`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DR. URI COHEN
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00770
`Patent 6,924,226
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,924,226
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction. .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). .............................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ...................................... 2
`A.
`Citation of prior art. ............................................................................... 2
`B.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ..................................................... 3
`IV. The ’226 patent. .............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Background of technology. ................................................................... 4
`B.
`The ’226 patent purports to improve interconnects by
`depositing multiple seed layers. ............................................................ 5
`Claim construction. ............................................................................... 7
`“seed layer” ................................................................................ 8
`1.
`“substantially conformal”/“substantially non-
`2.
`conformal” seed layer ................................................................ 8
`“substantially conformal”/“substantially non-
`conformal” deposition technique ............................................ 10
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. .........................................................11
`The ’226 patent cannot claim priority to earlier-filed ’707 or
`’151 patents. ........................................................................................12
`“substantially conformal”/ “substantially non-
`1.
`conformal” seed layer. ............................................................. 14
`a)
`The ’151 and ’707 patents do not provide
`written description support for the terms
`“substantially conformal ”/ “substantially non-
`conformal” seed layer. ................................................... 14
`The disclosure of conformal/non-conformal
`seed layers in the ’151 and ’707 patents do not
`extend to the thickness ranges required by PO’s
`express definitions of “substantially
`conformal”/“substantially non-conformal” seed
`layer. .............................................................................. 16
`“substantially conformal”/“substantially non-
`conformal” deposition technique. ............................................ 18
`V. Ground 1: Chiang and Grunow render claims 71-74, 76, and 80 obvious. .. 19
`A. Overview of Chiang. ...........................................................................19
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`b)
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`Chiang’s SIP copper seed layer deposition technique. ............ 20
`1.
`Chiang’s IMP-SIP/SIP-IMP seed layer structures. .................. 21
`2.
`Chiang’s SIP-CVD seed layer structure. ................................. 23
`3.
`Overview of Grunow. ..........................................................................24
`B.
`C. Motivation to combine Chiang and Grunow. ......................................25
`D.
`Independent claim 71. .........................................................................28
`1.
`Chiang teaches the preamble of claim 71. ............................... 28
`Chiang teaches [71.P.1]. ................................................ 29
`a)
`b)
`Chiang teaches [71.P.2]. ................................................ 29
`c)
`Chiang teaches [71.P.3]. ................................................ 31
`Chiang-Grunow teaches or suggests the “depositing”
`limitation [71.1]. ...................................................................... 31
`Chiang-Grunow teaches or suggests “depositing
`a)
`three or more seed layers over the field and
`inside surfaces of the at least one opening using
`at least two different deposition techniques”
`[71.1.1]. .......................................................................... 32
`Chiang-Grunow teaches or suggests “wherein
`the three or more seed layers do not seal the at
`least one opening” [71.1.2]. ........................................... 34
`i.
`Both Chiang and Grunow are directed to
`an electroplating process. .....................................35
`A POSITA would have been motivated
`to ensure that the deposition of the PVD
`copper seed layer as taught by Grunow
`does not seal hole 22. ...........................................36
`Chiang discloses “said at least two different
`deposition techniques comprise at least one
`substantially non-conformal deposition
`technique and at least one substantially
`conformal deposition technique” [71.1.3]. .................... 37
`i.
`SIP copper film 180 is deposited by a
`“substantially non-conformal deposition
`technique.” ............................................................37
`CVD copper seed layer 184 is deposited
`by a “substantially conformal deposition
`technique.” ............................................................40
`Chiang-Grunow teaches or suggests the
`“electroplating” limitation [71.2]. ........................................... 42
`Dependent claim 72. ............................................................................44
`
`3.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`2.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`Dependent claim 73. ............................................................................44
`F.
`G. Dependent claim 74. ............................................................................47
`H. Dependent claim 76. ............................................................................47
`I.
`Dependent claim 80. ............................................................................48
`VI. Ground 2: Chiang, Grunow, and Lopatin renders claim 77 obvious. .......... 48
`A. Overview of Lopatin. ..........................................................................48
`B. Motivation to combine Chiang-Grunow and Lopatin. ........................49
`C.
`Dependent claim 77. ............................................................................51
`VII. Ground 3: Wang and Chen renders claims 71 and 79 obvious. ................... 53
`A. Overview of Wang. .............................................................................53
`B.
`Overview of Chen. ..............................................................................54
`C. Motivation to combine Wang and Chen. ............................................56
`D.
`Independent claim 71. .........................................................................60
`1. Wang teaches the preamble of claim 71. ................................. 60
`2. Wang-Chen teaches or suggests the “depositing”
`limitation [71.1]. ...................................................................... 62
`a) Wang-Chen teaches or suggests “depositing
`three or more seed layers over the field and
`inside surfaces of the at least one opening using
`at least two different deposition techniques”
`[71.1.1]. .......................................................................... 62
`b) Wang-Chen teaches or suggests “wherein the
`three or more seed layers do not seal the at
`least one opening” [71.1.2]. ........................................... 63
`i.
`Both Wang and Chen are directed to an
`electroplating process. ..........................................63
`A POSITA would have been motivated
`to ensure that the deposition of Chen’s
`ECD layer does not seal opening 202. .................64
`c) Wang discloses “said at least two different
`deposition techniques comprise at least one
`substantially non-conformal deposition
`technique and at least one substantially
`conformal deposition technique” [71.1.3]. .................... 66
`i.
`Copper alloy material 216 is deposited
`by a “substantially non-conformal
`deposition technique.” ..........................................66
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`ii.
`
`Copper seed layer 214 is deposited by a
`“substantially conformal deposition
`technique.” ............................................................68
`3. Wang-Chen teaches or suggests the “electroplating”
`limitation [71.2]. ...................................................................... 69
`Dependent claim 79. ............................................................................71
`E.
`VIII. General Plastics should not prevent institution. .......................................... 73
`
`IX. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ................................................ 73
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion. ................................................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Inds.,
`181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Eiselstein v. Frank,
`52 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`In re Aslanian,
`590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ............................................................................................ 38, 41
`
`
`In re Blaser,
`556 F.2d 534 (C.C.P.A. 1977) .................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`125 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) ............................................................................................................... 45
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp.,
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos,
`482 Fed. Appx. 568 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 38, 41
`
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................... 13
`
`Sinorgchem Co. et al. v. International Trade Commission,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................. 9, 11
`
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................... 13, 38, 41, 69
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Waldemar Link v. Osteonics Corp.,
`32 F.3d 556 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`983 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993)................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................73
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) ..............................................................................................30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) .................................................................................................74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................73
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226 to Cohen (“the ’226 patent”)
`Prosecution File History for Application No. 10/328,629 (“the
`’226 patent file history”)
`Declaration of Michael Thomas, Ph.D. (“Thomas”)
`Curriculum vitae of Michael Thomas, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 to Chiang et al. (“Chiang”)
`Grunow et al., “Study of Electrochemical Deposition of Copper
`and Microstructure Evolution in Fine Lines,” Proceedings of
`the Materials Research Society Symposium, January 1999
`U.S. Patent No. 6,610,151 to Cohen (“the ’151 patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,136,707 to Cohen (“the ’707 patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,228,759 to Wang et al. (“Wang”)
`Chen et al., “ECD Seed Layer for Inlaid Copper Metallization”
`The Electrochemical Society, September 1999 (“Chen”);
`Intentionally Left Blank
`The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University
`Press, 1998 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`Plummer et al., Silicon VLSI Technology, Chapter 9 – Thin
`Film Deposition, Prentice-Hall Inc., 2000 (“Plummer”)
`Smith, Thin-Film Deposition, Chapter 7 – Chemical Vapor
`Deposition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995 (“Smith”)
`P. Andricacos, “Copper On-Chip Interconnections, A
`Breakthrough in Electrodeposition to Make Better Chips,” The
`Electrochemical Society, Spring 1999 (“Andricacos”)
`Jackson et al., “Processing and Integration of Copper
`Interconnects,” Solid State Technology, The International
`Magazine for Semiconductor Manufacturing, March 1998.
`(“Jackson”)
`U.S. Patent 6,368,954 to Lopatin et al. (“Lopatin”)
`Kroger et al., “Properties of Copper Films Prepared by
`Chemical Vapor Deposition for Advanced Metallization of
`Microelectronic Devices,” Journal of the Electrochemical
`Society, 1999 (“Kroger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,126,806 to Uzoh (“Uzoh”)
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`1040
`1041
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,652 to Charneski et al. (“Charneski”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 5,989,623 to Chen et al. (“Chen ’623”)
`Ryu et al., “Effect of Texture on the Electromigration of CVD
`Copper,” Proceedings of IEEE Int’l Reliability Physics
`Symposium 1997, pp. 201-205 (“Ryu 1997”)
`Ryu et al., “Microstructure and Reliability of Copper
`Interconnects,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol.
`46, no. 6, June 1999 (“Ryu 1999”)
`Wolf et al., Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era, Chapter 10 –
`Aluminum Thin Films and Physical Vapor Deposition in VLSI,
`Volume 1—Process Technology, Lattice Press, 1986 (“Wolf”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0045345 to Hsiung et al.
`(“Hsiung”)
`G. Moore, “Cramming More Components onto Integrated
`Circuits, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 1, January 1998
`(“Moore”)
`The National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors,
`Semiconductor Industry Association, 1997 (“1997 NTRS”)
`M. Thomas et al., “Chapter 10 - Overview of Interconnect” in
`Y. Nishi et al., (ed): “Handbook of Semiconductor
`Manufacturing Technologies,” Chapter 10, Marcel Dekker,
`Inc., New York, 2000 (“Handbook”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,297,155 to Simpson et al. (“Simpson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,977,220 to Marieb et al. (“Marieb”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,242,349 to Nogami et al. (“Nogami”)
`C. Wang et al., “Binary Cu-Alloy Layers for Cu-
`Interconnections Reliability Improvement,” Proceedings of the
`IEEE 2001 International Interconnect Technology Conference,
`June 2001, pp. 86-88 (“Wang Article”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/619,334 (“’334 file history”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,183,614 to Fu (“Fu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,429,120 to Ahn et al. (“Ahn”)
`Reexamination File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,136,707
`(“’707 reexam”)
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`Exhibit
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044-1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`1056
`
`1057
`1058
`1059
`
`Description
`Rossnagel et al., “Metal ion deposition from ionized magnetron
`sputtering discharge,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 12(1), January
`1994 (“Rossnagel”)
`Radzimski et al., “Directional copper disposition using dc
`magnetron self-sputtering,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16(3), May
`1998
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,041,113 to Moslehi et al. (“Moslehi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,562,715 to Chen et al. (“Chen ’715”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
` Navinsek et al., “PVD Coating as an Environmentally Clean
`Alternative to Electroplating and Electroless Process,” Surface
`and Coatings Technology 116–119 (September 1999), 476.
`(“Navinsek”)
`Declaration of James L. Mullins Ph.D. regarding Chen et al.,
`“ECD Seed Layer for Inlaid Copper Metallization” The
`Electrochemical Society, September 1999 (“Chen,” Exhibit
`1012) and Grunow et al., “Study of Electrochemical Deposition
`of Copper and Microstructure Evolution in Fine Lines,”
`Proceedings of the Materials Research Society Symposium,
`January 1999 (“Grunow,” Exhibit 1006)
`Declaration of Tom Ritzdorf
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 818 817 to
`Satitpunwaycha (“Satitpunwaycha”)
`Y. Tanaka et al., “Properties of titanium nitride film deposited
`by ionized metal plasma source,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B Vol.
`17. No. 2, March/April 1999 (“Tanaka”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,399,479 to Chen et al. (“Chen ’479”)
`V. Sammelselg et al., “TiO2 thin films by atomic layer
`deposition: a case of uneven growth at low temperature,”
`Applied Surface Science 134 (1998) (“Sammelselg”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,372,633 to Maydan et al. (“Maydan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,755,938 to Fukui et al. (“Fukui”)
`
`- ix -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`Petitioner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“TSMC”)
`
`petitions for inter partes review of claims 71–74, 76, 77, 79, and 80 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226 (Exhibit 1001, “’226 patent”). The
`
`challenged claims recite well-known techniques for making interconnects of an
`
`integrated circuit (IC). The only purported novelty of Patent Owner’s (PO’s)
`
`interconnects is the deposition of three seed layers using “substantially
`
`conformal”/“substantially non-conformal” deposition techniques when forming
`
`the interconnect. However, using multiple seed layers deposited using
`
`“substantially conformal”/“substantially non-conformal” deposition techniques
`
`was known or obvious prior to the ’226 patent. This petition, supported by the
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Michael Thomas, who has over three decades of
`
`experience in semiconductor interconnect design and fabrication, establishes that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art. TSMC respectfully
`
`requests that the Board cancel the challenged claims.
`
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and TSMC certify that the ’226 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. TSMC certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`A. Citation of prior art.
`TSMC demonstrates (Section IV.E) that the challenged claims are not
`
`entitled to priority of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,610,151 (“’151 patent”) or 6,136,707
`
`(“’707 patent”). Rather the earliest effective priority date is December 4, 2000 - the
`
`filing date of parent U.S. Patent No. 6,518,668 (“’668 patent”). The Grounds are
`
`supported by the following prior art references, each filed or published before
`
`December 4, 2000:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 to Chiang et al. (“Chiang”; Exhibit 1005) is prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on October 8, 1999.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,228,759 to Wang et al. (“Wang”; Exhibit 1011) is prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on May 2, 2000.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,368,954 to Lopatin et al.(“Lopatin”; Exhibit 1019) is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on July 28, 2000.
`
`“Study of Electrochemical Deposition of Copper and Microstructure
`
`Evolution in Fine Lines” to Grunow et al. (“Grunow”; Exhibit 1006) is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published prior to
`
`October 22, 1999.1
`
`
`1 Dr. Mullins, a librarian with 44 years of experience, declares that Grunow
`
`is authentic (Exhibit 1051, ¶¶30-32, citing Appendices B1 and B2) and was
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`“ECD Seed Layer for Inlaid Copper Metallization” to Chen et al.
`
`(“Chen”; Exhibit 1012) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b)
`
`because it was published prior to October 22, 1999.2,3
`
`B. Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`TSMC requests review on the following grounds:
`
`• Ground 1: Chiang and Grunow render claims 71-74, 76, and 80
`
`obvious.
`
`• Ground 2: Chiang, Grunow, and Lopatin render claim 77 obvious.
`
`• Ground 3: Wang and Chen render claims 71 and 79 obvious.
`
`None of the prior art or Grounds were applied by the Examiner in a rejection
`
`during prosecution of the ’226 patent. (Exhibit 1002, ’226 patent file history.)
`
`
`publicly available on October 21, 1999 based on his review of Library of Congress
`
`documentation (Id., ¶33, citing Appendices B1/B2).
`
`2 Dr. Mullins declares that Chen is authentic (Id., ¶¶37-38, citing Appendix
`
`C1) and was publicly available on or before October 21, 1999 based on his review
`
`of Library of Congress documentation. (Id., ¶¶39-42, citing Appendix C2).
`
`3 Mr. Ritzdorf, a co-author of the Chen prior art reference, declares that
`
`Chen was publicly available at least as of November 1999. (Exhibit 1052, ¶¶11-
`
`13).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`IV. The ’226 patent.
`A. Background of technology.
`The ’226 patent generally relates to interconnects for semiconductor devices.
`
`(’226 patent, Abstract.) A well-known method to form interconnects is the
`
`“damascene” process. (226 patent, 1:26–31.) The example interconnect below
`
`shows typical structures associated with the damascene process, which include: (i)
`
`an underlying layer (e.g., substrate; shaded green); (ii) a dielectric layer (shaded
`
`gray); (iii) a barrier layer (shaded red); a seed layer (shaded orange portion and
`
`between the barrier layer and dashed line); and (iv) plated conductive material
`
`(shaded orange and fills center portion of opening). (Exhibit 1003, Thomas, ¶¶33-
`
`56.)
`
`final interconnect structure
`
`dielectric layer
`
`underlying layer
`
`
`
`Example Interconnect
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`B. The ’226 patent purports to improve interconnects by depositing
`multiple seed layers.
`
`The ’226 patent purports to address challenges in interconnect design and
`
`fabrication by providing an interconnect formed using multiple seed layer
`
`deposition processes. (Thomas, ¶¶57-60.) However, using more than one seed
`
`layer deposited using different deposition techniques was known or obvious prior
`
`to the ’226 patent.
`
`The ’226 patent’s Figure 1 shows a multiple seed layer structure, in which a
`
`substantially non-conformal seed layer 22 (shaded green) is deposited over a
`
`substantially conformal seed layer 20 (shaded red). (’226 patent, 6:47-63; Thomas,
`
`¶66-67.) The ’226 patent defines a “substantially non-conformal seed layer” as “a
`
`layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is less
`
`than about 25% of its thickness on the field.” (’226 patent, 5:48-52; Thomas, ¶60.)
`
`The ’226 patent defines a “substantially conformal seed layer” as “a layer whose
`
`thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is about 25-100% of
`
`its thickness on the field.” (’226 patent, 5:45-48; Thomas, ¶60.) After deposition of
`
`both seed layers, an electroplating process fills the remainder of opening 16. (’226
`
`patent, 11:1-7, 11:24-31; Thomas, ¶67.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`’226 Patent’s Figure 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`The ’226 patent’s Figure 3 shows an alternative embodiment where a
`
`“substantially non-conformal seed layer” (shaded green) is deposited first,
`
`followed by deposition of a “substantially conformal seed layer” (shaded red).
