`
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01843a
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`____________
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 6, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`DAVID CAVANAUGH, ESQUIRE
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering & Hale
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GERALD HRYCYSZYN, ESQUIRE
`Wolf Greenfield
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Suite 2300
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 6, 2018, commencing at 3:15 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Julie
`Souza, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Welcome back everybody. We're here today
`
`for our second hearing of the day in IPR2017-01843 related to U.S. patent
`7,893,501. I'm not going to go over all the ground rules again, but I'll just
`have both counsel introduce yourselves for the record at the microphone and
`see if anybody has any questions before we get started.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: David Cavanaugh for TSMC with Wilmer
`Hale.
`JUGE CHAGNON: Thank you.
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Gerry
`
`Hrycyszyn with Wolf Greenfield for Patent Owner IP Bridge.
`
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you so much, and as I said we're going
`to follow the same format of the previous hearing so whenever you're ready
`you can get started. How much time did you want to reserve today?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Fifteen minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Fifteen minutes.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: And just one preliminary question. Will this
`be a single consolidated transcript or two individual transcripts between the
`proceedings, or is that determined?
`
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Because we did them as separate hearings,
`we'll do them as separate transcripts.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Okay. Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'll kind
`of dispense with some of the preliminaries with regard to the agenda for this
`presentation but I do want to present a little bit about the relevant
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`technology. I'll go through the relevant part of the 501 patent that is
`apparently disputed in this proceeding, an overview of the prior art that's
`used in this proceeding as well as some undisputed issues, and address
`finally the issues raised by the Patent Owner.
`
`The technological background is the same and so I'm not going to
`spend any time with it other than noting that the various components of a
`MISFET transistor are described in Plummer and that's what we presented in
`the petition.
`
`Going to slide 6. I think that the figure 1 of the 501 patent now is
`familiar territory. Important to this proceeding is the identification of where
`the gate is with respect to the silicon nitride film and that's the last element
`but it would be the silicon nitride film is in blue and the gate electrode is in
`orange.
`
`Next slide. Again, and maybe we can go back to figure 1 for a
`moment. I do also want to identify that the sidewalls 7, we've identified in
`color the limitations of the claim but the sidewalls 7 aren't really a part of the
`limitations of claim 1 and we haven't highlighted those but they're on either
`side of the gate electrode.
`
`Next slide. And so here's the claim 1 that's being challenged by this
`petition and we have the last limitation, actually I'll start with the third to last
`limitation that introduces a silicon nitride film and then the silicon nitride
`film is not formed on the upper surface of the gate electrode which is the
`second to last limitation, and then the last limitation which was added during
`prosecution the gate electrode protrudes upward from a surface level of parts
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`of the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces of the gate electrode.
`So that's the limitation that we'll be discussing today.
`
`The prior art in this petition is Misra and Misra I've identified in slide
`10 with figure 7 and I've identified how the various limitations, the
`disclosure of 501 corresponds to the figure 7 of Misra, and so there's an
`active region -- Patent Owner doesn't dispute in this case whether there's an
`active region in Misra -- a gate insulating film in red. There is a gate
`electrode 28b and source and drain regions which are in green and that's in
`26 and 28, and important for the last limitation of the claim the gate
`electrode 28bextends above the silicon nitride film 20.
`
`I'd like to just describe what I understand to be undisputed issues and
`we'll hear from the Patent Owner if they disagree, as they disagree if I'm
`incorrect. But I think there is no dispute that the Misra gate 28b protrudes
`above the surface of the layer 20 of the film 20 and that's just like what's in
`figure 1 of the 501 patent which the Patent Owner has alleged in prosecution
`corresponds to the added limitation. So that I don't think is in dispute.
`
`Next slide. Again, I had mentioned it briefly when I was introducing
`Misra, but there is no dispute that Misra discloses the limitation of the
`claimed active region in whatever iteration that the Patent Owner would
`present it.
