throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: February 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-01841 and IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`Case Number
`
`IPR2017-01841
`
`Petition
`
`Paper 2
`(“Pet.”)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“Petitioner”)
`filed two Petitions for inter partes review of, collectively, claims 1, 4–7,
`9–19, 21, and 23–25 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,501
`B2 (Ex. 1001,1 “the ’501 patent”). Petitioner relies on the Declarations of
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002; -1842 Ex. 1102) to support its
`positions. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response in each proceeding, as listed in the following chart.
`Challenged
`Preliminary
`Claims
`Response
`1, 4, 7, 9–11, 14,
`Paper 6
`16–18, 23–25
`(“Prelim. Resp.”)
`Paper 6
`(“-1842 Prelim.
`Resp.”)
`
`IPR2017-01842
`
`5, 6, 12, 13, 15,
`19, 21
`
`Paper 2
`(“-1842 Pet.”)
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of
`the Petitions and the Preliminary Responses, and for the reasons explained
`below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to all of the challenged
`claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute trial as to the
`challenged claims, based on the grounds set forth in the Petitions. We also
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise specified with the “-1842” prefix, references to exhibits
`and papers herein are to those filed in Case IPR2017-01841.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`exercise our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to consolidate the two
`proceedings and conduct the proceedings as one trial.2
`The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final,
`but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets
`the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the
`full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any
`arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response shall be
`deemed waived, even if they were presented in the Preliminary Response.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’501 patent is the subject of the following
`ongoing district court proceeding: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 2-17-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1. Petitioner has filed two
`additional petitions challenging claims of the ’501 patent—IPR2017-01843
`and IPR2017-01844. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’501 Patent
`The ’501 patent relates to a semiconductor device including a
`MISFET (metal-insulator-semiconductor field-effect transistor3) and a
`method of manufacturing the same. Ex. 1001, 1:16–19. In particular,
`the ’501 patent teaches “a first-type internal stress film formed of a silicon
`oxide film over source/drain regions of an nMISFET and a second-type
`
`
`2 As indicated in the Order, all further filings in the consolidated proceeding
`shall be made in Case IPR2017-01841. For clarity in future filings, the
`parties are instructed to cite to papers and exhibits filed only in
`Case IPR2017-01842 using the same -1842 prefix style used herein.
`3 Ex. 1002 ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`internal stress film formed of a TEOS [(tetraethylorthosilicate4)] film over
`source/drain regions of a pMISFET.” Id. at [57]. According to the ’501
`patent, these internal stress films generate tensile or compressive stresses
`that, respectively, allow the mobility of electrons or holes to increase.5 Id.
`Figure 1 of the ’501 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1, above, is a cross-sectional view of a semiconductor device of an
`embodiment of the ’501 patent. Id. at 2:47–49. The semiconductor device
`of Figure 1 includes semiconductor substrate 1, which is divided into active
`regions 1a and 1b by isolation region 2; channel regions 1x, 1y; nMISFET
`formation region Rn and pMISFET formation region Rp; source regions 3a,
`3b and drain regions 4a, 4b; gate insulating film 5; gate electrodes 6a, 6b;
`sidewalls 7; first-type internal stress film 8a (e.g., silicon nitride film);
`
`
`4 See Ex. 1005 (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,270), 5:40; Ex. 1016 (U.S. Patent
`No. 6,509,234 B1), 6:67.
`5 We note that the challenged claims do not recite these stress limitations,
`which are present only in dependent claims 2, 3, and 20. See Pet. 15 n.2.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`second-type internal stress film 8b (e.g., TEOS film); interlevel insulating
`film 9; lead electrode 10; and contact 11. Id. at 3:19–64.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent and claims 4–7,
`9–19, 21, and 23–25 depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom. Independent
`claim 1 of the ’501 patent is reproduced below, and is illustrative of the
`challenged claims.
