Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 6
`
`
`
` Entered: June 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOSES LAKE INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ENTHONE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`DECISION
`Denial of Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 6
`
`
`
` Entered: June 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOSES LAKE INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ENTHONE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`DECISION
`Denial of Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Moses Lake Industries, Inc. (hereinafter, “MLI”) filed a petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,303,992 B2 (“the ’992 Patent”). Patent Owner, Enthone, Inc.
`(“Enthone”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”). We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`We conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not
`demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that MLI will prevail in
`challenging claims 1-28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. For
`the reasons that follow, the Petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`MLI indicates that the ’992 Patent was asserted in Enthone, Inc. v.
`
`Moses Lake Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-1054, in the U.S. District
`Court for the Northern District of New York. Pet. 1. U.S. Patent
`No. 7,815,786 B2, which issued from a divisional application based on the
`patent application that issued as the ‘992 Patent, was also asserted in that
`civil action. U.S. Patent No. 7,815,786 is also the subject of a petition
`requesting inter partes review in Case IPR2014-00246, which is being
`decided concurrently.
`
`
`B. The ’992 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’992 Patent relates to a method for electrolytically plating copper
`onto a substrate having submicron-sized interconnect features using a source
`of copper ions and suppressor compound having polyether groups. Ex.
`1001, Abstract. The ’992 Patent discusses known systems that rely on so-
`called “superfilling” or “bottom-up growth” to deposit copper into high
`aspect ratio features, where the superfilling involves filling a feature from
`the bottom up, rather than at an equal rate on all its surfaces, to avoid seams
`and pinching off that can result in voiding. Id. at 2:6-11. The ’992 Patent
`discloses a suppressor compound formed from a combination of propylene
`oxide (PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units present in a
`PO:EO ratio between about 1:9 and about 9:1 and bonded to a nitrogen-
`containing species, wherein the molecular weight of the suppressor
`compound is between about 1000 and about 30,000. Id. at 3:25-30.
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claims 1, 2, and 17, as well as dependent claims 3-16 and
`
`18-28, are challenged by MLI in its Petition. Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative
`and are reproduced below, with emphasis added:
`
`1. A method for electroplating a copper deposit onto a
`semiconductor integrated circuit device substrate with electrical
`interconnect features including submicron-sized features having
`bottoms, sidewalls, and top openings, the method comprising:
`immersing the semiconductor integrated circuit device
`substrate including submicron-sized features having bottoms,
`sidewalls, and top openings wherein said submicron-sized
`features include high aspect ratio features having dimensions
`such that the high aspect ratio features have aspect ratios of at
`least about 3:1
`into an electrolytic plating composition
`comprising a source of Cu ions in an amount sufficient to
`electrolytically deposit Cu onto the substrate and into the
`electrical interconnect features and a polyether suppressor
`compound comprising a combination of propylene oxide (PO)
`repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units present in a
`PO:EO ratio between about 1:9 and about 9:1 and bonded to a
`nitrogen-containing species, wherein the molecular weight of
`the suppressor compound is between about 1000 and about
`30,000; and
`electrolytic
`the
`to
`current
`electrical
`supplying
`composition to deposit Cu onto the substrate and superfill the
`submicron-sized features by rapid bottom-up deposition at a
`rate of growth in the vertical direction which is greater than a
`rate of growth in the horizontal direction.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`17. A method for electroplating a copper deposit onto a
`semiconductor integrated circuit device substrate with electrical
`interconnect features including submicron-sized features having
`bottoms, sidewalls, and top openings, the method comprising:
`immersing the semiconductor integrated circuit device
`substrate into the electrolytic plating composition comprising a
`source of Cu ions in an amount sufficient to electrolytically
`deposit Cu onto the substrate and into the electrical interconnect
`features, an accelerator, and a suppressor; and