`
`Next slide. There's no dispute that the protruding gate was known in
`the art and in fact in the Patent Owner preliminary response indicated that
`Igarashi teaches explicitly the protruding gate limitation, and we do think
`that that's relevant to considering this is not a new feature that has never
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`been before in the art, the question is as Igarashi has disclosed it, is it present
`in the prior art that's been identified in this petition?
`
`Finally, on slide 15, except for the protruding gate Patent Owner does
`not dispute the instituted grounds disclose the other limitations, so not just
`the active region but also the other limitations and the Patent Owner doesn't
`dispute that the references in the instituted ground would have been obvious
`to combine. The two references, we perceive that there may be a question of
`what kind of layer 20 was in Misra. We added a reference to make sure it
`was clear that it was a silicon nitride film, and it doesn't seem to be in
`dispute.
`
`Misra discloses the protruding gate, and I've highlighted for
`obviousness the gate electrode protrudes upward limitation and I will start
`with, if you go to slide 18, and I identified the various configurations a
`moment ago and they're quite clearly shown.
`
`Next slide. The petition identifies that the gate electrode protrudes
`above, now the gate electrode is a limitation of the claim, protrudes upward
`from a surface level of the silicon nitride film, the plasma enhanced nitride
`layer 20 which is a limitation of the claim located at both sides of the gate
`electrode. So the petition has shown that Misra discloses that protruding
`gate to the extent that it's a question.
`
`Next slide. I'd like to address some issues raised by the Patent Owner
`attempting to distinguish Misra's disclosure from the claimed gate
`protruding. I've summarized disputed issues in an attempt to focus the
`Board's attention on the particular issues here. The first is that the silicon
`nitride film and its sidewall 23 are multiple layers of a single film and I'll
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`address that in a moment, and then the second argument is somewhat related
`but the gate does not protrude above the parts of the silicon nitride film
`which are closest to the gate, and that's more of a geography kind of issue.
`
`So in looking at the response to the Patent Owner's first argument, I'd
`like to take the Board back to their Patent Owner's preliminary response just
`from a claim construction standpoint because there was a proposed
`construction that the film encompass all films on the device and require the
`gate to protrude above the closest silicon nitride structure.
`
`And we believe that the Board -- next slide -- correctly identified that
`the silicon nitride film need not include every single silicon nitride structure
`in a prior art device, and that's slide 24 and I think that that's kind of where
`the Patent Owner was when they wrote their Patent Owner response.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, can you go back to slide 23 for a moment?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Sure.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: I'd like to ask you about the portion of that located
`closest to the side surface of the gate electrode. Is that not the most
`appropriate place to look when we're looking to see if something teaches the
`protruding limitation? Shouldn't we look to at least the area of the film that
`is closest to the side surfaces of the gate electrode? Doesn't that make
`sense?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: In the context of the claim I don't think it does,
`particularly with regard to if you look at claim 7 and how claim 7 would be
`construed, and we can go to that slide if Your Honor is interested to look at
`that. I think the first thing that I would note is the limitation of the claim is
`located at both side surfaces and it's not closest to the gate. I mean so the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`limitation of the claim, now we're back at claim 1, but the located at both
`side surfaces and claim 7 recognizes that the silicon nitride film is formed
`over the side surfaces with a sidewall interposed and as I mentioned the
`sidewall is not a part of claim 1 but claim 1 has to be interpreted in a way
`that's consistent with claim 7.
`
`If we go back to figure 1 which the Patent Owner has identified as
`corresponding to the newly added limitation and the claim itself, we see a
`spacer between the gate electrode and the layer so, Your Honor, I think that
`a proper reading of the silicon nitride layer is not the closest, it has to do
`with the limitation of the claim especially as interpreted with regard to claim
`7. Did I answer your question?