`1. A semiconductor device, comprising a MISFET,
`wherein
`the MISFIT includes:
`an active region made of a semiconductor substrate;
`a gate insulating film formed on the active region;
`a gate electrode formed on the gate insulating film;
`source/drain regions formed in regions of the active
`region located on both sides of the gate electrode; and
`a silicon nitride film formed over from side surfaces of
`the gate electrode to upper surfaces of the source/drain regions,
`wherein:
`the silicon nitride film is not formed on an upper surface
`of the gate electrode, and
`the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface level
`of parts of the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces
`of the gate electrode.
`Ex. 1001, 15:42–57.
`
`D. The Applied References
`Petitioner relies on the following references in the asserted grounds.
`Pet. 4–5; -01842 Pet. 4.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`Reference
`U.S. Appl. Pub. 2002/0145156 A1
`(“Igarashi”)6
`U.S. Patent No. 6,406,963 B2
`(“Woerlee”)7
`U.S. Appl. Pub. 2002/0000611 A1
`(“Hokazono”)8
`
`Date
`
`Oct. 10, 2002
`
`June 18, 2002
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1004
`-1842 Ex. 1104
`Ex. 1006
`-1842 Ex. 1109
`
`Jan. 3, 2002
`
`-1842 Ex. 1107
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 1, 4–7, 9–19, 21, and
`23–25 as follows. Pet. 21–78; -1842 Pet. 20–75.
`References
`Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 4–7, 9–12, 14–19,
`Igarashi and Woerlee
`§ 103
`21, 23–25
`Igarashi, Woerlee, and Hokazono
`§ 103
`13
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`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. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given their
`
`
`6 Petitioner asserts Igarashi is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b),
`and 102(e). Pet. 4–5; -1842 Pet. 4.
`7 Petitioner asserts Woerlee is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b),
`and 102(e). Pet. 4–5; -1842 Pet. 4.
`8 Petitioner asserts Hokazono is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b),
`and 102(e). -1842 Pet. 4.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claims, however,
`“should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the
`underlying patent,” and “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`record evidence.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Further, any special definition for a
`claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, however, limitations are not
`to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner asserts that all terms in the challenged claims should be
`given their plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard. Pet. 21.9
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed grounds “fail[] to meet
`[the ‘an active region made of a semiconductor substrate’] limitation as
`properly interpreted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. According to Patent Owner,
`“[u]nder the [broadest reasonable interpretation], ‘wherein the MISFET
`includes: an active region made of a semiconductor substrate’ should be
`
`
`9 Petitioner makes a similar statement regarding claim construction in
`the -1842 Petition. -1842 Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner’s arguments with
`respect to claim construction are nearly identical in both Preliminary
`Responses. Compare Prelim. Resp. 24–30, with -1842 Prelim. Resp. 24–30.
`For convenience, we cite only to the Petition and the Preliminary Response
`from IPR2017-01841 in our discussion regarding claim construction.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`construed to require that the MISFET have ‘a region of a semiconductor
`substrate dedicated to the MISFET and defined by isolation regions that
`isolate the MISFET from other transistors formed in the substrate.’” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that the Specification of the ’501 patent
`“repeatedly refers to a semiconductor substrate being divided by isolation
`regions into a plurality of active regions.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–
`23, 6:22–26, 9:38–39, 10:53–54, 12:25–28, Figs. 1–9). Patent Owner
`contends that each of the embodiments has “a single MISFET formed
`therein, and where each active region is bounded by isolation regions 2 that
`isolate the single MISFET formed in the active region from other transistors
`formed in the substrate.” Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:24–28, Figs. 1–9).
`Patent Owner further argues that this usage is “consistent with the manner in
`which the term is used in the art,” asserting that the Petition and the
`references cited therein state that “a transistor’s ‘active region’ is defined by
`isolation regions,” thus, “mak[ing] clear that a transistor’s ‘active region’
`refers to a region dedicated to a single transistor.” Id. at 29–30 (citing
`Pet. 7, 8, 11; Ex. 1010, 42–43; Ex. 1008, 53, 57, Figs. 2-6–2-9; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 66, 69, 79).
`We are not persuaded that the Specification of the ’501 patent sets
`forth a special definition for “active region” that limits it to a region
`corresponding to a single transistor, let alone doing so with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.
