Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: February 12, 2013
`
`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
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (IVM) filed a petition to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,062,968 B1 (the
`
`“‘968 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Paper 5. Patent Owner
`
`Xilinx, Inc. filed a preliminary response to the petition. Paper 10. We have
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. For the reasons that follow, the Board,
`
`acting on behalf of the Director, has determined to institute an inter partes
`
`review under the terms set forth herein.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15 as anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and claims 1-15 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Paper 5 at 4-59. We grant the petition as to claims 1-15 on the grounds
`
`explained herein.
`
`
`
`A. The ‘968 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ‘968 patent, entitled “Interposer for Redistributing Signals,”
`
`issued on November 22, 2011 based on Application 12/487,855, filed June
`
`19, 2009. The ‘968 patent is a division of Application 10/698,704, filed
`
`October 31, 2003, which issued as Patent 7,566,960 (the “‘960 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.” Col. 1, ll. 6-10. The
`
`patent explains how it was known in the prior art to add a bypass capacitor
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`to an integrated circuit (IC) device to reduce various power supply problems.
`
`Col. 1, l. 50-col. 2, l. 31. According to the patent though, 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 has already been designed and built “can be exceedingly
`
`expensive and slow.” 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.” 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). Col. 3, ll. 14-28; Fig. 1. The integrated circuit design then
`
`does not need to be changed to solve power supply and interconnection
`
`problems that later arise. Col. 3, ll. 41-44; col. 4, ll. 60-67.
`
`The ‘968 patent describes various exemplary embodiments. Figure 10
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`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.”
`
`Col. 11, l. 10-33. Integrated circuit package 1012 also has solder balls 1023
`
`on its bottom surface for coupling to a printed circuit board (not shown).
`
`Col. 11, ll. 34-39.
`
`Figure 24 depicts another embodiment and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Caposer 1082 in Figure 24 provides bypass capacitance and also
`
`“redistributes signals” through the use of multiple conductive layers 1101,
`
`
`1 The ‘968 patent explains that caposers may be either “through-hole” or
`“via.” 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
`
`1102, and 1106. 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.” Col. 18, l. 67-col. 19, l. 3.
`
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘968 patent is exemplary of the claims at issue:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`1. Patent 6,730,540 B2, filed Apr. 18, 2002, issued May
`4, 2004 (“Siniaguine”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`2. Patent 6,469,908 B2, issued Oct. 22, 2002 (“Patel”)
`(Ex. 1004);
`
`3. Patent 6,477,034 B1, issued Nov. 5, 2002
`(“Chakravorty ‘034”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`4. Patent 6,423,570 B1, issued July 23, 2002 (“Ma”) (Ex.
`1006);
`
`5. Patent 6,611,419 B1, issued Aug. 26, 2003
`(“Chakravorty ‘419”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`6. Patent 6,617,681 B1, issued Sept. 9, 2003 (“Bohr”)
`(Ex. 1008); and
`
`7. Patent 6,970,362 B1, filed July 31, 2000, issued Nov.
`29, 2005 (“Chakravorty ‘362”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-15 of the ‘968 patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Siniaguine;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Siniaguine in view of Patel;
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Chakravorty ‘034;
`
`Ground 4: Claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘034 in view of Ma;
`
`Ground 5: Claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘034 in view of Patel;
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Chakravorty ‘419;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`Ground 7: Claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘419 in view of Siniaguine;
`
`Ground 8: Claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘419 in view of Patel;
`
`Ground 9: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Bohr;
`
`Ground 10: Claims 3, 9-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Bohr in view of Siniaguine;
`
`Ground 11: Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Bohr in view of Ma;
`
`Ground 12: Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Bohr in view of Patel;
`
`Ground 13: Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Bohr in view of Siniaguine and Ma;
`
`Ground 14: Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Bohr in view of Siniaguine and Patel;
`
`Ground 15: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Chakravorty ‘362;
`
`Ground 16: Claims 3, 9-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Siniaguine;
`
`Ground 17: Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Patel; and
`
`Ground 18: Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Siniaguine and Patel.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board will interpret claims using “the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (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) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification.”).