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Yes, I think so. Didn't the applicants during
`prosecution when they were talking about the Xiang and Matsuda
`references, and those references had the L-shape of one or two films that are
`silicon nitride, weren't they talking about the area that is closest to the gate
`electrode?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: I don't think so and I can walk through, if we
`start on slide 28, I think that we thought that it might be useful to
`characterize like why the sidewalls which are closest to the gate electrode
`should not be a part of the layer 20 and this is Misra, figure 5. But what I'd
`like to do is walk through the next illustration, next slide which is 29, so this
`is the illustration in the Xiang reference which was considered during
`prosecution and I know two things. One there is a space between the gate
`electrode and the silicon nitride film first of all, and second of all this is a
`singly applied layer that is described as depositing an etch stop layer and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`regardless of whether it's going vertically and can have some relationship
`with the gate electrode, it's simply a single layer that is separated from the
`gate electrode by some material.
`
`The prior art that was considered by the examiner is different than
`Misra and actually indicates if there is a single layer but what the Patent
`Owner is attempting to associate is the prior art with the two different
`materials, the layer 20 and the sidewall 23, because in their view if there are
`adjacent layers they can be considered as the same layer.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: If they are of the same material.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: They would say that they're the same material.
`What we would articulate is that if there are two different materials that are
`deposited at different times with different structures and for different
`purposes, that those are different than the silicon nitride layer and it can't be
`that they are just thought of as a single film according to the claim.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Did that kind of distinction ever come up during
`prosecution or was it always about the structure of the L-shape with both
`being silicon nitride?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: My understanding is that that distinction did
`not come up during prosecution.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: But it's your position that we should draw a
`distinction now between Misra and those references that were applied even
`though the ending structure is very similar, that we should draw a distinction
`based on what you've argued here?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Well, the structure is different and it is, you
`know, whether it's similar, there are two points that I'd like to make. One,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`just simply saying that any silicon nitride associated with a deposit or
`associated with a device is somehow should all be brought together and
`considered in terms of the height of the gate electrode. We believe that
`that's an inaccurate reading of the claim and actually what the 501 is talking
`about and Misra is different than this single layer that's associated with the
`silicon nitride etch stop, and we know that because the sidewall 23 is kind of
`formed at a different time and that's represented on slide 33 and there's the
`etch stop layer 20 that is applied and then there is a channel that is formed
`24 and then on the next slide the source and drain regions are doped and then
`finally there's a sidewall that is applied for the introduction of the channel,
`and so formed at different times for very different purposes during the
`production and those differences matter and it's not just simply the final
`build happens to look similar to what the prior art showed. These are quite
`different structures.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: But you would agree that -- I understand the points
`you're making regarding how it's constructed but the ending structure,
`assuming for the moment that spacers 23 are silicon nitride, the ending
`structure that you end up with is very similar to the Xiang and Matsuda
`references, right?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: We don't believe that it's similar in the sense
`that if the similarity -- what I want to be clear is that if the sidewalls or
`whatever vertical protrusion that's in the prior art references are all the etch
`stop layer. What the sidewalls of Misra are doing is providing a mask for
`the channel formation and so we can't look at a component of a
`semiconductor device in abstract. I mean it has to be seen in the context of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`what it is that the formation of that device, and Your Honors recognized in
`the decision on Institution that also the claim doesn't require that all silicon
`nitride of the device be considered, it requires that there be a silicon nitride
`film that is below the height of the gate electrode. That's what's required.
`
`I would also like to identify, because I think this is an appropriate
`point, that the silicon nitride film, you know, the sidewall as I said is not a
`limitation of claim 1, it's a limitation of claim 7 and I think that that is
`instructive about what it is that satisfies the limitations for claim 1 in the
`sense of this. It is clear that Misra has a silicon nitride sidewall but it's also
`clear that it discloses a silicon oxide thermally grown sidewall and when
`there is thermally grown sidewall that is itself, and it can't be considered a
`silicon nitride film in the context of the Patent Owner's arguments.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Can I ask you about that? Did you ever argue in
`your petition that the spacers 23 in Misra are not silicon nitride? Did that
`argument ever appear in your petition?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: To the extent that we identified that the
`sidewall -- we correctly anticipated the Patent Owner would say a silicon
`nitride which is not, like the sidewall is not a limitation of claim 1 and so we
`are under no obligation to say the sidewall can't be considered kind of a
`silicon nitride film because it's not made of silicon nitride. I would note the
`same with regard to layer 22 but I will say that we did identify why, even if
`one were to consider the silicon nitride embodiment, that it would still meet
`the limitations of the claim.
