`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-018431
`Patent 7,893,501
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`PURSUANT TO PAPER NO. 40
`
`
`
`1 IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding. See Paper 10 at 3.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S IMPROPER NEW REPLY ARGUMENT FAILS .............. 1
`A.
`Silicon Oxide Spacers Cannot Be Thermally Grown “On Top of
`The Silicide Layer” ............................................................................... 1
`B. Misra Teaches Only Silicon Nitride Spacers 23 ................................... 2
`PATENT OWNER MAINTAINS ITS IMPROPER NEW
`ARGUMENT OBJECTION ............................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc. (“Ariosa”),
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 4
`In re: NuVasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”),
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER’S IMPROPER NEW REPLY ARGUMENT FAILS
`The Reply cited Misra 6:54-58 (not cited in the Petition) to support the new
`
`argument that Misra teaches that spacers 23 can be “made of a thermally grown
`
`silicon dioxide2 rather than silicon nitride.” Reply at 4 (citing Ex. 1232, ¶10 where
`
`Shanfield quotes Misra 6:54-58 in full and opines “[t]his disclosure [Misra 6:54-
`
`58] refers to a silicon oxide formed on top of the silicide layer” from “thermally-
`
`driven diffusion of excess silicon in the silicide.”). Petitioner and Shanfield are
`
`wrong about what this newly cited section of Misra discloses.
`
`A.
`
`Silicon Oxide Spacers Cannot Be Thermally Grown “On Top of
`The Silicide Layer”
`First, spacers 23 cannot be formed “on top of silicide layer” 18 because the
`
`top of silicide layer 18 is not exposed when spacers 23 are formed. Misra, Figs. 5-
`
`7. As shown in Figs. 2-3, “silicide layer 18 within the opening 24 is etched away”
`
`and “remove[d]” so sacrificial oxide 25 can thermally grow on the silicon
`
`substrate. Id. at 5:43-67, 6:34-36. Spacers 23 are formed “on top of the sacrificial
`
`oxide 25” in locations from which silicide layer 18 was removed—not “on top of
`
`the silicide layer” as Shanfield erroneously alleged. Id. at 6:37-42.
`
`
`2 The Reply and Ex. 1232 refer to silicon oxide and silicon dioxide. Both would be
`
`understood by a POSA to refer to SiO2 in this field. Regardless, arguments in this
`
`brief apply to whichever oxide of silicon allegedly replaces silicon nitride (“SiN”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Second, silicon oxide spacers cannot grow by “thermally-driven diffusion”
`
`on oxide 25. See Sec. I.B. Thus, “thermally-driven diffusion” cannot form silicon
`
`oxide spacers 23 in Misra’s spacer embodiment (Fig. 7). Compare Ex. 1232, ¶10.
`
`Third, SiN layer 20 “is deposited overlying … silicide [] 18.” Misra 5:20-22,
`
`Figs. 2-7. Because SiN is a diffusion barrier, preventing oxidation of the silicide,
`
`silicon oxide cannot thermally grow on top of silicide 18 which is covered by SiN.
`
`Fourth, Shanfield mischaracterizes Misra as disclosing an inoperable device.
`
`If spacers 23 were somehow thermally grown silicon oxide on top of silicide layer
`
`18 as Shanfield suggests (i.e., if in Fig. 7 spacers 23 were silicon oxide, and
`
`elements 25 were silicide), the silicide under the spacers would electrically connect
`
`(short) gate 28b to source 26 and drain 28, rendering the device inoperable. Id.
`
`6:49-54 (spacers required to isolate the gate from silicide).
`
`B. Misra Teaches Only Silicon Nitride Spacers 23
`“After formation of the spacers,” ion implantation is used to dope region 31.
`
`Misra 6:42-58. A POSA would have understood this also “dopes” spacers 23 and
`
`decreases their ability to isolate the gate. Misra teaches the damaged SiN spacers
`
`may be replaced with (1) new SiN spacers or (2) new SiN spacers “composited
`
`with a sidewall thermal growth” (i.e., prior to re-depositing SiN spacers, silicon
`
`oxide is thermally grown on oxide 25 and exposed portions of the lateral surfaces
`
`of silicide 18). In both cases, silicon nitride covers the sides of Misra’s gate 28b.
`
`2
`
`
`
`For the first case, Misra 6:54-58 removes and replaces SiN spacers with SiN
`
`because doping (id. at 6:42-45) damages the spacers—decreasing their isolating
`
`properties. For that same reason, Misra removes doping-damaged silicon oxide 25
`
`not covered by spacers 23 and replaces it with silicon oxide 27. Id. at 6:42-49, 59-
`
`61. Thus, silicon nitride covers the sides of Misra’s gate 28b.
`
`For the second case, a POSA would have rejected Shanfield’s interpretation,
`
`because it is not physically possible to thermally grow silicon oxide spacers 23 and
`
`have an operable device. The surfaces exposed by removing SiN spacers 23 after
`
`the doping step (i.e., the step shown in Fig. 5, but with spacers 23 removed) cannot
`
`thermally grow silicon oxide spacers 23: (a) the silicon oxide surfaces 22 (green
`
`below) cannot because there is insubstantial free silicon; (b) SiN surfaces 20
`
`(purple below) cannot because SiN is a diffusion barrier; (c) increasing the
`
`thickness of oxide 25 (orange) to form spacers 23 is not possible as the oxide
`
`consumes silicon further into the doped regions 26, 28, and 31 (orange arrows)
`
`which would render the device inoperable; and (d) thermally growing spacers 23
`
`from exposed lateral surfaces of silicide 18 would also require consuming silicon
`
`from doped regions 26, 28, and 31 which would render the device inoperable.
`
`Thus, a POSA understood any thermally grown silicon oxide would need to be
`
`composited with deposited silicon nitride to form spacers 23. Id. 6:49-54. Silicon
`
`nitride would thus cover the sides of Misra’s gate 28b. For the same reasons, the
`
`3
`
`
`
`lateral surface of SiN layer 20 will be exposed while forming the composite spacer
`
`such that SiN layer 20 and SiN spacers 23 will be contiguous layers of a SiN film.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER MAINTAINS ITS IMPROPER NEW ARGUMENT
`OBJECTION
`Petitioner changed its theory of unpatentability to argue Misra 6:54-58
`
`discloses embodiments where spacers 23 are not formed of SiN. Reply at 4. This
`
`new theory relies on a part of Misra not cited in the Petition. Shanfield admitted
`
`his initial declaration did not cite Misra 6:54-58, and did not argue Misra discloses
`
`spacers 23 of a material other than SiN. Ex. 2232 at 36:18-37:7, 38:3-8; Ex. 2210
`
`at 287:21-288:4. This argument cannot be considered because (1) it is
`
`meaningfully distinct and (2) the Board denied Patent Owner expert testimony to
`
`rebut it. Papers 40, 42; Ariosa at 1367 (improper to cite “previously unidentified
`
`portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention”);
`
`NuVasive at 970-73 (APA requires PO have “arguments and evidence”).
`
`Dated: October 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By /Gerald B. Hrycyszyn/
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.6 (e)(4)
`
`I certify that on October 5, 2018 I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits referred to therein, to be served via electronic
`
`mail, as previously consented to by Petitioner, upon the following:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dominic E. Massa
`
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`Michael H. Smith
`
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`Date: October 5, 2018
`
`/Faye Miller/
`Faye Miller
`Paralegal
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
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