`electrolytic
`supplying
`electrical
`current
`to
`the
`composition to deposit Cu onto the substrate and superfill the
`submicron-sized features by rapid bottom-up deposition at a
`vertical Cu deposition growth rate in features from the bottoms
`of the features to the top openings of the features which is
`greater than 15 times faster than a field deposition growth rate
`on substrate surfaces outside the features.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`MLI relies upon the following prior art references:
`Hagiwara
`US 6,800,188 B2
`
`Oct. 5, 2004
`Wang
`
`US 7,128,822 B2
`
`Oct. 31, 2006
`Mikkola
`US 6,649,038 B2
`
`Nov. 18, 2003
`Martyak
`US 2004/0045832 A1 Mar. 11, 2004
`Ishikawa
`US 6,518,182 B1
`
`Feb. 11, 2003
`Dubin
`
`US 6,491,806 B1
`
`Dec. 10, 2002
`Mikkola
`US 2004/0217009 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
`Brown
`
`US 2004/0138075 A1
`Jul. 15, 2004
`Stridde
`
`US 6,420, 311 B1
`Jul. 16, 2002
`Nakada
`
`US 2008/0264798 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
`Eckles
`
`US 4,384,930
`
`May 24, 1983
`Willis
`
`US 4,347,108
`
`Aug. 31, 1982
`
`
`5
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1009)
`(Ex. 1010)
`(Ex. 1011)
`(Ex. 1013)
`(Ex. 1016)
`(Ex. 1017)
`(Ex. 1018)
`(Ex. 1019)
`(Ex. 1020)
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`BASF, Surfactants: Pluronic and Tetronic (1999) (Ex. 1012) (“BASF
`Catalog”).
`
`Alan C. West et al., A Superfilling Model that Predicts Bump Formation,
`4 Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters 4 (7) (July 2001) (Ex. 1014)
`(“West Article”).
`
`Huntsman LLC, Technical Bulletin XTJ-504 (2003) (Ex. 1015)
`(“Huntsman Technical Bulletin”).
`
`Valery M. Dubin, Electrochemical Aspects of New Materials and
`Technologies in Microelectronics, 70 Microelectronic Engineering 461-469
`(2003) (Ex. 1021) (“Intel Article”).
`
`Irving R. Schmolka, A Review of Block Polymer Surfactants, J. Am. Oil
`Chemists’ Soc. 110 (March 1977) (Ex. 1024) (“BASF Article”).
`
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`MLI asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 102
`
`Hagiwara
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-15, 17-22, and 26-28
`
`§ 102 Wang
`Hagiwara and Wang in view of
`“Other References”1
`
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`1-28
`
`1-28
`
`
`1 While MLI cites this as a single ground in its Petition, we agree with
`Enthone that this ground actually constitutes at least 34 potential grounds of
`unpatentability being raised therein. Prelim. Resp. 37-38.
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a
`trial, we determine the meaning of the claims. In an inter partes review,
`claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard,
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the specification, and the claim language should be read in light of the
`specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`This means that the words of the claim are given their plain meaning unless
`the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893
`F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this regard, an inventor is entitled to be
`his or her own lexicographer of patent claim terms by providing a definition
`of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`MLI provides specific construction of the claim terms “suppressor”
`and “superfill.” Pet. 4-5. With respect to “suppressor,” MLI argues that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation is “a compound comprising a combination
`of propylene oxide (PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units
`present in a PO:EO ratio between about 1:9 and 9:1 and bonded to a
`nitrogen-containing species, wherein the molecular weight of the suppressor
`compound is between about 1,000 and 30,000.” Id. at 4. Enthone generally
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`agrees with that definition but adds that “‘Suppressor’ is further limited to
`compounds that provide the function of suppression in the claimed method.”
`Prelim. Resp. 7. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “suppressor” at
`least requires “a compound comprising a combination of propylene oxide
`(PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units present in a PO:EO
`ratio between about 1:9 and 9:1 and bonded to a nitrogen-containing species,
`wherein the molecular weight of the suppressor compound is between about
`1,000 and 30,000.” See Ex. 1001 3:25-30. Whether a ‘suppressor’ is also
`limited to ‘compounds that provide the function of suppression in the
`claimed method’ is not material to our decision. Therefore, we do not reach
`that issue.
`With respect to “superfill,” MLI argues that the proper interpretation
`is “filling a feature from the bottom up, rather than at an equal rate on all its
`surfaces, to avoid seams and pinching off that can result in voiding.” Pet. 4-
`5. Enthone accepts MLI’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 8. We adopt this
`construction for purposes of this decision.
