throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: February 10, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (“IVM”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 5) (“Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1-15 of
`
`Patent 8,062,968 B1 (“the ’968 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.
`
`On February 12, 2013, the Board granted the Petition and instituted an inter
`
`partes review of all claims on six grounds of unpatentability (Paper 13)
`
`(“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) filed a
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 17) (“PO Resp.”), and IVM filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 26) (“Pet. Reply”). Along with its Patent Owner Response, Xilinx
`
`filed a Motion to Amend. Paper 19. The motion was dismissed as defective,
`
`and Xilinx filed a Substitute Motion to Amend. See Papers 20, 21. After
`
`Xilinx filed its Substitute Motion, the Board entered a decision in Idle Free
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013)
`
`(“Idle Free Decision”) regarding motions to amend. Xilinx requested, and
`
`received authorization from the Board, to file a second substitute motion to
`
`amend to comply with that decision. Paper 23. Xilinx then filed its Second
`
`Substitute Motion to Amend (Paper 24) (“Second Subst. Mot. to Amend”),
`
`proposing substitute claims 16-23 if the Board determines claim 1 to be
`
`unpatentable, and substitute claims 24-30 if the Board determines claim 9 to
`
`be unpatentable. IVM filed an Opposition to the Second Substitute Motion
`
`to Amend (Paper 27) (“Opp.”), and Xilinx filed a Reply (Paper 29) (“PO
`
`Reply”). The parties did not seek an oral hearing. Paper 32.
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that IVM has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-15 of the ’968 patent are
`
`unpatentable, and we deny Xilinx’s Second Substitute Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`A. The’968 Patent
`
`The ’968 patent relates to an “interposer disposed inside an integrated
`
`circuit package between a die and the package, wherein the interposer
`
`provides bypass capacitance, signal redistribution functionality and/or signal
`
`termination structures close to the semiconductor die.” Ex. 1001, col. 1,
`
`ll. 6-10. The ’968 patent explains that it was known in the prior art to add a
`
`bypass capacitor to an integrated circuit (IC) device to reduce various power
`
`supply problems. Id. at col. 1, l. 50-col. 2, l. 31. According to the ’968
`
`patent, however, power supply problems often could not be anticipated
`
`during the initial design of an integrated circuit, and redesigning an
`
`integrated circuit to add bypass capacitance after it already has been
`
`designed and built “can be exceedingly expensive and slow.” Id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 32-41. Also, the interconnections between the terminals on an integrated
`
`circuit and the signal traces on a printed circuit board (PCB) are sometimes
`
`incorrect, such that “[i]t would be desirable to be able to correct for this
`
`problem without having to redesign and refabricate the printed circuit.” Id.
`
`at col. 2, ll. 42-51. The ’968 patent describes adding an extremely thin
`
`“capacitive interposer (caposer),” which provides the necessary bypass
`
`capacitance, between an integrated circuit die and an inside surface of an
`
`integrated circuit package (connected to a printed circuit board). Id. at col.
`
`3, ll. 14-28; Fig. 1. The integrated circuit design then does not need to be
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`changed to solve power supply and interconnection problems that later arise.
`
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 41-44; col. 4, ll. 60-67.
`
`The ’968 patent describes various exemplary embodiments. Figure 10
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts structure 1010 comprising (1) integrated circuit die 1011
`
`having micro-bumps 1013 on planar surface 1016, (2) ceramic integrated
`
`circuit package 1012 having landing pads 1014 on inside upper surface
`
`1017, and (3) through-hole caposer 10181 “disposed between inside upper
`
`surface 1017 of ceramic package 1012 and surface 1016 of die 1011.”
`
`Id. at col. 11, ll. 10-33. Integrated circuit package 1012 also has solder balls
`
`1023 on its bottom surface for coupling to a printed circuit board (not
`
`shown). Id. at col. 11, ll. 34-39.