`
`(’226 patent, 5:14-19; 9:24–11:31, 10:27-29; Thomas, ¶68.)
`
`’226 Patent’s Figure 3 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`
`
`In other embodiments, the ’226 patent discloses depositing a third seed layer
`
`over or under the seed layer structures of Figures 1 and 3. (’226 patent, 12:36-47,
`
`16:35-47.) These three seed layer structures correspond to challenged claim 71.
`
`C. Claim construction.
`The claim terms should be given their plain meanings according to the
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification.4 Cuozzo
`
`Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016)(claims in an unexpired
`
`patent must be given their BRI in light of the specification). Except where noted
`
`below, TSMC does not believe that it is necessary for the Board to expressly
`
`construe any terms for the purposes of this IPR proceeding. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(holding that “only
`
`those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy,” and noting that “the stage at which the
`
`claims are construed may vary with the issues, their complexity, the potentially
`
`dispositive nature of the construction, and other considerations of the particular
`
`case.”).
`
`
`4 TSMC reserves the right to present different constructions in other forums
`
`(e.g., a District Court) where a different claim construction standard applies.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`1. “seed layer”
`The term “seed layer” was a recognized term of art in semiconductor
`
`fabrication at the time of the alleged invention of the challenged claims. Should the
`
`Board determine that an express construction of this term would be helpful, a
`
`POSITA as of the earliest possible priority date of the ’226 patent would have
`
`understood the BRI of “seed layer” to refer to an electrically conductive layer that
`
`facilitates growth of a conductive material. (Thomas, ¶69.)
`
`2. “substantially conformal”/“substantially non-conformal” seed layer
` PO acted as its own lexicographer, so the BRI for the term “substantially
`
`conformal seed layer” is “a layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening
`
`(at about mid-depth) is about 25-100% of its thickness on the field.” (Id., ¶70.)
`
`And, the BRI for the term “substantially non-conformal seed layer” is “a layer
`
`whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is less than
`
`25% of its thickness on the field.” (Id., ¶71.)
`
`PO explicitly defined these terms in the ’226 patent specification and
`
`therefore acted as its own lexicographer. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v.
`
`Ricoh Americas Corp., 847 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“To act as a
`
`lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`
`term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’”)(citation omitted). The
`
`PO definitively stated:
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`As defined herein5, a “substantially conformal seed layer” is a
`layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about
`mid-depth) is about 25-100% of its thickness on the field. (’226
`patent, 5:45-48.)
`
`Similarly, a “substantially non-conformal seed layer” is defined
`herein as a layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening
`(at about mid-depth) is less than about 25% of its thickness on the
`field. (Id., 5:48-52.)
`
`
`
`By stating “[a]s defined herein” and “is defined herein as,” PO clearly
`
`expressed an intent to define “substantially conformal seed layer” and
`
`“substantially non-conformal seed layer.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(“As we have often stated, a patentee is free to be
`
`his own lexicographer. The caveat is that any special definition given to a word
`
`must be clearly defined in the specification.”)(citations omitted).
`
`Further, PO used quotation marks to offset the terms “substantially
`
`conformal seed layer” and “substantially non-conformal seed layer” which is a
`
`strong indication that what follows is a definition. Sinorgchem Co. et al. v.
`
`International Trade Commission, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further,
`
`the use of the word “is” in PO’s definition is further evidence that PO is serving as
`
`its own lexicographer. Id.
`
`
`5 All emphasis has been added herein, unless indicated otherwise.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,924,226
`
`3. “substantially conformal”/“substantially non-conformal”
`deposition technique
`The BRI for the term “substantially conformal deposition technique” is a
`
`“deposition technique that deposits a substantially conformal seed layer, whose
`
`thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is about 25-100% of
`
`its thickness on the field.” (Thomas, ¶73.) And, the BRI for the term “substantially
`
`non-conformal deposition technique” is a “deposition technique that deposits a
`
`substantially non-conformal seed layer, whose thickness on the sidewalls of an
`
`opening (at about mid-depth) is less than about 25% of its thickness on the field.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`The terms “substantially conformal deposition technique” and
`
`“substantially non-conformal deposition technique” are not recognized terms of
`
`art. (Id., ¶74.) Neither the ’226 patent nor any of its predecessor patents define
`
`these terms. (Id.) The ’707 patent does not even use these terms. (Id.)
`
`For “substantially conformal deposition techniq