`Enthone also seeks specific constructions of “bonded” and “nitrogen-
`containing species” that we are not persuaded are in need of a specific
`construction. Id. at 8-9.
`With respect to the claim limitations “propylene oxide (PO) repeat
`units” and “ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units,” we agree with Enthone that
`the constructions supplied are the broadest reasonable and in keeping with
`the evidence cited in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9-10. Thus,
`we are persuaded that “propylene oxide (PO) repeat units” means the
`chemical structure represented by the formula C3H6O with the following
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00243
`
`
`Patennt 7,303,9992 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`struccture reproduced beloow:
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`and tthat “ethyllene oxide (EO) repeaat units” mmeans the cchemical sttructure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`produced tructure repollowing stwith the forepreesented byy the formuula C2H4O w
`
`beloww:
`
`.
`
`We adoppt the abovve specific constructiions for thee purposes
`
`
`
`
`
`Deciision.
`
`
`
`
`
`of this
`
`
`
`B. Prinnciples of LLaw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“A claimm is anticippated only if each andd every eleement as seet forth in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the cclaim is fouund, eitherr expressly or inherenntly describbed, in a siingle prior
`
`
`
`art reeference.” Verdegaaal Bros. v. Union Oil
`
`Co. of Callifornia, 81
`14 F.2d
`
`628,
`
`
`
`
`
` Cir. 1987)). “A priorr art refereence that diiscloses a ggenus still
` 631 (Fed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`doess not inhereently discloose all speccies withinn that broadd categoryy” but mustt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be exxamined too see if a ddisclosure oof the claimmed speciees has beenn made or
`
`
`
`
`whetther the priior art refeerence mereely invites
`
`
`
` further exxperimentaation to findd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d s, 370 F.3d. Holdingsorp. of Am.the sspecies. MMetabolite LLabs., Inc. v. Lab. Co
`
`
`
`
`13544, 1367 (Feed. Cir. 20004).
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`
`C. Anticipation by Hagiwara
`MLI asserts that claims 1-15, 17-22, and 26-28 of the ’992 Patent are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hagiwara. Pet. 6-21. Hagiwara
`describes a copper plating bath comprising a reaction condensate of an
`amine compound and glycidyl ether or a quaternary ammonium derivative of
`this reaction condensate. Ex. 1006, Abstract, 2:53-56. Hagiwara describes
`the reaction condensate as the active component that provides advantageous
`plating properties and uses conventional plating bath components such as
`various sources of copper ions, acids, brighteners, chlorine ions, levelers,
`and surfactants. Id. at 4:41-65, 7:66-68, 8:38-9:52.
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00243
`
`
`Patennt 7,303,9992 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MLI arggues that HHagiwara teeaches all oof the elemments of claaims 1-15,
`ecific
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17-222, and 26-28. Enthoone argues that Hagiwwara fails tto teach sp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6, 18-20. Resp. 13-16 Prelim. R2, and 17. elemments of inddependent claims 1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`We ffind Enthoone’s argumments to bee persuasivve.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites, in part, that tthe methodd uses “a ppolyether suuppressor
`
`
`
`
`
`comppound commprising a combinatioon of propypylene oxidde (PO) reppeat units.””
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MLII relies on FFormulas IIII and IV of Hagiwaara in its annalysis, witth the
`
`
`
`formmulas reprooduced beloow:
`
`
`
`(Formula III, EEx. 1006, 66:5-15) andd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(For
`
`
`mula IV, EEx. 1006, 66:20-30).
`ivalent to being equie argued bby MLI as b
`
`
`
`The discclosed commpounds ar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`peat units, ne oxide repthe ethylent unit and thxide repeatopylene oxthe cclaimed pro
`
`
`withh the centerr -CH2CH2
`
`
`
`
`O- being the ethylenne oxide reppeat unit aand “[t]he
`from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grouups to the leeft and righht of the EEO repeat uunits [beingg] derived
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proppylene oxidde (PO).” EEx. 1026, ¶¶ 58; Pet. 88-9. Enthoone argues
`
` that MLI’’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserrtion that the alleged PO repeatt units are dderived froom propyleene oxide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ent. laim elemen of that clonstructionhe proper cdoess not comport with th
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on the claim construction adopted above, we agree.