`
`So the answer to your question is the sidewall is not a limitation of
`claim 1. We're under no obligation to disclose everything that is not a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`limitation of the claim and so to that extent what we were trying to do is in
`some ways prebut what the Patent Owner had identified, but I will note that
`the Patent Owner has no argument to identify if one considers that sidewall
`as silicon oxide because it looks identical to the figure 1 of the 501 patent.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: If spacers 23 are not silicon nitride because the
`sidewalls 7 in figure 1 are not silicon nitride, correct?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Correct, correct, and that also addresses the
`closest to limitation. So I've just -- both the prosecution and the process
`steps -- just to bring it in to bold relief, what the Patent Owner is asking you
`to do is to consider two different layers that are deposited at different times
`for different purposes and under different processes to be essentially the
`same thing according to the claim and that's simply inconsistent with a
`proper interpretation of the claim.
`
`Going to slide 36. To answer your question, Your Honor, about
`whether we are looking at Misra in a way that's similar in a way to what was
`considered in the prosecution history of the application, 4B which they do
`not identify as corresponding to the claim -- 4B has a single film which is
`just like the prior art that they don't identify as part of the claim -- 4B single
`film is deposited in a single process and then 4B single film, just like
`Matsuda and Xiang, performs the same function associated with the etch
`stop layer and that's simply different than Misra where the layer and the
`spacer are different, they're different films, they're different materials and
`they're different structures. The layer 20 and spacer 23 are deposited in
`separate process steps and the layer 20 and the spacer 23 are performing
`different functions. It can be no clearer that the sidewall 23 is just simply
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`different than the etch stop layer 20 which is what the limitation of the claim
`is about.
`
`Dr. Glew describes an image of a coat of paint and that's good as far
`as it goes. We don't disagree that layers that are formed on top of one
`another can form a single film or a single layer. What we do dispute is, as I
`mentioned a moment ago, different even if you're using the same paint if you
`have a different kind of structure that you're forming through a different
`process at a different time it's inappropriate to call those the same film.
`They're deposited adjacent, they may be made of the same material, they
`may be made of a different material, but they're simply a different film
`because they were deposited differently.
`
`I'd also note that the patent itself, although as I say in slide 37, the
`Patent Owner identifies that the film can include multiple layers so 8a is
`what the relevant part is here and then the internal stress of each film can
`apply stress to the substrate of the whole. What is I think being fairly
`communicated here is that there are multiple layers that can be built one on
`top of another and they can apply so long as the internal stress and apply the
`stress to the substrate as a whole, and there's no disclosure for adjacent
`deposits of the same material at different times could in fact do that and, you
`know, we went through and maybe we can go to the next slide.
`
`The single film with multiple layers as Dr. Shanfield has testified to,
`you know, as multiple layers build on top of each other can create that stress
`response which is desirable or appropriate, but two different adjacent layers
`can kind of create two different stress fields and those two different stress
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`fields are simply an indication that they're two different layers, that they're
`two different materials, that they're two different constructs.
`
`I think that I would like to -- Dr. Shanfield, Patent Owner would
`identify and probably will identify in this proceeding also the similarity
`between the petition and the Petitioner's declaration, and so I'd like to
`address that explicitly. We work very closely with our experts in forming
`the positions that are part of the petition. Dr. Shanfield has testified that he
`spent over 100 hours working on the issues related to these proceedings. All
`of those are once we understand it, once we understand what we can argue,
`how the references can be reviewed, then we put it into a declaration and a
`petition.