`
`We construe certain claim limitations as follows:
`
`
`
`1. “Landing Pads on the Inside Surface of the Integrated Circuit Package”
`(Claims 1 and 9)
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “disposing an interposing structure
`
`between the integrated circuit die and the inside surface of the integrated
`
`circuit package” where the integrated circuit package has “a plurality of
`
`landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit package.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`Independent claim 9 similarly recites “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.” While we refer to claim 1 below for convenience, the analysis
`
`applies to the language in both claims.
`
`Patent Owner appears to argue that the use of the phrase “inside
`
`surface” means that the integrated circuit package “completely surrounds”
`
`both the integrated circuit die and the landing pads. Paper 10 at 10-13
`
`(arguing that Siniaguine does not anticipate certain claims because the
`
`alleged prior art integrated circuit package in the reference “does not
`
`completely surround the integrated circuit,” and further arguing that “the
`
`landing pads must be inside the packaging”). Petitioner does not propose a
`
`definition for the claim language, but cites prior art where the structure
`
`mapped to the integrated circuit package of the claim does not appear to
`
`completely surround the die and landing pads. See, e.g., Paper 5 at 5-6
`
`(citing wiring substrate 330 of Siniaguine, which does not appear to
`
`completely surround integrated circuit 310 and pads 388).
`
`We do not interpret the language of claim 1 cited above as requiring
`
`the integrated circuit package to “completely surround” the integrated circuit
`
`die or landing pads. There is nothing in the language of the claim itself
`
`indicating such a relationship between the integrated circuit package and
`
`integrated circuit die, and the only relationship between the package and
`
`landing pads is that the pads are disposed on an “inside surface” of the
`
`package. As ordinarily understood, the fact that a structure has something
`
`on its “inside surface” does not mean that the structure completely surrounds
`
`that thing (or any other thing). For example, a box with its top off has an
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`“inside surface” and may have an object on that surface, even though it does
`
`not completely surround the object. Further, we see nothing in the
`
`specification of the ‘968 patent indicating that the patentee intended to
`
`further define or limit the “inside surface” terminology of the claim to
`
`require complete surrounding of both the integrated circuit die and the
`
`landing pads. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification, the claim language requiring the landing pads to be disposed
`
`on the “inside surface” of the integrated circuit package simply means 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 that is
`
`facing in.
`
`Patent Owner makes two arguments in support of its proposed
`
`interpretation. First, Patent Owner cites Figure 10 of the ‘968 patent, which
`
`shows ceramic integrated circuit package 1012 as surrounding die 1011 and
`
`landing pads 1014. Paper 10 at 12. Figure 10, however, only depicts “one
`
`embodiment of the present invention,” and Patent Owner does not explain
`
`how the description of an exemplary embodiment indicates that the patentee
`
`intended the “inside surface” language of the claim to have a narrower
`
`meaning of complete surrounding. See ‘968 patent, col. 6, ll. 14-16; col. 11,
`
`ll. 9-11. Indeed, the word “surround” appears only once in the ‘968 patent
`
`and refers to insulating material surrounding a through-hole, not an
`
`integrated circuit package surrounding an integrated circuit die and landing
`
`pads. See id., col. 13, ll. 10-16.
`
`Second, Patent Owner points to the following excerpt from the
`
`prosecution history of the ‘960 patent (the parent of the ‘968 patent) and
`
`argues that the patentee intended for “inside” to mean that the integrated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`circuit package completely surrounds the integrated circuit die:
`
`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, p. 31 (cited in Paper 10 at 11-12). We do not see how the cited
`
`argument amounts to an explicit definition of the claim language or an
`
`express and clear disclaimer of a broader definition. See 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.”). The applicant appears merely
`
`to be pointing to the exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 10 in response
`
`to an indefiniteness rejection and request from the Examiner to explain how
`
`a different claimed structure in a different patent application – an interposing
`
`structure disposed inside an integrated circuit package – “relates to the
`
`drawings and specification.” See Ex. 2001, p. 39 (Office Action dated Sept.
`
`2, 2008). The cited excerpt also refers only to the relationship between the
`
`integrated circuit package and die in Figure 10, not the relationship between
`
`the integrated circuit package and landing pads. Thus, even if the
`
`prosecution history could be read as showing support for and thereby
`
`clarifying another or related claim term (i.e., showing that the die has
`
`support for being inside the claimed package), such history cannot be read as
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`restricting the landing pads.
