Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of XILINX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`Title: INTERPOSER FOR REDISTRIBUTING SIGNALS
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST MOTION TO AMEND
`BY XILINX UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`I.
`
`Support in Specification for Proposed Amendments ......................................... 3
`
`A. Proposed Claim 16 ........................................................................................ 3
`
`B. Proposed claim 17 ......................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Proposed claim 18 ......................................................................................... 5
`
`D. Proposed claim 19 ......................................................................................... 5
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Proposed claim 20 ......................................................................................... 6
`
`Proposed claim 21 ......................................................................................... 7
`
`G. Proposed claim 22 ......................................................................................... 7
`
`H. Proposed claim 23 ......................................................................................... 8
`
`I.
`
`Proposed claims 24-30 .................................................................................. 8
`
`II. Proposed Amendments Obviate the Grounds of Rejection ............................... 9
`
`A. Grounds 15-18 ............................................................................................... 9
`
`1. Claims 16 and 24 ........................................................................................ 9
`
`2. Claims 17 and 26 ......................................................................................11
`
`3. Claim 18 and 25 .......................................................................................11
`
`4. Claims 19 and 27 ......................................................................................11
`
`5. Claims 20 and 28 ......................................................................................12
`
`6. Claims 21 and 29 ......................................................................................12
`
`7. Claim 22 ...................................................................................................13
`
`8. Claims 23 and 30 ......................................................................................13
`
`B. Grounds 1 & 2 .............................................................................................13
`
`1. Claims 16 and 24 ......................................................................................14
`
`2. Dependent Claims ....................................................................................14
`
`III. Conclusion ......................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) moves to amend the claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,062,968 (“the ’968 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(9) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121. A listing of the proposed claim amendments is attached as
`
`Exhibit XLNX-2009. The Board should enter the proposed amendments because
`
`they obviate the grounds of unpatentability at issue in this inter partes review of
`
`the ’968 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Support in Specification for Proposed Amendments
`A.
`
`Proposed Claim 16
`
`Where claim 1 recites a single interposing structure, proposed claim 16
`
`recites “a plurality of tiled interposing structures,” where “tiled interposing
`
`structures” refers to a regular pattern of side by side interposing structures.
`
`(XLNX-2008, ¶ 13.) Support for this amendment can be found in Fig. 8
`
`accompanied by this description, which describes creating a larger single
`
`interposing structure from a plurality of smaller tiled interposing structures:
`
`In some embodiments, several smaller interposers are used to
`
`mount a larger packaged IC to a PCB. When several smaller
`
`interposers are used, they can individually expand and/or
`
`contract over several smaller areas, rather than experiencing a
`
`larger expansion and/or contraction over a single larger area.
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`Thus,
`
`the structure can withstand greater variations
`
`in
`
`temperature without failure.
`
`FIG. 8 shows one such embodiment. In
`
`the pictured
`
`embodiment, the smaller interposers ("tiles") are separately
`
`soldered to the packaged IC and to the lands of the PCB. In
`
`other embodiments (not shown), the tiles are combined together
`
`to form a single
`
`interposer device prior
`
`to mounting.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 9:61-10:5; see also XLNX-2008, ¶¶ 14-17.)
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Proposed claim 17
`
`Proposed claim 17 replaces original claim 2. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 17
`
`replaces the bypass current and capacitor limitations with a requirement of
`
`“holding the interposing structures together using an elastomer.” Support for this
`
`additional amendment can be found in the specification:
`
`In one embodiment, an elastomer is used to hold the tiles
`
`together, thus forming the single interposer device. The
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`elastomer also serves to absorb mechanical stresses from
`
`thermal expansion and/or contraction.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 10:6-9.)
`
`C.
`
`Proposed claim 18
`
`Proposed claim 18 replaces original claim 3. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 18
`
`now requires a collective major surface for the interposing structures.
`
`Accordingly, proposed claim 18 is supported for at least the same reasons as
`
`proposed claim 16.
`
`D.