`Further, claim 1 does not expressly limit the “active region” in this manner.
`See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184 (holding that limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims). Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`assertion, the evidence of record does not establish that “a transistor’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`‘active region’ refers to a region that is dedicated to that transistor.” Prelim.
`Resp. 3–4, 29–30. For example, Plummer10 describes that “regions between
`these [isolation] layers, where transistors will be built, are called the ‘active’
`regions of the substrate” (Ex. 1008, 53), and Rabaey11 describes “active
`regions” as “the regions where transistors will be constructed” (Ex. 1010,
`42). Nothing about these descriptions connotes a requirement for a
`one-to-one correspondence of active regions-to-transistors, as Patent Owner
`contends.
`Based on the record now before us, we are not persuaded that the
`claimed “active region” is limited to a region associated with a single
`transistor (i.e., “a region of a semiconductor substrate dedicated to the
`MISFET and defined by isolation regions that isolate the MISFET from
`other transistors formed in the substrate”), as Patent Owner contends. As
`discussed infra, Section II.E, Igarashi includes disclosure of “active element
`regions,” which we find to be within the scope of the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “active region.” Thus, we need not further construe “active
`region” for purposes of this Decision. The parties, however, may address
`further construction of the term during trial.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`10 JAMES D. PLUMMER ET AL., SILICON VLSI TECHNOLOGY: FUNDAMENTALS,
`PRACTICE AND MODELING (Charles Sonini ed., Prentice Hall, Inc., 2000)
`(Ex. 1008).
`11 JAN M. RABAEY ET AL., DIGITAL INTEGRATED CIRCUITS: A DESIGN
`PERSPECTIVE (Charles G. Sonini ed., Pearson Educ., Inc., 2d ed. 2003)
`(Ex. 1010).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`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. See 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.12 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re
`Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1259.
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`these principles to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to
`establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`had the equivalent of a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics,
`chemistry, materials science, or equivalent training, and two years of work
`experience in [the] field of semiconductor manufacturing. Additional
`graduate education could substitute for work experience, and additional
`work experience/training could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 5–6
`
`
`12 At this stage of the proceeding, the parties have not directed our attention
`to any objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); -1842 Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the
`art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 24; -1842
`Prelim. Resp. 24. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of
`ordinary skill in the art in this case further 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).
`
`D. The Asserted Prior Art
`
`Igarashi (Ex. 1004)
`Igarashi relates to a “semiconductor device with reduced parasitic
`capacity in the vicinity of gate electrodes.” Ex. 1004, at [57]. Figure 12 of
`Igarashi is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 12, above, is a schematic sectional view of a semiconductor device
`according to an embodiment of Igarashi. Id. ¶ 35. The semiconductor
`device of Figure 12 includes silicon semiconductor substrate 1, gate oxide
`film 2, gate electrodes 3, impurity diffusion layer 4, silicide film 5, contact
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`electrode 6, silicon nitride film 7, silicon nitride film 8 (not labeled in Figure
`12), interlayer insulating film 9, and low-k film 15. Id. ¶¶ 44, 68–69, 117–
`22. Igarashi also discloses that, prior to the manufacturing process of the
`embodiments disclosed therein, “[e]lement isolation is performed using
`methods such as the LOCOS [(LOCal Oxidation of Silicon13)] method or the
`trench method. Thereafter, ion implantation is performed to the active
`element region for forming the well and controlling the threshold value.” Id.
`¶ 68.
`
`Woerlee (Ex. 1006)
`Woerlee relates to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor
`device. Ex. 1006, at [57]. Figure 13 of Woerlee is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 13, above, is a cross-sectional view of a semiconductor device
`according to an embodiment of Woerlee. Id. at 4:59–62. The
`semiconductor device of Figure 13 includes, in part, semiconductor body 1,
`oxide field insulating regions 3, active regions 4, 5, source zone 14 and drain
`zone 15, etch stop layer 17 “composed of silicon nitride,” gate structure 21,
`
`
`13 See Ex. 1008, 53.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`and gate dielectric 24. Id. at 4:66–5:8, 6:1–2, 6:12–13, 7:25–27, 8:24–25.
