as “reverse casting.” EX1004, 3:1-4:7, Fig. 2, 5:20-6:10,
`
`11:10-12; EX1005, [0006], [0010], [0052], [0056], [0061]-[0063], [0073]-[0076],
`
`[0083]-[0088], [0099]-[0104]; EX1006, 1:9-15, 1:30-2:4; EX1009, [0053], [0054],
`
`[0056], [0057], [0060], [0067], [0070]-[0081], [0091], [0092], [0099]-[0104].
`
`47. Reverse casting involves securing superabrasive particles in a mold,
`
`pouring an organic material (typically a polymer, e.g., epoxy) over the
`
`superabrasive particles, attaching the solidified organic layer to a support substrate,
`
`and removing the mold. This method gives a CMP pad dresser with a single layer
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`of substantially level superabrasive particles. The particles are held in the organic
`
`
`
`matrix layer and protrude to a predetermined height above the support. Often,
`
`using reverse casting to manufacture CMP pad dressers allows for better control
`
`over the uniformity of tip heights of superabrasive particles, due to the pre-leveling
`
`of the superabrasive particles on the mold. EX1004, 3:1-4:7, Fig. 2, 5:20-6:10,
`
`11:10-12; EX1005, [0006], [0010], [0052], [0056], [0061]-[0063], [0073]-[0076],
`
`[0083]-[0088], [0099]-[0104]; EX1006, 1:9-15, 1:30-2:4; EX1009, [0053], [0054],
`
`[0056], [0057], [0060], [0067], [0070]-[0081], [0091], [0092], [0099]-[0104].
`
`48. Dr. Sung—the sole named inventor of the ’802 Patent—presented the
`
`“organic diamond disk (ODD),” a CMP pad dresser made by reverse casting
`
`diamond particles onto an organic matrix, at a conference in 2007. EX1006
`
`[SungICPT], Title, Header, 1:30-2:3. First, the diamond particles are leveled on a
`
`mold. Then, the diamond particles are covered with an organic polymer, such as
`
`epoxy. Finally, the mold is removed, exposing the diamond particles embedded in
`
`and protruding from the epoxy layer. EX1006, 1:30-2:2. Because the diamond
`
`particles are leveled on a mold in the first step in the reverse casting process, the
`
`tip-to-tip variation can be controlled to within about 20 microns. EX1006, 2:2-3.
`
`As shown below in Figure 3, the ODD CMP pad dresser has diamond particles
`
`embedded in and protruding from the organic matrix and arranged in a grid with an
`
`inter-diamond spacing of about 500 microns. EX1006, Fig. 3.
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, Fig. 3.
`
`49. Sung again published ODD CMP pad dressers made by reverse
`
`casting in 2012. EX1004 [Tsai], Title, Header. The reverse casting process, the
`
`same published by Sung in 2007, is detailed in Figure 2 below. EX1004, Fig. 2,
`
`5:20-6:20.
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 22
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 2.
`
`50.
`
`In this example, the superabrasive particles have a tip-to-tip variation
`
`of less than about 15 microns. EX1004, 8:22-24, Abstract. This is due to the pre-
`
`leveling of the superabrasive particles in the first step of the reverse casting
`
`process. EX1004, 5:23-25. The tip variation of the superabrasive particles can be
`
`further controlled by compressing the ODD with a flat plate. EX1004, 6:8-10.
`
`51. SungICPT and Tsai both present CMP pad dressers with
`
`superabrasive particles having substantially leveled tips (e.g., 20 microns or 15
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`microns), which was well-known in the art. By changing the compression of the
`
`
`
`flat plate described by Tsai, different degrees of tip leveling could be achieved.
`
`52. Furthermore, CMP pad dressers having substantially uniform
`
`protrusion heights (e.g., tip variations within 80 microns, 50 microns, 40 microns,
`
`20 microns, or 10 microns) were known in the art at the time of the ’802 Patent.
`
`53. For instance, I have reproduced Fig. 4 of EX1015 below, which shows
`
`two-dimensional surface profile of a CMP pad dresser. EX1015, p. 3, Fig. 4. I
`
`understand that EX1015 was published on August 1, 2010 (EX1016), which is
`
`before the priority date of the ’862 Patent. Nevertheless, I understand that Patent
`
`Owner acknowledged that Fig. 4 of EX1015 discloses “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 10
`
`microns,” as is recited in independent claim 1 of the ’862 Patent. I also understand
`
`that Patent Owner acknowledged that this Figure discloses that “the difference in
`
`protrusion distance between the highest 10 protruding tips of the monolayer of
`
`superabrasive particles are within about 20 microns or less,” also recited in claim 1
`
`of the ’862 Patent. EX1017, 8-17; EX1018, claim 1. I understand that the ’802
`
`Patent claims priority to the ’862 Patent. EX1001, Cover.
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1015, Fig. 4.
`
`V. Overview of the ’802 Patent
`A.
`
`Summary Of The ’802 Patent
`
`54.
`
`I have reviewed the ’802 Patent. See EX1001.
`
`55. The ’802 Patent describes CMP pad dressers with superabrasive
`
`particles. See EX1001, Abstract. The ’802 Patent is directed to the manufacturing
`
`of CMP pad dressers that have substantially leveled tips. See EX1001, 9:30-33.
`
`(“Specifically, in some aspects the present disclosure concerns CMP pad dressers
`
`having superabrasive particles with substantially leveled tips.”).
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 25
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`
`56. The ’802 Patent describes that such leveling of the tips in a CMP pad
`
`
`
`dresser can be accomplished using a “reverse casting” method to obtain leveled
`
`tips on a CMP pad dresser. EX1001, 25:14-22. This reverse casting method is the
`
`same as I described in Paragraph 47. First, the superabrasive particles are attached
`
`to a mold, described as a “mask material” in the ’802 Patent. EX1001, 25:14-18.
`
`Second, the superabrasive particles are then attached to a rigid support, and the
`
`mold is removed. EX1001, 25:14-27. The ’802 Patent identifies organic materials,
`
`including epoxy, as suitable materials for the rigid support of a CMP pad dresser.
`
`EX1001, 25:23-27, 25:63-65.
`
`57. The reverse casting method results in substantially leveled tips, as
`
`claimed in the ’802 Patent (EX1001, claims 1-5, 13-15) and described by the art at
`
`the time of the ’802 Patent, as I have explained in Paragraph 47. The leveling of
`
`tips results in more superabrasive particles on the CMP pad dresser acting as
`
`“working superabrasive particles,” e.g., cutting asperities in the CMP pad during
`
`conditioning. EX1001, 2:55-3:9, 4:46-54, 9:54-64, 10:40-62 (“a typical CMP pad
`
`dresser can have greater than 10,000 superabrasive particles. Of these 10,000
`
`particles, in some cases there may only be a few working superabrasive
`
`particles…there may be a smaller proportion of overly-aggressive superabrasive
`
`particles that cut over 50% of the entire pad that is consumed during
`
`conditioning…This uneven work load distribution can cause erratic CMP
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1002, Page 26
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802
`
`
`performance…A more effective normalization of work load distribution across the
`
`
`
`surface of the CMP pad dresser can lead to a more uniformly deglazed pad and
`
`more uniform asperities.”), 12:44-51 (“…the farther superabrasive particles are
`
`separated, the more the impinging forces will affect each superabrasive particle. As
`
`such, patterns with increased spacing between the superabrasive pa