`
`
`1 The ’968 patent explains that caposers may be either “through-hole” or
`“via.” Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 47-58. In a through-hole caposer, “an array of
`through-holes passes through the caposer,” whereas in a via caposer,
`“conductive vias pass substantially orthogonally through the caposer.” Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`Figure 24 depicts another embodiment and is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 24, caposer 1082 provides bypass capacitance and also
`
`“redistributes signals” through the use of multiple conductive layers 1101,
`
`1102, and 1106. Id. at col. 18, l. 47-col. 19, l. 3. Signal line 1109 is coupled
`
`to landing pad 1103, and third conductive layer 1106 of caposer 1082 is
`
`coupled to vias 1107 and 1108. Id. This creates an electrically conductive
`
`path between the micro-bump above landing pad 1103 and two different
`
`landing pads on integrated circuit package 1084: (1) the landing pad below
`
`pad 1104 and the corresponding micro-bump, and (2) the landing pad below
`
`micro-bump 1105. Id. Caposer 1082, therefore, “can be used to redistribute
`
`signal inputs and outputs from array positions on die 1083 to different
`
`positions on ceramic package 1084.” Id. at col. 18, l. 67-col. 19, l. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 9 of the ‘968 patent are the only independent claims:
`
`1. A method of conducting a signal between a
`micro-bump on a surface of an integrated circuit die and a
`landing pad on an inside surface of an integrated circuit
`package, the method comprising:
`
`disposing an interposing structure between the integrated
`circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`package, wherein a plurality of micro-bumps in an array on the
`surface of the integrated circuit die align with a plurality of
`landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`package; and
`
`re-routing, by way of a conductor disposed in the
`interposing structure, a signal present on the micro-bump at one
`position of the array to a different position of the array.
`
`9. A method to manufacture an assembly, comprising:
`
`disposing an array of landing pads on an inside surface of
`an integrated circuit package in a first pattern;
`
`fabricating an interposing structure above the array of
`landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`package;
`
`fabricating an integrated circuit die above the interposing
`structure;
`
`disposing an array of micro-bumps on a surface of the
`integrated circuit die in a second pattern,
`
`coupling a particular one of the array of micro-bumps to
`a particular one of the array of landing pads by way of the
`interposing structure, wherein the plurality of micro-bumps in
`the array on the surface of the integrated circuit die align with
`the array of landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated
`circuit package;
`
`re-routing a signal present on a micro-bump at one
`position of the array of micro-bumps to a different position of
`the array of micro-bumps by way of a conductor disposed in the
`interposing structure; and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`applying solder balls on the bottom surface of the
`integrated circuit package.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review are
`
`based on the following prior art:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 6,469,908 B2, issued Oct. 22, 2002
`(Ex. 1004) (“Patel”);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 6,730,540 B2, filed Apr. 18, 2002,
`issued May 4, 2004 (Ex. 1003) (“Siniaguine”); and
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 6,970,362 B1, filed July 31, 2000,
`issued Nov. 29, 2005 (Ex. 1009) (“Chakravorty ’362”).
`
`
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Chakravorty ’362
`
`Chakravorty ’362 and
`Siniaguine
`
`Chakravorty ’362 and
`Patel
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)2
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`3, 9-12, 14, and 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`6
`
`
`2 The Decision on Institution incorrectly cited 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as the
`basis on which Chakravorty ’362 and Siniaguine qualify as prior art. See
`Dec. on Inst. 23. Both references are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e), as they are patents granted on applications filed prior to the
`invention by the applicant of the ’968 patent. Xilinx does not dispute that
`Chakravorty ’362 and Siniaguine are prior art to the challenged claims of the
`’968 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Chakravorty ’362,
`Siniaguine, and Patel
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`13
`
`Siniaguine
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`1-5, 7-12, 14, and
`15
`
`Siniaguine and Patel
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`6 and 13
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the
`
`Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy presumption” that a
`
`claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, a “claim
`
`term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own
`
`lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in
`
`either the specification or prosecution history.” Id. “Although an inventor is
`
`indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,
`
`this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In
`
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Also, we must be careful
`
`not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into
`
`the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be
`
`read into the claims from the specification”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`1. “Inside Surface”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a “method of conducting a signal between
`
`a micro-bump on a surface of an integrated circuit die and a landing pad on
`
`an inside surface of an integrated circuit package,” comprising “disposing an
`
`interposing structure between the integrated circuit die and the inside surface
`
`of the integrated circuit package, wherein a plurality of micro-bumps in an
`
`array on the surface of the integrated circuit die align with a plurality of
`
`landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit package”
`
`(emphasis added). Independent claim 9 similarly recites “disposing an array
`
`of landing pads on an inside surface of an integrated circuit package in a
`
`first pattern,” “fabricating an interposing structure above the array of landing
`
`pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit package,” and
`
`“fabricating an integrated circuit die above the interposing structure,”
`
`wherein “the plurality of micro-bumps in the array on the surface of the
`
`integrated circuit die align with the array of landing pads on the inside
`
`surface of the integrated circuit package” (emphasis added).