`
`Proposed claim 19
`
`Proposed claim 19 replaces original claim 4. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 19
`
`replaces the “no transistor and no PN junction” limitations with a requirement that
`
`“at least one of the interposing structures comprises a first conductive layer
`
`corresponding to a first capacitor for a first power supply and a second conductive
`
`layer corresponding to a second capacitor for a second power supply different from
`
`the first power supply.” Support for this additional amendment can be found in the
`
`specification:
`
`ICs are often manufactured using more than one power
`
`supply and/or more than one ground. For example, an IC can
`
`use a different power supply (VCC) for each quadrant of the
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`device. Therefore, it can be useful to divide the conductive
`
`layers of the interposer to correspond to the power supply
`
`divisions on the device, thereby providing two or more separate
`
`capacitors using different regions of the same conductive
`
`layers.
`
`. . .
`
`In some embodiments, some power supplies share the same
`
`conductive layers, while some power supplies have separate
`
`unified conductive layers.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 10:10-33; see also id. at 8:6-7 (“Some ICs have
`
`more than two power supplies and might require at least one
`
`conductive layer for each power supply.”).)
`
`E.
`
`Proposed claim 20
`
`Proposed claim 20 replaces original claim 5. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 20
`
`replaces the micro bump limitations with a requirement that “at least one of the
`
`interposing structures comprises a first conductive layer for a first ground and a
`
`second conductive layer for a second ground different from the first ground.”
`
`Support for this additional amendment can be found in the specification:
`
`Similarly, some ICs have more than one ground, e.g., a digital
`
`ground and an analog ground, or an input/output ground and a
`
`ground used only for the internal core of the IC. Thus, an
`
`interposer according to the invention can include more than one
`
`ground and can require at least one conductive layer for each
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`ground.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 8:13-18.)
`
`F.
`
`Proposed claim 21
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`Proposed claim 21 replaces original claim 6. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 21
`
`replaces the epoxy and fiberglass limitations with a requirement that “at least one
`
`of the interposing structures comprises an AC load structure to match a
`
`characteristic impedance.” Support for this additional amendment can be found in
`
`the specification:
`
`FIG. 21 is an expanded cross-sectional diagram of caposer 1018
`
`illustrating another embodiment used to match the characteristic
`
`impedance of a trace on a printed circuit board. FIG. 21 shows
`
`caposer 1018 with an AC load structure 1074 used to match the
`
`characteristic impedance of a transmission line such as a trace
`
`on a printed circuit board.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 16:57-62; see also id. at Fig. 21.)
`
`G.
`
`Proposed claim 22
`
`Proposed claim 22 replaces original claim 7. In addition to referring to the
`
`plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as discussed above, proposed claim 22
`
`replaces the bypass capacitor limitation with a requirement that “at least one of the
`
`interposing structures comprises a DC load structure to match a characteristic
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`impedance.” Support for this additional amendment can be found in the
`
`specification:
`
`In another example, a DC load structure is provided within the
`
`caposer. The DC load structure adds to the impedance of the
`
`circuitry such that the sum of the impedance of the circuitry and
`
`the intervening impedance is substantially identical to the
`
`characteristic impedance of the trace.
`
`(IVM-1001 at 5:12-17.)
`
`H.
`
`Proposed claim 23
`
`Proposed claim 23 replaces original claim 8. Proposed claim 23 is amended
`
`to clarify the references to the plural “interposing structures” of claim 16 as
`
`discussed above. Support for these changes is discussed above regarding claim 16.
`
`I.
`
`Proposed claims 24-30
`
`Proposed claim 24 replaces original claim 9 and like proposed claim 16—
`
`recites “a plurality of tiled interposing structures” rather than a single “interposing
`
`structure.” As with proposed claim 16, support for proposed claim 24 can be
`
`found in Fig. 8 and the description from column 9, line 61 through column 10, line
`
`9 of the ’968 Patent. (XLNX-2008, ¶¶ 27-28.)
`
`Proposed claims 25-30 replace original claims 10-15, respectively. In
`
`addition to referring to the plural “interposing structures” of claim 24 as discussed
`
`above, proposed claims 25-30 include similar amendments to claims 18, 17, 19-21,
`
`and 23, respectively, and are supported for the same reasons.
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`II.
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`Proposed Amendments Obviate the Grounds of Rejection
`A. Grounds 15-18
`
`Ground 15 is an anticipation rejection that relies on U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,970,362 (“Chakravorty ’362”) and grounds 16-18 are obviousness rejections that
`
`rely on Chakravorty ’362 in combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,730,540
`
`(“Siniaguine”) and/or U.S. Patent No. 6,469,908 (“Patel”) as secondary references.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 16 and 24
`
`Proposed claims 16 and 24 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362
`
`alone and proposed claims 16 and 24 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362
`
`alone, or in combination with Siniaguine and Patel. (XLNX-2008, ¶ 29.)
`
`Petitioner IVM cited Chakravorty ’362’s Fig. 3 and its interposer 310 as teaching
`
`the interposing structure of claims 1 and 9. Proposed claims 16 and 24 each recite
`
`a “plurality of tiled interposing structures.” Chakravorty ’362 teaches using only a
`
`single interposer to mount an integrated circuit die to a substrate. (See IVM-1007
`
`at Fig. 3.) There is no teaching or suggestion in Chakravorty ’362 of using more
`
`than one interposing structure. (XLNX-2008, ¶¶ 18-19.) And while Siniaguine
`
`teaches that “several interposers are provided, with different parts of a clock
`
`distribution network on different interposers,” there is no express teaching in
`
`Siniaguine regarding the orientation of the several interposers or whether they are
`
`even used with the same integrated circuit die. (See IVM-1003 at 2:59-61; 4:55-
`
`58; XLNX-2008, ¶ 20.) At best, Siniaguine teaches that “multiple circuits 310 can
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`be bonded side by side to the top surface of interposer 320.” (See IVM-1003 at
`
`4:54-55; Fig. 3; XLNX-2008, ¶¶ 21-22.) Thus, Siniaguine does not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of Chakravorty ’362.
`
`The ’968 Patent describes various potential drawbacks to packaging an
`
`integrated circuit using a single interposing structure, such as physical stress
`
`induced by differing thermal coefficients of expansion. (See IVM-1001 at 9:40–
`
`67; XLNX-2008, ¶ 23.) The prior art of Grounds 15-18—Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel—do not discuss, or even appear to be aware of the need to
`
`reduce thermal stresses between the integrated circuit die, interposer, and
`
`integrated circuit package. (See, e.g., IVM-1003 at 6:21-48 (recognizing thermal
`
`stress only in the context of metal layers in a trench); XLNX-2008, ¶ 24.)
`
`Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
`
`adopt a plurality of tiled interposing structures due to the added manufacturing
`
`steps and the issues associated with aligning each of the interposing structures in
`
`the tiled arrangement. (XLNX-2008, ¶¶ 25-26.) The references do not teach or
`
`suggest the inventive solution of using a “plurality of tiled interposing structures.”
`
`(XLNX-2008, ¶ 29.) Thus, proposed claims 16 and 24 each obviate Grounds 15-
`
`18.
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claims 17 and 26
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`Proposed claims 17 and 26 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 and 24,
`
`from which they respectively depend.
`
`The additional limitations of claims 17 and 26 further distinguish over the
`
`prior art of Grounds 15-18 as none of the asserted references disclose holding
`
`interposing structures together using an elastomer.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 18 and 25
`
`Proposed claims 18 and 25 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 and 24,
`
`from which they respectively depend.
`
`To the extent that the “several interposers” of Siniaguine could be said to
`
`teach the tiling of claims 16 and 24, the additional limitations of claims 18 and 25,
`
`further distinguish over Figure 3 of Siniaguine, which shows the interposer 320 of
`
`a different size and offset relative to the integrated circuit 310. (See IVM-1003 at
`
`Fig. 3; 4:54-58.)
`
`4.
`
`Claims 19 and 27
`
`Proposed claims 19 and 27 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 and 24,
`
`from which they respectively depend.
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`The additional limitations of claims 19 and 27 further distinguish over the
`
`prior art of Grounds 15-18 as none of the asserted references disclose two
`
`conductive layers for capacitors associated with different power supplies. (See
`
`e.g., IVM-1009 at 8:32 (using the term “power supply voltages,” but referring
`
`merely to the single power and ground voltages).)
`
`5.
`
`Claims 20 and 28
`
`Proposed claims 20 and 28 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 and 24,
`
`from which they respectively depend.
`
`The additional limitations of claims 20 and 28 further distinguish over the
`
`prior art of Grounds 15-18 as none of the asserted references disclose two
`
`conductive layers with different grounds.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 21 and 29
`
`Proposed claims 21 and 29 are patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362,
`
`Siniaguine, and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 and 24,
`
`from which they respectively depend.
`
`The additional limitations of claims 21 and 29 further distinguish over the
`
`prior art of Grounds 15-18. Even though the references suggest that other
`
`components may be included in an interposing structure, none of the asserted
`
`references disclose a DC load structure to match a characteristic impedance. (See,
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`e.g., IVM-1003 at 5-19-26; 6:1-3 (disclosing only the possibility of capacitors and
`
`resistors in the interposing structure); IVM-1004 at 2:27-30 (disclosing the
`
`possibility of other discrete components).)
`
`7.
`
`Claim 22
`
`Proposed claim 22 is patentably distinct over Chakravorty ’362, Siniaguine,
`
`and Patel for at least the same reasons as proposed claim 16 from which it depends.
`
`The additional limitations of claim 22 further distinguish over the prior art of
`
`Grounds 15-18. Even though the references suggest that other components may be
`
`included in an interposing structure, none of the asserted references disclose an AC
`
`load structure to match a characteristic impedance. (See, e.g., IVM-1003 at 5:19-
`
`26; and 6:1-3 (disclosing only the possibility of capacitors and resistors in the
`
`interposing structure); IVM-1004 at 2:27-30 (disclosing the possibility of other
`
`discrete components).)
`
`8.
`
`Claims 23 and 30
`
`Proposed dependent claims 23 and 30 are distinguished over Grounds 15-18
`
`for at least the reason that they depend from and further limit independent claims
`
`16 and 24, respectively.
`
`B. Grounds 1 & 2
`
`Ground 1 is an anticipation rejection that relies on Siniaguine and Ground 2
`
`is an obviousness rejection that relies on Siniaguine in combination with Patel.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claims 16 and 24
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`Petitioner IVM cited Siniaguine’s integrated circuit 320 as teaching the
`
`interposing structure of claims 1 and 9. Proposed claims 16 and 24 recite a
`
`“plurality of tiled interposing structures.” For the reasons discussed above with
`
`respect to Grounds 15-18, not only does Siniaguine not teach using a plurality of
`
`tiled interposing structures between a single integrated circuit die and a single
`
`integrated circuit package, Siniaguine does not suggest this feature. Patel is not
`
`able to remedy the deficiencies of Siniaguine.
`
`As noted above regarding Grounds 15-18, Siniaguine and Patel do not even
`
`acknowledge awareness of the potential drawbacks to using a single interposing
`
`structure. Accordingly, the prior art references do not teach or suggest the
`
`inventive solution of employing a “plurality of tiled interposing structures” as
`
`recited in proposed claim 16 and 24.
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`Proposed dependent claims 17-23 and 25-30 are distinguished over Grounds
`
`1 and 2 for at least the reason that they depend from and further limit independent
`
`claims 16 or 24 as well as the additional reasons discussed above for claims 17-23
`
`and 25-30 with respect to Grounds 15-18.
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
` Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend
`IPR2012-00019
`
`The proposed amendments represent a reasonable number of substitute
`
`claims, are fully supported by the specification of the ’968 Patent, do not broaden
`
`the scope of the ’968 Patent, and obviate the grounds of rejection that led to this
`
`trial. Accordingly, Xilinx requests that the proposed amendments be entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`Telephone: 214/651-5116
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.47
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 7, 2013
`
`R_332696_1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC
`v.
`Patent of XILINX, INC.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2012-00019
`Patent 8,062,968
`Title: INTERPOSER FOR REDISTRIBUTING SIGNALS
`_____________________
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service May 7, 2013
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail (mspecht@skgf.com; rsterne@skgf.com)
`
`Documents served Patent Owner’s Response;
`
`Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend;
`
`Xilinx’ Exhibit List; and
`
`Exhibits: XLNX-2007 through XLNX-2009
`
`Persons served STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`