`The 2-hydroxypropylene spacers, the groups on either side of the center
`-CH2CH2O- element, are not equivalent to the PO repeat units claimed in
`claim 1.
`Enthone also argues that the 2-hydroxypropylene spacers in Hagiwara
`“are not derived from propylene oxide” either. Prelim. Resp. 14. “Instead,
`they are derived from the condensation reaction between an amine (e.g.,
`dimethylamine) and glycidyl moieties of a diglycidyl ether of polyethylene
`glycol, the reaction by which the [above-cited compounds] are prepared.”
`Id. Enthone also contends that “[a]lthough a propylene oxide outer terminal
`unit can be a monovalent 2-hydroxypropyl group, a propylene oxide repeat
`unit cannot be divalent 2-hydroxypropylene.” Id. at 15.
`In addition, MLI argues that Hagiwara discloses that “tetronic-type
`surfactants” may be used (Pet. 10, citing Ex. 1006, 9:46), and that BASF
`Catalog discloses that TETRONIC® molecules have a specific structure and
`particular properties. Id. As Enthone argues, however, Hagiwara fails to
`suggest any particular tetronic surfactant or how any such surfactant would
`provide the recited superfilling properties. Prelim. Resp. 22-24. We agree
`with Enthone.
`It is well established that the disclosure of a genus in the prior
`art is not necessarily a disclosure of every species that is a
`member of
`that genus. There may be many species
`encompassed within a genus that are not disclosed by a mere
`disclosure of the genus. On the other hand, a very small genus
`can be a disclosure of each species within the genus.
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citations omitted). Thus, while Hagiwara may disclose “tetronic-type
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`surfactants,” and some of those surfactants may have structures and
`properties commensurate with those claimed, such a disclosure does not
`necessarily anticipate the claimed polyether suppressor of claim 1.
`Additionally, MLI relies on an “inherent anticipation analysis for
`claim 1,” provided in Dr. West’s testimony. Pet. 10; Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 64-65.
`That analysis provides that “[s]ince the suppressors disclosed in Hagiwara
`fall within the scope of the claims (see claim construction of “suppressor,”
`supra ¶48), the impact of the suppressor on the rate of growth in the vertical
`and horizontal directions was inherently disclosed in Hagiwara.” Ex. 1026,
`¶ 64. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that Hagiwara’s
`suppressors fall within the scope of claim 1. As such, any inherent
`properties of the compounds disclosed and claimed in the ’992 Patent cannot
`be assumed for the compounds disclosed in Hagiwara. Thus, we are not
`persuaded that Hagiwara discloses the compounds recited in claim 1, nor
`that it discloses, implicitly or inherently, the superfill properties recited in
`claim 1.
`With respect to independent claim 2, MLI relies on the same analysis
`applied in claim 1. Pet. 11-12. MLI has not demonstrated that the Hagiwara
`discloses a comparative suppressor with the formula recited in claim 2.
`Also, MLI relies on same inherent anticipation analysis discussed above,
`which we do find to be persuasive. In addition, MLI relies on Dr. West’s
`testimony in the claim chart for claim 2, but we note that the testimony
`discusses that “the suppressor disclosed in Hagiwara falls within the scope
`of claim 1 of the ’992,” in the relevant sections, instead of claim 2. Ex. 1026
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`¶¶ 66-73. As such, we are not persuaded that MLI had demonstrated that
`Hagiwara anticipates claim 2.
`With respect to independent claim 17, that claim recites the step of
`“superfill[ing] the submicron-sized features by rapid bottom-up deposition at
`a vertical Cu deposition growth rate in features from the bottoms of the
`features to the top openings of the features which is greater than 15 times
`faster than a field deposition growth rate on substrate surfaces outside the
`features.” MLI, in its claim chart for claim 17, cites the anticipation chart
`for claim 2, and again invokes its inherent anticipation analysis and Dr.
`West’s testimony. Pet. 18. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by
`those arguments and thus conclude that MLI has not demonstrated that claim
`17 is anticipated by Hagiwara.
`As such, we are not persuaded that MLI has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail in challenging claims 1-15, 17-22, and 26-28 as
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hagiwara.
`
`
`D. Anticipation by Wang
`MLI asserts that claims 1-28 of the ’992 Patent are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Wang. Pet. 21-36. Wang describes an electrolytic
`plating composition comprising an additive having a dual function as both a
`suppressor and a leveler, with the additive having multiple moieties
`providing a level copper deposit and suppressing copper plating. Ex. 1007,
`2:39-49. Wang discloses that these compounds are a reaction product of a
`compound containing one or more heteroatoms, a spacer group, and an
`alkylene oxide. Id.
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`MLI asserts that Wang discloses “[a] wide variety of compounds
`capable of suppressing copper plating . . . . Exemplary of such compounds
`include, but are not limited to alkylene oxide compounds.” Pet. 23; Ex.
`1007, 5:38-42. Wang also provides “[p]articularly useful polyalkylene
`glycols, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polybutylene glycols, as
`well as poly(EO/PO) copolymers.” Ex. 1007, 6:8-13. Wang also discloses
`“[a]n example of such an alkylene oxide compound is a compound including
`EO groups, PO groups and a third ether linkage,” of an alkylene oxy
`compound. Id. at 5:67-6:7.
`Enthone argues that Wang does not teach each element of the claims,
`specifically the repeat units being “bonded to a nitrogen-containing species,”
`per claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 26-28. As Enthone points out, every working
`example in Wang is directed to the reaction of imidazole with a polyalkylene
`oxide and epichlorohydrin, with epichlorohydrin acting as a spacer. Id. at
`25. We agree that any combination of PO repeat units and EO repeat units,
`in Wang, is at most linked to the imidazole through a 2-hydroxypropylene
`spacer, just as in Hagiwara. As such, we are not persuaded that Wang
`discloses that the EO/PO repeat units are bonded to a nitrogen-containing
`species, per claim 1.
`Enthone also counters MLI’s assertion that the spacer can be ignored
`because it is described as “optional” in Wang. Id. at 27-28; Pet. 29, 36. We
`agree with Enthone that there is no enabling disclosure in Wang of any dual
`additive that does not contain a spacer. Even taking Dr. West’s testimony on
`this point (Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 190, 241) as correct, i.e., that the optional nature of
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`the spacer group allows for a direct bond to nitrogen, we are persuaded that
`this is purely speculative in view of the totality of Wang’s disclosure.
`MLI also points out that “Wang discloses ‘[i]n particular, these
`compounds are a reaction product of a compound containing one or more
`heteroatoms selected from the group consisting of sulfur, nitrogen and a
`combination of sulfur and nitrogen, a spacer group and an alkylene oxide.’
`(2:46-49.)” Pet. 24. However, the specific recitation in Wang (Ex. 1007,
`9:22-45) of the use of heteroatoms of nitrogen, sulfur, or oxygen occurs with
`respect to the use of brighteners and brightening agents. It is not clear that
`this demonstrates the structure of claim 1, namely “a combination of
`propylene oxide (PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units
`present in a PO:EO ratio between about 1:9 and about 9:1 and bonded to a
`nitrogen-containing species.” Rather, we agree with Enthone that
`“[a]ssigning a particular structure to the Wang reaction product is at best a
`matter of speculation” because assuming that the overall reaction product
`would have repeat units bonded to a nitrogen-containing species would be
`mere speculation. Prelim. Resp. 26.
`Similar to the discussion above, MLI relies on an inherent anticipation
`analysis and other explanations provided by Dr. West’s testimony to satisfy
`the recitation of claim 1 that submicron-sized features are superfilled by
`rapid bottom-up deposition at specified growth rates. Pet. 24; Ex. 1026,
`¶¶ 145-155. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded the
`suppressors disclosed in Wang fall within the scope of claim 1, such that the
`superfill properties would need to be inherently disclosed.
`With respect to independent claims 2 and 17, MLI has relied on the
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`same anticipation claim chart section and inherency analysis provided for
`claim 1. Pet. 25, 32-33. We find this no more persuasive with respect to
`anticipation of claims 2 and 17 than we do for anticipation of claim 1, as
`discussed above.