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the arguments presented by
`
`IVM in its Petition and by Xilinx in its Preliminary Response, we interpreted
`
`the phrase “landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`
`package” in claims 1 and 9 to mean that the integrated circuit package has at
`
`least two surfaces (one facing in and one facing out) and that the landing
`
`pads are located on the surface facing in. Dec. on Inst. 8-12. We did not
`
`interpret the claim language as requiring the integrated circuit package to
`
`“completely surround” the integrated circuit die and landing pads, as Xilinx
`
`had argued in its Preliminary Response. Id. Rather, we concluded that, as
`
`ordinarily understood, “the fact that a structure has something on its ‘inside
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`surface’ does not mean that the structure completely surrounds that thing (or
`
`any other thing).” Id. at 9. “For example, a box with its top off has an
`
`‘inside surface’ and may have an object on that surface, even though it does
`
`not completely surround the object.” Id. at 9-10. IVM agrees with the
`
`Board’s interpretation; Xilinx does not.
`
`Xilinx first argues that the term “inside,” and the broader phrases in
`
`which it appears in the claims, are understood readily and do not require
`
`interpretation. PO Resp. 2-3. We conclude that interpretation is necessary
`
`under the circumstances, particularly because there is a disagreement
`
`between the parties as to whether the “inside surface” limitations require
`
`complete surrounding or encapsulation by the integrated circuit package, as
`
`explained below.
`
`Xilinx further proposes that, if interpretation of the “inside surface”
`
`claim limitations is deemed necessary, the term “inside” should be
`
`interpreted to mean “within,” and the term “inside surface” should be
`
`interpreted to mean a “surface within.” Id. at 2, 6-9. It is evident from
`
`Xilinx’s Patent Owner Response, however, that Xilinx imparts a further
`
`meaning to the word “within”—namely, that an object “within” another
`
`structure is one that is “completely surrounded by” or “encapsulated within”
`
`that structure. See id. at 4, 6-8 (arguing that the Specification of the ’968
`
`patent “uses ‘inside’ repeatedly to describe components encapsulated within,
`
`and completely surrounded by, the integrated circuit package,” and that the
`
`applicant “explained [during prosecution of the parent of the ’968 patent]
`
`that ‘inside’ means ‘completely surrounded’ or ‘within’”). As such, Xilinx’s
`
`position appears to be that the interposing structure in claims 1 and 9 must
`
`be completely surrounded by or encapsulated within the integrated circuit
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`package. We do not agree that this is the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the claims in light of the Specification.
`
`
`
`Ordinary Meaning of “Inside”
`
`“Inside” is used in the claims as an adjective (“inside surface”). One
`
`dictionary defines the adjective “inside” as “situated or being on or in the
`
`inside; interior; internal: an inside seat.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S
`
`UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY 986 (2d ed. 2001) (Ex. 3002). Thus, at least in
`
`some circumstances, “inside” is synonymous with “interior” and “internal.”
`
`Xilinx, however, does not point to evidence in the record indicating that
`
`“inside,” as the term ordinarily is understood, means something that is
`
`completely surrounded by or encapsulated within another structure. Indeed,
`
`the dictionary example above suggests just the opposite. A building with its
`
`door open may have an “inside seat,” for example. See Ex. 3002.
`
`This ordinary understanding is consistent with the box analogy
`
`discussed in the Decision on Institution. An object may be “inside” a box,
`
`situated on the box’s “inside surface,” even though the box has its top off,
`
`and, therefore, does not completely surround the object. See Dec. on Inst.
`
`9-10. Xilinx contends that the box analogy leads to ambiguity because any
`
`surface may be considered “facing in” or “facing out” depending on the
`
`perspective from which it is viewed. PO Resp. 4-5. We do not agree. As
`
`IVM points out, whether a surface of the integrated circuit package faces in
`
`or out is viewed from the perspective of the overall package itself (which
`
`may have objects inside it). See Pet. Reply 8-9.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`IVM provides the following illustrative figure on page 9 of its Reply.
`
`
`
`IVM’s figure above shows a box with three sides (1, 2, and 3), each with a
`
`surface that faces in from the box (an “inside surface”) and a surface that
`
`faces out from the box (an “outside surface”). Thus, the box analogy is not
`
`ambiguous and is consistent with the dictionary definitions of “inside” cited
`
`above. The analogy also is consistent with the language of the claims
`
`themselves, which recite the integrated circuit package having objects on its
`
`“inside surface,” and objects between its “inside surface” and an integrated
`
`circuit die, but do not have any limitations that would imply a complete
`
`surrounding or encapsulation requirement. Thus, we do not agree with
`
`Xilinx that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “inside surface”
`
`claim limitations requires complete surrounding or encapsulation.
`
`
`
`Specification of the ’968 Patent
`
`Xilinx argues that the Specification of the ’968 patent uses the term
`
`“inside” to refer to “components encapsulated within, and completely
`
`surrounded by, the integrated circuit package.” PO Resp. 6-8. Xilinx cites
`
`the following statement in the Specification: “[v]arious embodiments are
`
`now disclosed in which caposers are disposed inside an IC package as
`
`opposed to being disposed outside the IC package between the package and
`
`a printed circuit board.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 47-50)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`(emphasis by Xilinx). We agree with Xilinx that the Specification
`
`distinguishes objects “inside” a structure from objects “outside” a structure.
`
`That does not mean necessarily, however, that an object must be completely
`
`surrounded by the structure to be on an “inside surface” of the structure.
`
`Again, an object may be inside another structure and still be distinct from
`
`something outside that structure.
`
`Xilinx also relies on Figures 10 and 24 of the ’968 patent. Xilinx
`
`points to statements in the Specification that, in Figure 24, caposer 1082 is
`
`“inside” and “within” integrated circuit package 1084. Id. at 7-8 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, col. 17, ll. 45-48, col. 18, ll. 42-43). Figures 10 and 24, however, are
`
`merely exemplary embodiments of the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6,
`
`ll. 14-16, 47-48; col. 11, ll. 9-11; col. 17, ll. 44-48. We do not see, and
`
`Xilinx does not point to, sufficient language in the Specification indicating
`
`that the patentee was defining the term “inside surface” to mean complete
`
`surrounding of one structure by another. For instance, although Figure 10
`
`depicts ceramic package 1012 surrounding caposer 1018, the written
`
`description of the ’968 patent does not state explicitly that the caposer in the
`
`disclosed embodiments is surrounded by or encapsulated within the
`
`integrated circuit package. We also note that Figure 24, unlike Figure 10,
`
`does not depict caposer 1082 as completely surrounded by integrated circuit
`
`package 1084. Rather, caposer 1082 is shown below die 1083 and above an
`
`inside surface of integrated circuit package 1084, with nothing shown on the
`
`sides of caposer 1082. Thus, we do not view Figures 10 and 24, and their
`
`corresponding descriptions, as supportive of Xilinx’s proposed
`
`interpretation.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’960 Patent
`
`Both parties rely on the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,566,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”),3 the parent of the ’968 patent, in their
`
`arguments regarding the proper interpretation of the “inside surface” claim
`
`limitations. See PO Resp. 8-9; Pet. Reply 1-3.
`
`Xilinx cites the following statement made by the applicant during
`
`prosecution of the ’960 patent:
`
`The Applicant refers the Examiner to FIG. 10, which
`shows a die 1011 inside a package 1012. The package 1012
`completely surrounds the die 1011, and hence the die 1011 is
`inside the package 1012. Further[,] Applicant’s specification
`states “[a]n integrated circuit die 1011 is mounted within an
`integrated circuit package 1012.” (Applicant’s specification,
`para. 0089).
`
`Ex. 2001 at 31; see PO Resp. 8. According to Xilinx, this indicates that the
`
`applicant meant “inside” to mean “completely surrounded” or “within.” PO
`
`Resp. 8-9.
`
`As explained in the Decision on Institution, we do not view the cited
`
`statement as an explicit definition of the claim language used in the ’968
`
`patent or an express and clear disclaimer of a broader definition. See Dec.
`
`on Inst. 10-12; In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (finding “nothing in the specification or the prosecution history
`
`that requires” a particular narrower interpretation proposed by a patent
`
`owner in a reexamination proceeding); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the
`
`PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution
`
`history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).
`
`
`3 The ’960 patent is the subject of related Case IPR2012-00018.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`Also, the cited statement refers to the relationship between die 1011 and
`
`package 1012, and was made in response to a 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection to
`
`show that the claims are “clear and definite.” Ex. 2001 at 31-32. According
`
`to the applicant, the statement specifically responds to the Examiner’s
`
`request that the applicant “explain the claimed structure as it relates to the
`
`drawings and specification.” Id.; see also id. at 39 (Office Action with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 rejection). The statement, therefore, describes related structure
`
`in the “drawings and specification.” See Ex. 2001 at 31-32, 39. It does not
`
`represent a limit on the claims or a disavowal of claim scope. As another
`
`example, the applicant vaguely explains that “one skilled in the art would
`
`understand that a die and interposing structure can be positioned within or
`
`inside [a] surrounding structure, such as an integrated circuit package.” Id.
`
`at 31 (emphasis added). This statement of what “can be” included within the
`
`claim scope can be read as an attempt to maintain a reasonably broad scope
`
`that would encompass other (i.e., non-surrounding integrated circuit
`
`package) structures.
`
`Moreover, Xilinx’s argument that the prosecution history limits the
`
`claims is contradicted by another statement in the prosecution history of the
`
`parent patent. During prosecution of the ’960 patent, the Examiner rejected
`
`claim 1 and claim 12 (which became issued claim 9 in the ’960 patent) as
`
`anticipated by Chakravorty ’362, citing Figure 2 of Chakravorty ’362. Id. at
`
`126-39.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`Figure 2 of Chakravorty ’362 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 depicts solder bumps 58 on top of primary substrate 60. Ex. 1009,
`
`col. 4, ll. 64-66. During prosecution of the ’960 patent, the applicant argued
`
`the following as to Chakravorty ’362:
`
`
`
`The bumps (58) of the primary substrate in Chakravorty
`are disposed on the inside surface thereof, not the outside
`surface. In particular, the Examiner cited the landing pads
`(61-67) on the primary substrate as being an “array of landing
`pads disposed on an inside surface of the integrated circuit
`package.” (Office Action, p. 4). Since these landing pads are
`coupled to the bumps (58), the bumps (58) of Chakravorty are
`on the inside of the substrate, not the outside.
`
`Ex. 2001 at 121 (emphasis added). Thus, the applicant took the position
`
`during prosecution of the ’960 patent that solder bumps 58 in
`
`Chakravorty ’362 are on an “inside surface” of, and “inside,” primary
`
`substrate 60, even though Figure 2 does not depict primary substrate 60 as
`
`completely surrounding or encapsulating solder bumps 58. This position is
`
`in line with the other statements discussed above showing that the applicant
`
`did not intend to limit the claims during prosecution, and contrary to
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`Xilinx’s current position that “inside surface” requires complete surrounding
`
`or encapsulation. See PO Resp. 11-12 (arguing that Chakravorty ’362 does
`
`not have an interposing structure disposed between an integrated circuit die
`
`and “inside surface” of an integrated circuit package), 9-10 (making a
`
`similar argument as to Siniaguine), 12-15 (arguing that Chakravorty ’362
`
`and Siniaguine do not teach fabricating an interposing structure above an
`
`array of landing pads on an “inside surface” of an integrated circuit
`
`package).
`
`We are not persuaded by Xilinx’s arguments regarding the
`
`prosecution history of the ’960 patent. At best, the statements cited above
`
`are inconsistent, and do not indicate that the applicant was disclaiming a
`
`broader definition of the “inside surface” claim limitations in the claims of
`
`the ’968 patent as Xilinx contends.
`
`
`
`Other Evidence
`
`Xilinx also relies on the declaration of Dean Neikirk, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`
`2007) in support of its proposed interpretation. PO Resp. 9. Dr. Neikirk
`
`testifies that the purpose of an integrated circuit package is to “encapsulate
`
`and protect the fragile circuitry of an integrated circuit die” from potentially
`
`destructive substances and physical damage during manufacturing and use.
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 25. Therefore, according to Dr. Neikirk, a structure “inside” an
`
`integrated circuit package must be “within” the package. Id. We give
`
`Dr. Neikirk’s testimony little weight as to this point, as it is not supported by
`
`evidence in the record and is not tied to the actual language of the claims.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`no weight.”). Further, the fact that there may be benefits to completely
`
`surrounding or encapsulating a structure in an integrated circuit package
`
`does not mean necessarily that the “inside surface” claim limitations should
`
`be interpreted to require such a structure. We see no reason why the claimed
`
`methods would require complete surrounding or encapsulation to be
`
`performed.
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “inside surface” to mean the surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package facing in from the package toward the integrated
`
`circuit die (as opposed to the outside surface, which is the surface of the
`
`package facing outward from the package away from the integrated circuit
`
`die). We do not interpret the claims as requiring the interposing structure to
`
`be completely surrounded by or encapsulated within the integrated circuit
`
`package.