`
`We interpret “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. Given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claims do not require the integrated circuit
`
`package to completely surround the integrated circuit die and landing pads
`
`as Patent Owner contends.
`
`
`
`2. “Micro-Bump” (Claims 1 and 9)
`
`Neither party proposes a definition for the term “micro-bump” in
`
`claims 1 and 9. Petitioner, however, argues that three of the asserted prior
`
`art references disclose solder “bumps” or “balls,” and maps those structures
`
`to the “micro-bumps” recited in the claims. Paper 5 at 28, 40, 50 (citing
`
`“solder balls 308” in Chakravorty ‘419, “solder bumps 106” in Bohr, and
`
`“solder balls 301” in Chakravorty ‘362).
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, we agree
`
`with Petitioner that “micro-bump” encompasses a solder bump or ball. The
`
`‘968 patent explains that micro-bumps (also known as “flip-chip bumps”)
`
`may be in at least some embodiments semi-circular bumps, made of solder,
`
`that extend outward from a particular structure (e.g., an integrated circuit
`
`die) to make an electrical connection with another structure. Col. 10, l. 59-
`
`col. 11, l. 8; col. 21, ll. 8-12; Figs. 10-12 (micro-bumps 1013). Solder
`
`bumps or balls are described as having the same properties. Col. 11, ll. 34-
`
`39; col. 20, l. 65-col. 21, l. 20; Fig. 10 (solder balls 1023). We interpret the
`
`term “micro-bump” in claims 1 and 9 to mean a small bump of electrically
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`conductive material, such as solder.
`
`
`
`3. Other Terms
`
`All other terms in claims 1-15 are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning and need not be further construed at this time.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), namely, that
`
`“the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`A. Grounds 15-18 Based on Chakravorty ‘362
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated by
`
`Chakravorty ‘362; claims 3, 9-12, 14, and 15 are unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Siniaguine; claim 6 is unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Patel; and claim 13 is unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Siniaguine and Patel.
`
`Petitioner relies on Chakravorty ‘362 as teaching all of the elements
`
`of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Paper 5 at
`
`50-51. For example, Petitioner cites solder balls 301 in Chakravorty ‘362 as
`
`the claimed “micro-bumps.” Id. Petitioner has made a threshold showing
`
`with respect to this element based on the claim interpretation set forth above.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Chakravorty ‘362 does not disclose
`
`“disposing an interposing structure between the integrated circuit die and the
`
`inside surface of the integrated circuit package” where the integrated circuit
`
`package has a “plurality of landing pads on the inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package.” Paper 10 at 26-27. According to Patent Owner,
`
`primary substrate 60 in Figure 2 of Chakravorty ‘362, also depicted as
`
`primary substrate 320 in Figure 3 (the claimed integrated circuit package
`
`according to Petitioner), does not completely surround IC die 300 and has no
`
`“surrounding structure” that would define its top surface as an “inside
`
`surface.” Id. As explained above, we do not interpret the claims as
`
`requiring the integrated circuit package to completely surround the
`
`integrated circuit die, and Patent Owner’s argument therefore is not
`
`persuasive.
`
`With respect to independent claim 9, Petitioner relies on Siniaguine as
`
`teaching the additional feature of independent claim 9 of “applying solder
`
`balls on the bottom surface of the integrated circuit package,” and contends
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Siniaguine (specifically, solder balls 810 on
`
`substrate 330) with those of Chakravorty ‘362 to arrive at the claimed
`
`methods, citing the Declaration of Morgan T. Johnson. Paper 5 at 56-57
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148-49). Petitioner further contends that the
`
`combination of Chakravorty ‘362 and Siniaguine teaches all of the
`
`limitations of dependent claims 3, 10-12, 14, and 15. Id.
`
`With respect to dependent claims 6 and 13, Petitioner argues that Patel
`
`teaches the additional claim limitation of the interposing structure including
`
`a layer comprising epoxy and fiberglass. Id. at 59. Petitioner also argues
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Patel with those of Chakravorty ‘362 and
`
`Siniaguine to arrive at the claimed methods, again citing the analysis of Mr.