`As such, we are not persuaded that MLI has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail in challenging claims 1-28 as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Wang.
`
`
`E. Obviousness over Hagiwara and Wang in view of “Other References”
`MLI asserts that the “Other References” (Exs. 1008-1021 and 1024)
`all qualify as prior art (Pet. 36-38), and that Hagiwara and Wang, each
`independently “or in combination with other references disclosed within”
`render obvious all claims of the ’992 Patent. Id. at 38. As discussed above,
`we are persuaded that the “single” ground proffered by MLI is actually
`multiple grounds of unpatentability, i.e., 34 potential grounds, with each
`ground requiring specific support and analysis to be considered. MLI
`addresses specific claims and combinations (id. at 38-40), but as to a
`rationale to combine the teachings of the references provides only the
`following:
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`the elements from the above combination of references would
`have been nothing more than “[c]ombining prior art elements
`according to known methods to yield predictable results,”
`“[u]se of known technique[s] to improve similar devices
`(methods, or products) in the same way,” “[a]pplying a known
`technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results,” and “‘[o]bvious to
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`try’ – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.” MPEP §
`2143(A), (C), (D), (E).
`Id. at 40. MLI’s claim charts for obviousness (id. at 42-59) cite to specific
`portions of the “Other References” and, at points, detail that “further
`explanation” may be found in Dr. West’s Declaration. Id. Dr. West’s
`Declaration provides specific discussion of the references, indicates that they
`are in the same field of endeavor as the ’992 Patent, and mimics the rationale
`for combining the teachings from the Petition cited above. Ex. 1026,
`¶¶ 244-1091. We are not persuaded that this is sufficient for the MLI to
`demonstrate prima facie cases of obviousness.
`MLI has failed to resolve any differences between the claimed
`invention and the cited references, identify any specific proposed
`modifications to the references, or explain persuasively why one skilled in
`the art would have made any specific modifications to the references relied
`on in the challenges described in this ground of unpatentability. At least one
`of the Graham factors discussed above, namely explaining any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, is not discussed in
`MLI’s Petition; rather, the Petition merely recites different elements of the
`“Other References,” and does not indicate how or why those elements would
`have been adopted by one of ordinary skill in the art to be used in the
`methods of Hagiwara and Wang. For example, MLI details that Martyak
`discloses amines that can be used as surfactants (Pet. 44), but the Petition is
`bereft of detail as to why the amines of Martyak would be used in Hagiwara
`or Wang by ordinarily skilled artisans, other than the generic prescription
`that prior art elements can be combined, as discussed above.
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`We are also persuaded that Dr. West’s testimony is equally unavailing
`to MLI’s grounds of unpatentability. Taking the same example discussed
`above, Dr. West argues that Hagiwara and Martyak (Ex. 1026, ¶ 271), and
`Wang and Martyak (id. at ¶ 275), are in the “same field of endeavor as the
`‘992 patent, namely electroplating copper onto a substrate with interconnect
`features,” and that “one of skill in the art would recognize that both of these
`references disclose similar polyether suppressor molecules, and that these
`molecules are interchangeable in copper electroplating methods.” Id. at ¶¶
`271, 275. These are followed with the same pronouncement of combining
`known elements as found in the Petition. Id. Given the large number of
`compounds detailed in even the cited section of Martyak (Ex. 1009, ¶55), it
`is not clear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen those
`specific compounds that are essential to MLI’s ground of unpatentability
`teaching or suggesting the elements of claim 1. Dr. West’s testimony is
`generic to any type of combination and does not address in a meaningful
`way the specific combination being proffered.
`We are not persuaded that Dr. West’s testimony is sufficient to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that MLI would prevail with respect to
`the obviousness grounds. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (Expert testimony that
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based
`is entitled to little or no weight.). Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence
`or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires a fact finder to credit the
`unsupported conclusions or assertions of an expert witness. Rohm and Haas
`Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2003, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00243
`Patent 7,303,992 B2
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312,
`1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Testimony that is generic and bears no relation to
`any specific combination of prior art elements is insufficien
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