`As described in Woerlee, insulating regions 3 “are at least partly recessed in
`the semiconductor body 1” (id. at 5:2–3) and “are formed in a usual way by
`means of LOCOS (LOCal Oxidation of Silicon) or by means of STI
`(Shallow Trench Isolation)” (id. at 5:19–21).
`
`Hokazono (-1842 Ex. 1107)
`Hokazono relates to a semiconductor device with a gate electrode
`having a sidewall insulating film. -1842 Ex. 1107, at [57]. In relevant part,
`Hokazono discloses that “gate insulating film 4 [of gate electrode 5] may be
`not only a silicon oxide film but also SiON, SiN, or Ta2O5, high dielectric
`material.” Id. ¶ 59.
`
`E. Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4–7, 9–12, 14–19, 21, and 23–25 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Igarashi and
`Woerlee. Pet. 21–78; -1842 Pet. 20–72. Petitioner asserts that claim 13 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Igarashi,
`Woerlee, and Hokazono. -1842 Pet. 72–75. Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner provides no motivation to modify Igarashi as asserted, and that
`Petitioner’s proposed combination does not teach all features of independent
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 4–17, 31–58; -1842 Prelim. Resp. 4–17, 31–58.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, and for the reasons explained below, we
`determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail on these asserted grounds.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 12 of Igarashi,
`which illustrates the mapping of the structural elements of the
`semiconductor device of Igarashi to the claims. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 47).14 Petitioner’s annotated Figure 12 (id. at 16) is reproduced below.15
`
`
`Figure 12, above, shows a schematic sectional view of a semiconductor
`device16 according to an embodiment of Igarashi, as annotated by Petitioner.
`
`
`14 Petitioner makes similar arguments regarding independent claim 1 in
`the -1842 Petition. Compare Pet. 21–46, with -1842 Pet. 20–45. Likewise,
`Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 are nearly
`identical in both Preliminary Responses. Compare Prelim. Resp. 4–17, 31–
`58, with -1842 Prelim. Resp. 4–17, 31–58. For convenience, we cite only to
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response from IPR2017-01841 in our
`analysis of claim 1.
`15 Petitioner has added reference numeral 8 to Figure 12. Pet. 17 n.3 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 117–18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 47 n.4). This addition is consistent with the
`disclosure of Igarashi. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Figs. 11, 13B.
`16 Igarashi discloses a metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) transistor.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Petitioner provides evidence that a MOS
`transistor is a type of MISFET where the insulator is an oxide. Pet. 24
`(citing Ex. 1009, 59; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. Petitioner relies on Igarashi’s silicon semiconductor
`substrate 1, gate oxide film 2 (red), gate electrode 3 (orange), impurity
`diffusion layers 4 and silicide film 5 of the source/drain (green), and silicon
`nitride film 8 (blue), respectively, as teaching the claimed semiconductor
`substrate, gate insulating film, gate electrode, source/drain regions, and
`silicon nitride film. Pet. 16–17, 22–25, 37–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–48, 60, 65,
`82–92.
`Claim 1 further recites “an active region made of a semiconductor
`substrate.” Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have understood that Igarashi discloses an active region made of the
`semiconductor substrate 1” (Pet. 25), based on at least the following
`disclosure of Igarashi:
`First, an insulating film for isolating elements is formed on a
`silicon semiconductor substrate 1. Element isolation is
`performed using methods such as the LOCOS method or the
`trench method. Thereafter, ion implantation is performed to
`the active element region for forming the well and controlling
`the threshold value.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 68 (emphasis Petitioner’s); see Pet. 25–27 (arguing that the “use
`of the ‘trench method’ confirms the ‘active element region’ (active region) is
`made of the semiconductor substrate 1 because according to the trench
`method the active region is formed in the substrate and defined by the STI
`regions”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 66.
`Petitioner further relies on Woerlee as providing explicit disclosure of
`the location of the active region within the semiconductor substrate.
`Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68. Petitioner asserts that active region 4 of
`Woerlee is “made of” semiconductor body 1, as required by claim 1. Pet. 29
`(citing Ex. 1006, 4:66–5:5 (disclosing “field insulating regions 3, which are
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`at least partly recessed in the semiconductor body 1 and which define an
`active region 4 in which a transistor . . . is to be manufactured”), 2:61–64
`(disclosing “an oxide field insulating region, which is provided at the surface
`of the semiconductor body to separate active regions in the semiconductor
`body”)); see id. at 29–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–71. According to Petitioner,
`“Woerlee would . . . have provided a [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`additional detail on how to use the trench method disclosed in Igarashi to
`form Igarashi’s active element region (active region) in the semiconductor
`substrate 1.” Pet. 31; see id. at 31–32; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–74.
`Petitioner also provides several reasons why a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have “appl[ied] Woerlee’s teachings to Igarashi by forming
`Igarashi’s active region in the substrate and defining it with STI regions that
`divide the active region.” Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 75. Discussed in more detail
`in the Petition, Petitioner provides the following reasons for its proposed
`combination: Woerlee is in the same field of endeavor as Igarashi (Pet. 32–
`33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 76); the combination would have provided “known benefits
`such as preventing leakage current flow” (Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 77);
`Igarashi’s disclosure that element isolation is performed using the trench
`method (Ex. 1004 ¶ 68) “provides a motivation to look to other MISFET
`references such as Woerlee for additional details on forming and dividing
`the active region” (Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78); the combination “would have
`involved nothing more than using prior art elements according to known
`methods to yield predictable results” (Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 79); and the
`combination “was a matter of routine engineering practice that required
`nothing more than routine skill and had a reasonable expectation of success”
`(Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 80).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the silicon nitride film is “formed over
`from side surfaces of the gate electrode to upper surfaces of the source/drain
`regions” and “is not formed on an upper surface of the gate electrode.” As
`seen in Figure 12 of Igarashi, silicon nitride film 8 “covers portions of the
`side of the gate electrode 3” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 117) (i.e., is “over from side
`surfaces of the gate electrode”) and is “formed over diffusion layer 4, which
`is part of the source/drain regions and covers silicide film 5, which is also
`part of the source drain regions” (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 48, 117))
`(i.e., is “formed . . . to upper surfaces of the source/drain regions”). See
`Pet. 42–44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–95. As further seen in Figure 12 of Igarashi,
`silicon nitride film 8 is not formed on an upper surface of gate electrode 3.
`See Pet. 44–45; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96–98.
`Claim 1 further recites that the “gate electrode protrudes upward from
`a surface level of parts of the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces
`of the gate electrode.” Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 12
`of Igarashi (Pet. 45), reproduced below, illustrating how Igarashi teaches this
`claim feature.
`
`
`Figure 12, above, shows a schematic sectional view of a semiconductor
`device according to an embodiment of Igarashi, as annotated by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. Petitioner’s mapping of Igarashi’s semiconductor device to
`the “protrudes upward” claim limitation is consistent with Applicants’
`statements during prosecution of the application leading to the ’501 patent:
`In the present subject matter, as shown in, for example, FIGS. 1
`and 4A [of the ’501 patent], the gate electrode 6a, 6b protrudes
`upward from a surface level of parts of the silicon nitride film
`8a, 8b located at both side surfaces of the gate electrode 6a, 6b.
`In other words, a height of the gate electrode from the
`surface of the substrate is higher than a height of the silicon
`nitride film disposed at the sides of the gate electrode.
`Ex. 1003 (Amendment dated Aug. 6, 2010), 8 (emphasis Petitioner’s); see
`Pet. 45–46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–102.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s asserted ground “fails for two
`reasons.” Prelim. Resp. 4, 31. We address each in turn.