`
`Johnson. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 155).
`
`We are persuaded by the analysis set forth in the petition and
`
`accompanying declaration that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated by
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (Ground 15); that claims 3, 9-12,
`
`14, and 15 are unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Siniaguine
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 16); that claim 6 is unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ‘362 in view of Patel under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 17);
`
`and that claim 13 is unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘362 in view of
`
`Siniaguine and Patel under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 18).
`
`
`
`B. Grounds 1 and 2 Based on Siniaguine
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15 are anticipated by
`
`Siniaguine, and claims 6 and 13 are unpatentable over Siniaguine in view of
`
`Patel.
`
`Similar to its argument with respect to Ground 15, Patent Owner
`
`argues that wiring substrate 330 in Figure 4 of Siniaguine (the claimed
`
`integrated circuit package according to Petitioner) does not completely
`
`surround integrated circuit 310 or pads 388 and has no “surrounding
`
`structure” that would define its top surface as an “inside surface.” Paper 10
`
`at 10-13. Again, Patent Owner’s argument is based on an erroneous claim
`
`interpretation, see supra, and is not persuasive.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Siniaguine does not perform “re-
`
`routing” as required by independent claims 1 and 9. Id. at 13-15. Patent
`
`Owner contends that the claims require the at least two micro-bump
`
`positions where re-routing occurs to be in alignment with corresponding
`
`landing pads. Id. We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the claims, but
`
`disagree with respect to the disclosure of Siniaguine.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a “plurality of micro-bumps in an array on
`
`the surface of the integrated circuit die [that] align with a plurality of landing
`
`pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit package,” and “re-routing
`
`. . . a signal present on the micro-bump at one position of the array to a
`
`different position of the array.” Independent claim 9 recites a similar
`
`limitation. Because the re-routing must be from a micro-bump at one
`
`position of “the array” to a different position of “the array,” and because the
`
`micro-bumps that are in the array must “align” with a plurality of landing
`
`pads, the claims require re-routing between two positions aligned with
`
`corresponding landing pads. In other words, if the micro-bump at one of the
`
`two positions is not aligned with a landing pad on the inside surface of the
`
`integrated circuit package, it is not part of “the array” as required by the
`
`claims.
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner contends that a plurality of micro-bumps on
`
`integrated circuit 310 align with a plurality of landing pads on wiring
`
`substrate 330, and conductive line 150 re-routes a signal from one micro-
`
`bump to another micro-bump. Paper 5 at 5-7, 11-12. Petitioner cites the
`
`analysis of Mr. Johnson in support. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25, 27-29).
`
`Conductive line 150 in Siniaguine appears to provide a conductive path
`
`between a micro-bump in one position that is aligned with a corresponding
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`landing pad to another micro-bump in a different position that is aligned
`
`with another landing pad, as shown by the dotted circles in the annotated
`
`version of Figure 4 below:
`
`Consequently, we conclude that Petitioner has made a threshold showing
`
`with respect to the alignment and re-routing required by independent claims
`
`
`
`1 and 9.
`
`Further, with respect to dependent claims 6 and 13, Petitioner argues
`
`that Patel teaches the additional claim limitation of the interposing structure
`
`including a layer comprising epoxy and fiberglass, and argues that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Patel with those of Siniaguine to arrive at the claimed methods,
`
`again citing the analysis of Mr. Johnson. Id. at 14-15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43).
`
`We are persuaded by the analysis set forth in the petition and
`
`accompanying declaration that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15 are anticipated
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`by Siniaguine under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (Ground 1); and that claims 6 and 13
`
`are unpatentable over Siniaguine in view of Patel under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`(Ground 2).
`
`
`
`C. Grounds 6-8 Based on Chakravorty ‘419
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are
`
`anticipated by Chakravorty ‘419; claims 3 and 10 are unpatentable over
`
`Chakravorty ‘419 in view of Siniaguine; and claims 6 and 13 are
`
`unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘419 in view of Patel.
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating why the grounds asserted
`
`in the petition are not cumulative to one another. Grounds 6-8 are
`
`cumulative in light of our determination above that Petitioner has established
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 15-18 based on
`
`Chakravorty ‘362. Chakravorty ‘419 and Chakravorty ‘362 were filed on
`
`the same day by the same inventor, and have similar disclosures. Each
`
`patent also states that it is related to the other. See Chakravorty ‘419, col. 1,
`
`ll. 6-8; Chakravorty ‘362, col. 1, ll. 7-12. Accordingly, the petition is denied
`
`as to Grounds 6-8.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds 3-5 Based on Chakravorty ‘034
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 15 are anticipated by
`
`Chakravorty ‘034; claims 5 and 12 are unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘034
`
`in view of Ma; and claims 6 and 13 are unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘034
`
`in view of Patel. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on these grounds.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`As explained above, see supra Section II.B, independent claims 1 and
`
`9 require re-routing a signal from a micro-bump at one position that aligns
`
`with a corresponding landing pad to a different position that aligns with
`
`another corresponding landing pad. Independent claim 1, for instance,
`
`recites a “plurality of micro-bumps in an array . . . [that] align with a
`
`plurality of landing pads on the inside surface of the integrated circuit
`
`package,” and “re-routing . . . a signal present on the micro-bump at one
`
`position of the array to a different position of the array.” Petitioner
`
`contends that Figure 1 of Chakravorty ‘034, as shown in the annotated
`
`version below, discloses the claimed alignment and re-routing:
`
`
`
`Paper 5 at 16-17, 19-20. Petitioner argues that the dotted vertical lines show
`
`how conductive bumps 152 and 154 on die 300 align with conductive bumps
`
`162 and 164 on substrate 200, and the dotted circle shows electrode region
`
`144 re-routing a signal from one micro-bump to another, citing the analysis
`
`of Mr. Johnson. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47-51).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`
`Electrode region 144 appears to be capable of re-routing a signal
`
`between conductive bumps 154, but importantly, those conductive bumps do
`
`not align with corresponding landing pads. By contrast, each conductive
`
`bump 152 aligns with a single conductive bump 162, but electrode region
`
`144 does not create a conductive path between conductive bumps 152;
`
`rather, it only appears to provide a path between conductive bumps 154.
`
`Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that any re-routing using the
`
`assembly depicted in Figure 1 would not be between positions of “the array”
`
`because the asserted micro-bumps (conductive bumps 154) are not in
`
`alignment with corresponding landing pads as required by the claims. See
`
`Paper 10 at 17.
`
`Other than the citations to annotated Figure 1 above, Petitioner does
`
`not provide any further explanation or cite any other structure in
`
`Chakravorty ‘034, Ma, or Patel as performing the claimed re-routing.
`
`Petitioner also does not argue that such a function is suggested by the
`
`references, either alone or in combination. It is Petitioner’s burden to put
`
`forth a sufficient explanation as to why a claim is obvious to meet the
`
`threshold standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (a petitioner must identify
`
`in the petition “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised,
`
`including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge”). Petitioner has not done so. In addition, because the re-routing
`
`limitation appears in both independent claim 1 and independent claim 9, the
`
`deficiency applies to all claims 1-15. We conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims
`
`1-4, 7-11, 14, and 15 are anticipated by Chakravorty ‘034 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) (Ground 3); that claims 5 and 12 are unpatentable over Chakravorty
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`
`‘034 in view of Ma under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 4); or that claims 6
`
`and 13 are unpatentable over Chakravorty ‘034 in view of Patel under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ground 5).2 Accordingly, the petition is denied as to
`
`Grounds 3-5.
`
`
`
`E. Grounds 9-14 Based on Bohr
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are anticipated by
`
`Bohr; claims 3, 9-11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable over Bohr in view of
`
`Siniaguine; claim 5 is unpatentable over Bohr in view of Ma; claim 6 is
`
`unpatentable over Bohr in view of Patel; claim 12 is unpatentable over Bohr
`
`in view of Siniaguine and Ma; and claim 13 is unpatentable over Bohr in
`
`view of Siniaguine and Patel. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on these grounds for similar reasons as those with
`
`respect to Chakravorty ‘034.
`
`Petitioner contends that Figure 4 of Bohr, as shown in the annotat