`
`The association of the petition and the declaration far from being an
`expert that can't be relied upon, it's actually that the expert was a part of the
`process of forming the positions in the petition and from our standpoint we
`think it forms a strong petition and their arguments that are presented in the
`petition are fully supported by Dr. Shanfield as a declarant because he's
`worked with us through the entire process.
`
`If I can go to the Patent Owner's second argument, and that's more the
`geography related to like the closest to the gate and I know I addressed,
`Judge Arbes, your question earlier and I just want to make sure we look at
`the claim language. Slide 40 we've already addressed and I won't belabor it
`unless you have questions. But I do want to apply that claim 7 explicitly in
`how they would have to read it with regard to figure 1 because that's what
`they say corresponds to the amendment in the application.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`JUDGE ARBES: But again, going back to the previous slide, the
`sidewalls 7 are not silicon nitride in the specification, right? So there is no
`layer immediately adjacent to the gate electrode. We're talking about the
`blue layer to the left and right of that. That's the silicon nitride film, right?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: That is the silicon nitride. If your sidewalls, or
`if you're suggesting that sidewalls are not layers there is a space for the
`sidewall there. I don't know if the Patent Owner would agree with you that 7
`is not a layer, but I do think that there is a space between the silicon nitride,
`which is disclosed and the gate electrode.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Yes. But, again, the sidewalls are a different
`material. Presumably if the sidewalls were silicon nitride there, then there
`would be the L-shape that is present in the prior art, right?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: If the sidewalls 7 were formed in the same
`process, I mean there's a build to what you're suggesting in this hypothetical.
`If there is a sidewall that is formed as a part of a single process associated
`with the silicon nitride film, then that is kind of forming the same function,
`then I think it might be appropriate to call it the same film. But we don't
`have that here in Misra. What we have is a silicon nitride film that is an etch
`stop layer, I think that's not disputed, and we have a sidewall 23 which could
`be made of silicon nitride or could be made of silicon oxide. When it's made
`of silicon nitride it clearly is formed at a different time for a different
`purpose and it would require of Your Honors to associate these two different
`materials that are formed outside of their own contained process as a single
`film. That's even presuming that the sidewall could be considered a film.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`JUDGE ARBES: I think at least the specification of the 501 patent
`does describe the sidewalls as a film, right?
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: The sidewalls as described, a film can be
`applied to the sidewalls and that's what's illustrated in figure 4B. But what
`we would say, as I mentioned in one of the previous slides, is that 4B even if
`there's a silicon nitride film on the sidewalls, those are formed at the same
`time with the same material for the same purpose. I think it's important to
`differentiate the sidewall 23 and why it's there and what it's doing from the
`silicon nitride film 20 and what it's doing, and they're doing different things.
`
`And going to slide, I think 43, properly understood as two separate
`structures which they are. There's the portions of film 20 recited in the
`claim are closest to the gate because that is a different structure, it's formed
`at a different time and we can't associate those because of that.
`
`Next slide. I think it's important to recognize that the claim itself
`requires that the gate electrode protrudes upwards from the silicon nitride
`film and it doesn't require that it protrude above every silicon nitride
`structure in the device. They could have claimed it that way but they didn't.
`They claimed it a different way.
`
`And finally, I think the Patent Owner's arguments, you know, if I can
`group them the film layers theory fails because they're simply separate
`structures and they're not layers of a film. They're adjacently deposited at
`different times for a different function. The closest to the gate theory fails
`because that is not what's required by the claim as it reads and the film 20
`closest to the gate is indeed lower than the protruding gate 28b, and the
`Patent Owner's all silicon nitride structure theory fails because the claims
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`only require the gate to protrude above a silicon nitride film and not all
`silicon nitride films. So we think it's a fairly clear representation of the
`issues and how the disclosure of Misra renders obvious the claims.
`
`I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal unless you have any
`questions, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: Good afternoon, Your Honors. This trial is
`about the grounds in the petition. Those grounds are fatally flawed for
`reasons I will explain. The Petitioner seeks to distract the Board from the
`flaws in the petition by alleging that prior art Igarashi discloses a protruding
`gate electrode, but Igarashi is not part of the grounds in this IPR.
`
`The Petitioner also tries to distract by talking about some other
`embodiment in Misra that may or may not disclose, and we actually do not
`concede that it discloses, a silicon dioxide spacer is now trying to pull a new
`argument based on a part of Misra never before disclosed in an argument I
`believe Petitioner just admitted was never made in the petition.
`
`So indeed the new theories relying on an embodiment of Misra that
`was never cited in the petition, so it's black letter law an obviousness ground
`must render obvious the claim as a whole labeling individual claim elements
`like the protruding gate electrode as known are not novel doesn't help
`Petitioner. It does not meet their burden of showing their case in the
`petition. So for each challenged claim the only thing that matters here is
`what did the petition show as it was filed, and it doesn't demonstrate
`obviousness of the claim as a whole here.
`
`So let's turn to slide 2. So this is claim 1. So claim 1 is the only
`independent claim in the 501 patent. Claim 1 is directed to a semiconductor
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`device that's got a number of features. It's got a silicon nitride film and a
`gate electrode that protrudes upward from the surface level of the parts of
`the silicon nitride film located at both side surfaces, and we'll get into what
`each of these aspects of that claim language mean.
`
`Can we go to slide 3. So what I've added here is the interpretation of
`film that Patent Owner proposes. It's straightforward, it's simple, it's a thin
`coating of one or more layers of silicon nitride here because we're talking
`about a silicon nitride film. This is the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`film, it's also the plain and ordinary meaning of film. This is supported by
`the plain language of the claim and I'll go through and substantiate all of
`this. It's supported by the intrinsic record of the 501 patent, dictionary
`definition, testimony of an expert Dr. Glew and admissions from Petitioner's
`expert.
`
`Go to the next slide. So this next slide I add Petitioner's proposed
`interpretation or at least the interpretation they applied in the grounds here.
`So according to Petitioner, in order for multiple layers to compose a film
`they have to be made by the same process to create the same structure that
`has the same function. Now as I'll explain shortly Petitioner's interpretation
`of the term film is wrong. Next slide.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, if we can go back one slide.
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: Sure.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: What in your view makes multiple layers into a
`single film?
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`JUDGE ARBES: If it's not what Petitioner says, what does make
`them a single film?
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: Sure.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Is it the fact that they're next to each other?
`
`MR. HRYCYSZYN: That's certainly a part of it, Your Honor. So
`contiguous layers of the same material do form the same film, but what's
`more important is what the patent says forms a film. So let's skip right
`forward to slide 6. So this is Patent Owner's support for the interpretation of
`film and the question Your Honor asked specifically was about multiple
`layers forming a film. The specification says multiple layers can make up a
`film. It's stated in column 5, lines 60 to 63. Internal stress film 8A, there's
`no dispute here that that refers to the claimed silicon nitride film which is
`what's at issue in this dispute in this IPR. It says it may include multiple
`layers. It does say in this particular context of that stress film it's got to
`apply stress to the substrate as a whole, but as our expert Dr. Glew
`explained, that could be via stack layers, side-by-side layers, overlapping
`layers, they all apply stress as a whole.
`
`The other support for this interpretation is the plain language of the
`claim itself. It calls it a film. A film is something that covers something, it
`coats it. That's the way it's used throughout the specification. We have on
`the right hand side of slide 6 a portion of the POR at page 29 that has
`numerous references to the 501 specification that talks about the film
`covering portions of structures. That is also consistent with the definition of
`film. So we have a dictionary def
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