`
`
`
`2. “Micro-Bump”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we also interpreted “micro-bump” in
`
`claims 1 and 9 to mean a small bump of electrically conductive material,
`
`such as solder. Dec. on Inst. 12-13. Neither party disputes this
`
`interpretation, and we apply it in this decision, for the reasons stated in the
`
`Decision on Institution.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are Anticipated by Chakravorty ’362,
`and Claims 3, 9-12, 14, and 15 are Unpatentable Over
`Chakravorty ’362 and Siniaguine
`
`With respect to the alleged anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8
`
`by Chakravorty ’362, and the alleged obviousness of claims 3, 9-12, 14, and
`
`15 over Chakravorty ’362 and Siniaguine, we have reviewed IVM’s Petition,
`
`Xilinx’s Patent Owner Response, and IVM’s Reply, as well as the evidence
`
`discussed in each of those papers. We are persuaded, by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated by Chakravorty
`
`’362 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and claims 3, 9-12, 14, and 15 are
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ’362 and Siniaguine under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). See Pet. 49-58; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126-53.
`
`Xilinx’s sole argument regarding the asserted grounds is that
`
`Chakravorty ’362 does not teach “disposing an interposing structure between
`
`the integrated circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`
`package,” as recited in independent claim 1, or “fabricating an interposing
`
`structure above the array of landing pads on the inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package,” as similarly recited in independent claim 9.
`
`PO Resp. 11-15. For the reasons explained below, Xilinx’s argument is not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Chakravorty ’362 is directed to an “electronic assembly that includes
`
`an interposer having one or more embedded capacitors to reduce switching
`
`noise in a high-speed integrated circuit, and to manufacturing methods
`
`related thereto.” Ex. 1009, col. 1, ll. 17-21.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`
`Figure 3 of Chakravorty ’362 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts an assembly comprising integrated circuit (IC) die 300,
`
`solder balls 301, lands 302, interposer 310 (with embedded capacitors),
`
`lands 312, solder balls 311, and primary substrate 320. Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 30-60. IVM identifies IC die 300 as the claimed “integrated circuit die,”
`
`primary substrate 320 as the claimed “integrated circuit package,” interposer
`
`310 as the claimed “interposing structure,” and the signal terminals/bumps
`
`below solder balls 311 as the claimed “landing pads” of claims 1 and 9. Pet.
`
`50, 55. According to IVM, interposer 310 is disposed between IC die 300
`
`and the “inside surface” of primary substrate 320 above the signal
`
`terminals/bumps in primary substrate 320. Id; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 128.
`
`Xilinx argues that interposer 310 is coupled to an “outside surface,”
`
`not an “inside surface,” of primary substrate 320. PO Resp. 11-12.
`
`Similarly, Xilinx asserts that the signal terminals/bumps below solder balls
`
`311 are not on an “inside surface” of primary substrate. Id. at 13-14. As
`
`explained above, however, “inside surface” means the surface of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968 B1
`
`integrated circuit package facing in from the package toward the integrated
`
`circuit die. See supra Section II.A.1. Although interposer 310 is not shown
`
`in Figure 3 as completely surrounded by or encapsulated within primary
`
`substrate 320, such surrounding or encapsulation is not required by the
`
`claims. See id. The inside surface of primary substrate 320 is the top of the
`
`substrate shown in Figure 3, which has signal terminals/bumps immediately
`
`below solder balls 311. See Ex. 1009, col. 4, ll. 15-21; col. 5, ll. 20-25; Figs.
`
`2-3. This surface faces in from primary substrate 320 toward IC die 300, in
`
`contrast to the bottom of the substrate shown in Figure 3, which faces
`
`outward away from IC die 300. Interposer 310 is disposed between the
`
`inside surface of primary substrate 320 and IC die 300.
`
`Further, as explained above, Xilinx’s position as to what is on an
`
`“inside surface” of an integrated circuit package (between the integrated
`
`circuit die and inside surface) and what is not is contradicted by arguments
`
`the applicant made during prosecution of the ’960 patent. Specifically, the
`
`applicant characterized solder bumps 58 in Figure 2 of Chakravorty ’362 as
`
`on an “inside surface” of primary substrate 60, but Xilinx now argues that
`
`interposer 310 in Figure 3 is not on an “inside surface” of primary substrate
`
`320 between IC die 300 and primary substrate 320.

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

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.

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