`First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s asserted ground “relies
`upon disparate features from different embodiments in Igarashi that Igarashi
`nowhere describes as being used together and arranged in the manner
`required by the claims.” Id. at 4; see id. at 31–32. In this regard, Patent
`Owner argues that the Fifth Embodiment described in Igarashi, itself, does
`not teach STI regions forming an active region. Id. at 7, 38–44. Patent
`Owner asserts that the “active element region” of Igarashi, on which
`Petitioner relies, is related to Igarashi’s “First Embodiment,” whereas
`Petitioner relies on Figure 12 of Igarashi (i.e., the “Fifth Embodiment”) for
`all other features of claim 1. Id. at 5; see also id. at 44–47 (arguing
`Petitioner provides no motivation to modify the fifth embodiment to use
`isolation regions of the first embodiment).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`Based on the current record, however, we find it is clear from Igarashi
`that the disclosure of “active element region[s]” discussed in paragraph 68
`with respect to the “First Embodiment” is equally applicable to the “Fifth
`Embodiment” upon which Petitioner primarily relies. For example, the
`description of the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device of the
`“Fifth Embodiment” refers back to earlier described embodiments of
`Igarashi, ultimately referencing the discussion of the method for
`manufacturing the semiconductor device of the “First Embodiment.”
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 119 (“FIGS. 13A and 13[B] are schematic sectional views
`sequentially showing the method for manufacturing the semiconductor
`device shown in FIG. 12 [the Fifth Embodiment]. Here, FIG. 13A shows the
`same process as in FIG. 11B . . . .”), ¶¶ 112–13 (“FIGS. 11A to 11C are
`schematic sectional views showing the method for manufacturing the
`semiconductor device shown in FIG. 10 [the Fourth Embodiment]. . . . First,
`as FIG. 11A shows, gate electrodes 3 are formed, and silicon nitride films 7
`and silicon nitride films S are formed so as to cover the gate electrodes 3 in
`the same process as in FIG. 5 . . . .”), ¶ 68 (“[T]he method for manufacturing
`the semiconductor device of First Embodiment will be described. In the
`following description of the manufacturing method, the major process for
`forming the silicon nitride film 7 will be described referring to FIGS. 5A to
`5E, and other processes will be described without referring to drawings.
`First, an insulating film for isolating elements is formed on a silicon
`semiconductor substrate 1. Element isolation is performed using methods
`such as the LOCOS method or the trench method. Thereafter, ion
`implantation is performed to the active element region for forming the well
`and controlling the threshold value.”).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion (Prelim. Resp. 8–9),
`Petitioner does not ignore the fact that its citations are directed to discussion
`of different embodiments of Igarashi. In fact, Petitioner squarely addresses
`the issue, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`understood that the disclosure of the features in Igarashi common to
`different illustrations are applicable to the embodiment shown in Figure 12
`because the same reference numerals are used to describe common features
`of Igarashi’s disclosure” and, “[w]here features differ between figures, the
`differences are described in the disclosure of Igarashi.” Pet. 22 (citing
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4)). For these reasons, we are not persuaded on this
`record that Petitioner inappropriately relies on different embodiments of
`Igarashi.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that “even if a [person of ordinary skill
`in the art] would have been led to combine the features of Igarashi and
`Woerlee in the manner alleged in the Petition, the resulting semiconductor
`device does not include a MISFET having an active region as claimed.”
`Prelim. Resp. 4; see id. at 32. Patent Owner’s arguments in this regard are
`premised primarily on its contention that an “active region” is limited to
`regions associated with a single transistor. See Prelim. Resp. 9–17, 47–58.
`For the reasons discussed above (supra Section II.A), we are not persuaded
`based on the current record that the claims are so limited. Further, as
`discussed above, we are persuaded on the record now before us that
`Igarashi’s disclosure of “active element region[s]” applies to the
`embodiment described with respect to Figure 12 of Igarashi. Petitioner
`relies on Woerlee for its teaching that “because the isolation regions 3
`formed in the semiconductor substrate 1 define the active region 4 of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01842
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`substrate body 1 where the transistor is formed,” the active region formed
`therebetween is “made of” the semiconductor substrate as claimed. See
`Pet. 28. For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Conclusion Regardin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket