`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01030, Paper No. 27
`IPR2014-01493, Paper No. 13
`September 11, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`
`(TSMC) and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01030
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01493
`
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`Technology Center 1700
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Wednesday, August 12, 2015
`
`Before: ERICA A. FRANKLIN; JACQUELINE WRIGHT
`
`
`
`BONILLA; and KRISTINA M. KALAN (via video link), Administrative
`
`Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, August
`
`12, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TSMC:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID M. O'DELL, ESQ.
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082
`
`972-739-6900
`
`DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQ.
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`214-651-5533
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SAMSUNG:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER T. MARANDO, ESQ.
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges
`
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`202-682-7000
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTON J. HOPEN, ESQ.
`
`ANDRIY LYTVYN, ESQ.
`
`NICHOLAS R. PFEIFER, ESQ.
`
`Smith & Hopen
`
`180 Pine Avenue North
`
`Oldsmar, Florida 34677
`
`800-807-3531
`
`KIRK A. VOSS, ESQ.
`
`Nix Patterson & Roach LLP
`
`205 Linda Drive
`
`Daingerfield, Texas 75638
`
`903-645-7333
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(2:00 p. m.)
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: This is the tri al hearing for
`
`IPR2014 -01030, and IPR2014 -01493 which has been joined
`
`with this proceed ing, between Peti tioner, Taiwan
`
`Se miconductor M anufacturing Co mpany, in relation t o the
`
`1030 case, and Sa msung Electronic s Co mp an y, in rel ation to
`
`the 1493 case, ve rsus owner of U. S . P atent Nu mb er 5,652,084,
`
`DSS Technology Manage ment Cor poration.
`
`Just a fe w ad mini strative matters b efore we begin.
`
`As you can tell, Judge Kalan is joi ning us fro m Den ver.
`
`Please note the location of the c a mera. It will be ea sier for
`
`her to hear and se e you if you c an s peak to the c a mer a when
`
`you ar e talking to her.
`
`If you wish to pre sent an y de monst ratives, it is
`
`ver y helpful if yo u can describe the slides b y slide nu mber .
`
`That mak es it e asier for us to follo w, and particularl y Judge
`
`Kalan to follow a long, and makes i t easier for the tr anscript,
`
`for us to r ead the transcript later.
`
`As you know, bas ed on our order , e ach part y has
`
`45 minutes to pr e sent thei r argu me nt. Because Petit ioner has
`
`the burden to show unpatentabilit y of the challenged clai ms,
`
`Petitioner will go first, followed by Patent Owne r. Petitioner
`
`ma y rese rve r ebuttal ti me, but it ma y onl y use its time to r ebut
`
`Patent Owner 's a r gu ments.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`At this ti me we would like counsel to introduce
`
`the mselves and a n ybod y the y have with the m, sta rting with
`
`Petitioner.
`
`MR. O'DELL: Your Honor, my na me is David
`
`O' Dell. I' m with the law fir m Ha ynes and Boone, a nd I
`
`represent Taiwan Se miconductor M anufacturi ng Co mpany.
`
`With me toda y is David McCo mbs , also fro m the sa me la w
`
`fir m, also repr ese nting what we c all TS MC.
`
`Also with me tod a y is Christopher Marando.
`
`Christopher is fro m the la w fir m o f Weil , Gotshal an d he is
`
`representing Sa msung Electronics.
`
`MR. LYTVYN: Your Honor, my na me is Andri y
`
`Lytv yn. I' m with the la w fir m S mi th & Hopen. And I' m her e
`
`today to r epresent DSS Te chnologies, the Patent Own er.
`
`MR. HOP EN: Go od afternoon, Yo ur Honor. M y
`
`na me is Anton Ho pen. I also repre sent DSS . And with us is
`
`Kirk Voss, who is in related litigation, and Nicholas Pfeifer as
`
`well.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Petitioner, wo uld you like to
`
`reserve an y ti me for rebuttal?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes. Your Honor , Petitioner would
`
`like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LL A: So you will h ave 25 minutes.
`
`You ma y begin.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`MR. O'DELL: M a y it please the B oard. The re is
`
`only one issue in this case. That is the clai m construction of a
`
`single ter m, "seco nd pattern."
`
`The Board in its I nstitution Decision has construed
`
`this ter m in such a manner that the re c an be no question that
`
`the prior art of re cord, Jinbo, cl ear l y anticipates the clai ms .
`
`In fact , DS S pres ents no argu ments of patentabilit y based on
`
`the Board's clai m construction.
`
`I would like to structure my ti me t oday a s follows:
`
`I will provide a b rief overvie w of t he '084 patent inc luding
`
`referenc e to a representative clai m, and then I will provide
`
`additional argu me nts and evidence, so me of which oc curred
`
`after the Institution Decision but a ll of which is on t he record ,
`
`that further supports and confir ms that the Board's cl ai m
`
`construction is correct and, b y extension thereof, tha t the
`
`clai ms in this IP R are unpatentable.
`
`Turning to slide 2, let 's talk about t he '084 patent.
`
`The '084 patent is directed to se mic onduct or fabrication,
`
`specificall y a me t hod called lithography or photolithography.
`
`Clai m 1 is repres entative and it's p rovided here on s lide 2.
`
`The cl ai m is desc ribing what man y people ref er to
`
`as a double patter ning process. Th at is, steps A and B of the
`
`clai m describe a f irst process whe r e a first i maging l a yer is
`
`for med and patte r ned, and then ste ps D and E descri be a
`
`second lithography proc ess whe re a second i maging l a yer is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`for med and patte r ned. The result o f this clai m is des cribed in
`
`the "wher ein" cl a use at the end of the clai m that sa ys:
`
`Wh erein, first and second features fro m the first an d second
`
`i maging la yers ar e for med closer together than you could do
`
`with just a single photolithography process, a single exposure.
`
`I have underlined two t er ms in this clai m: First
`
`pattern and secon d pattern. And this is wher e the issue lies
`
`together. DS S a r gues that the seco nd pattern cannot be the
`
`sa me as or c annot be a duplicate of the first pattern.
`
`Turning to slide 3. In the Institution Decision - -
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: But the y concede that the y c an
`
`be different , right , just that the y ca n't be the sa me --
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes, the y are differ ent in that there
`
`are diff erent ti me s and differ ent pa tterning steps, ye s, but the y
`
`can have the sa me pattern or the s a m e group of geomet ries.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: -- geo metries .
`
`MR. O'DELL: Th e y are not duplicate patterns of
`
`each other.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: And your understanding of
`
`Patent Owner 's p osition is that the geo metric patter n can't be
`
`the sa me?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes, yes .
`
`Turning to slide 3, in the Institution Decision the
`
`Board corr ectl y c onstrued the ter m second pattern r e l ying on
`
`the direct language fro m the specifi cation. The speci fication
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`refers to the seco nd pattern stating that it c an be "any suitable
`
`pattern." And tha t is the clai m con struction that this Board
`
`has adopted.
`
`The Board even went so f ar to address the
`
`argu ment of DSS , that DSS also ma de in its preli min ar y
`
`response, as shown in the last -- in the second sentence f ro m
`
`this excerpt of th e Institution Deci sion, in that the s econd
`
`pattern can be an y geo met ric patte rn, including a pa ttern that
`
`is the sa me as the first pattern .
`
`This is where the challenge resides, Your Honors.
`
`DSS does not agr ee with this clai m construction and in
`
`particular DSS does no t agree that t he second pattern can be
`
`the sa me patte rn, that is, the sa me geo metric pattern as the
`
`first pattern. DS S describes this a s the second patte rn cannot
`
`be a duplicate of the first pattern .
`
`And let me sa y, b y the wa y, that fo r the purposes
`
`of this hearing, I' m not distinguishing between diff e rent
`
`geo metric pattern s or the word dup licate or I think I
`
`so meti mes just sa y a second patter n or a differ ent p attern, but
`
`I don't me an an y distinction betwe en those ter ms.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, when you are arguing
`
`difference , though, ar e we arguing pri maril y diff ere nt
`
`geo metries? We are not a rguing difference in ti me o r
`
`difference in plac e or an ything like that?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes, Your Honor. I' m refe rring to
`
`different geo metr ies.
`
`Turning to slide 4 , my argu ment to da y is two -fold.
`
`First I will provi de further evidence and argu ments all fro m
`
`the record that show that the Board 's clai m construction of the
`
`ter m second patte rn is corr ect fro m the Institution Decision
`
`and should be ma intained. As disc us sed, if the Boar d
`
`maintains this cla i m construction, this resolves the c ase
`
`because DSS provides no argu ments for patentabilit y based on
`
`the Board's clai m construction.
`
`Secondl y, we will argue toda y that even under
`
`DSS ' cl ai m constr uction, Jinbo still ant icipates the cl ai ms .
`
`Turning to slide 5, as stated in the petition there is
`
`co-pending litigation between the e xact sa me parties here
`
`today over this patent, the '084 pate nt. And since the
`
`Institution Decisi on there has be en a Mark man heari ng and a
`
`clai m construction order in this liti gation.
`
`A portion of this clai m construction order is
`
`reproduced here on slide 5 which is directed to the fi rst and
`
`second patterns. And as you c an s ee, the Court's cl ai m
`
`construction of this ter m is consistent with the Boar d's clai m
`
`construction.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Is ther e an y d ifference that we
`
`should be concerned about?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`MR. O'DELL: No, Your Honor, th ere are no
`
`differences, no di fferences of substance that I' m a wa re of
`
`between these cla i m constructions. And, in f act , when we go
`
`to the next slide I will show that th e Court's anal ysis was
`
`si milar to and ess entially the sa me as the Boa rd's an al ysis and
`
`I' m not aware of an y substantive differences betwe e n the two .
`
`Before I le ave thi s slide, howeve r, we have
`
`reproduced a case , a portion of c ase la w that the Co urt relied
`
`on, but it is also t he first c ase ment ioned by both the
`
`Petitioner and the Patent Owner in our briefs, and th at is the
`
`Free Motion Fitness case.
`
`The Free Motion Fitness case state s that the use of
`
`the ter ms first an d second is a co mmon patent law c onvention
`
`to distinguish between repeated instances of an ele ment or
`
`li mitation. And we believe that th at is exactl y what the Board
`
`did in its clai m c onstruction, is that the first and se cond
`
`patterns are mer el y refe rring to rep eated instances of the word
`
`pattern used with the first and se cond patterning steps.
`
`Turning to slide 6, I bring up this p ortion fro m the
`
`Court's clai m construction order be cause I think it is helpful to
`
`show that the Cou rt's anal ysis w as essentially the sa me as this
`
`Board's anal ysis. That is, the Cour t also looked to the
`
`specification and quoted the sa me s entence that this Board
`
`quoted and, that i s, the se cond pattern can be "an y s uitable
`
`pattern."
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`In fact , the Court noted that the p a tent
`
`specification makes this state ment one, two , thre e, f our, five ,
`
`six ti mes, and the Court sa ys the specification could not be
`
`clearer . A pa rticular pattern is not required for the f irst and
`
`second patterns.
`
`Even the l ast line of this quote f rom the Court's
`
`clai m construction order, the Court further co mment ed: For
`
`exa mple , the first and second patte rns ma y e ach be t he sa me
`
`pattern, just me re l y shifted horizon tall y.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, we' re not bound by the
`
`District Court's cl ai m construction, but what weight are you
`
`sa ying we should be giving to the District Court's opinions and
`
`constructions?
`
`MR. O'DELL: As to what weight, I think I a m
`
`bringing the District Court clai m or der here purel y fo r the
`
`point to show that it supports and agrees with your own
`
`individual anal ysis that you conducted in your Institution
`
`Decision.
`
`I agre e, I think all parties agre e thi s Board is not
`
`bound by the Cou rt's clai m construction, but there ar e a couple
`
`of things that are interesting here, and one of which is k ind of
`
`unusual.
`
`First of all , it is t he sa me group of parties talking
`
`about the sa me pa tent. So the ide a s of res judicata do not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`exist because we are all here argui ng the sa me patent before
`
`these two tribuna ls.
`
`The se cond thing is the '084 patent has expired,
`
`and because it ha s expired both this Board and the C ourt are
`
`construing the clai m ter ms under the Phillips standard, the
`
`ordinar y and custo mar y meaning of the ter ms . And s o, again,
`
`that's not binding, but I do think it is relevant and he lpful to
`
`show when I sho w that the Court agrees with this Board.
`
`Turning to slide 7, not onl y does th e Court support
`
`and agree with th e Board's construction, but additional
`
`prosecution in the '084 patent fa mi l y furthe r shows that the
`
`Board's construct ion is corre ct .
`
`This prosecution was not presented to the Boa rd at
`
`the ti me of the In stitution, but I thi nk it is helpful, a nd
`
`specificall y in light of the Phillips standard where th e ordinar y
`
`me aning in light of the clai ms , the specification, and the
`
`prosecution hi stor y are to be used, this is helpful.
`
`In slide 7 here , it shows an a mend ment to the
`
`clai ms in a divisional application to the '084 patent. This
`
`divisional application has the exact sa me specification that the
`
`'084 patent has.
`
`In this a mend men t you ca n see , and I have
`
`underlined in red, the P atentee add ed the phrase that said
`
`"second pattern being different tha n said first patter n." What
`
`this tells us is two things: One, th is tells us that the Patentee
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`recognized that the first and second patterns di d not have to be
`
`different, otherwi se this a mend men t is meaningless.
`
`Two , it shows us that the Patentee knows how to
`
`write clai ms to re quire that the fi rst and second patt erns be
`
`different and chose not to do so in the '084 patent.
`
`Turning now to sl ide 9 --
`
`JUDGE KALAN: One question. You had indicated
`
`--
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: I' m sorr y, Judge Kal an, we
`
`can't hea r you ver y well . Can you get a little bit closer to the
`
`mic?
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, you had indicated that
`
`you hadn't mad e t his argu ment prev iousl y. Ther e wa s no
`
`325(d) or si mil ar argu ment . Ho w s hould we be vie wing this
`
`evidence, as resp onsive or otherwi se?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Th is evidence was p rovided in the
`
`record in the Peti tioner's response as being responsive to the
`
`Patent Owner 's a r gu ment in its reply arguing that the first and
`
`second patterns must be different by the clai ms, so we have
`
`provided this in the record at the time of our response in
`
`response to their argu ments.
`
`An y other questions about the prosecution history?
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Not a t this ti me .
`
`MR. O'DELL: Oka y. I' m proceed ing now to slide
`
`9. In slide 9 I ha ve reproduced cla i m 1 again. The Board's
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`construction correctl y uses the ter ms first and seco nd
`
`consistently throughout the clai ms .
`
`Wh at I have highlighted here on th e slid e is in red
`
`I've highlighted first and second p atterns -- of course we 've
`
`been discussing these -- but there are actuall y man y other
`
`occurrences of fir st and second in t he clai m, including first
`
`and second i maging la yers which I' ve highlighted in blue.
`
`There is no question that the first a nd second
`
`i maging la yers ca n both be co mprised of, can both be made of
`
`the sa me material , that is , photoresist, as taught in t he
`
`specification and, si mila rl y, this B oard's clai m construction
`
`sa ys that the first and secon d patte rns can both be c o mprised
`
`of, c an both be made of, the sa me geo metric shapes and
`
`patterns.
`
`Turning to slide 10, I bring this up on its face but
`
`also I bring this u p because this wa s an i mportant issue
`
`addressed b y the District Court, ag ain, not di spositive on this
`
`case or not binding on this case, but I think that the Court's
`
`anal ysis here is i nsightful.
`
`First of all , begin ning at line 6 of this portion of
`
`the Mark man hear ing transcript that I have on slide 1 0, the
`
`Court recognizes that the y get the t er ms first and sec ond all
`
`the ti me to refe r t o the sa me thing. And then the Co urt
`
`recognizes or dis cusses with Mr . Voss, who is DSS ' attorne y in
`
`the litigation, beginning at line 11 the Court sa ys: " But to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`require that it" -- the first and se cond p atterns -- "be different
`
`would be like r equiring that the ma terial used for the i maging
`
`la yer be dif ferent because one is fi rst and one is se c ond,
`
`wouldn't it? " Wh ich would be inco nsistent with other
`
`testi mon y fro m the Mark man hearin g.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: J ust to be cl e ar, Patent Owner
`
`doesn't make that argu ment her e th at it has to be dif ferent
`
`mate rial, is that c orrect?
`
`MR. O'DELL: No, no, in the I PR there is no
`
`discussion of the content of the fir st and second i ma ging
`
`la yers . I think all parties agre e th at it can be a photoresist.
`
`That's what the s pecification states.
`
`So I b ring this up because it shows an
`
`inconsistency in DSS ' cl ai m constr uction based on the ter ms
`
`first and second. The ter ms first a nd second b y the mselves
`
`don't require diff erent co mposition. Yes, the y requi re t wo
`
`different la yers , a first i maging la yer and a second i maging
`
`la yer . The first i maging la yer is u sed in the first pa tterning
`
`process. The sec ond i maging la ye r is used in the se cond
`
`patterning process.
`
`The y a re diff eren t in ti me and diff erent in order
`
`but the y a re not d ifferent in that the y have to be co mposed of
`
`different mat erial s. Like wise, the first and second p atterns in
`
`the clai m are diff erent in that the y are diff erent in time . The
`
`first patterning step uses the fi rst p attern. The secon d
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`patterning step uses a se cond patter n. But the content of the
`
`patterns do not have to be diff erent .
`
`And this is consistent with that Fre e Motion
`
`Fitness case I me ntioned earlier. The te r ms fi rst an d second
`
`are just used to d e scribe repe ated i nstances of a ter m in the
`
`clai m.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Ho w do you r espond to Patent
`
`Owne r's argu ment that if you are going to have the m be the
`
`sa me that doing s o requires this ad ditional step of c hanging
`
`the align ment of t he wa fer?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Le t me address that argu ment head
`
`on. Moving to sli de 12, and this is part of DS S' inoperabilit y
`
`argu ment , and if I can desc ribe this inoperability arg u ment as
`
`follows: DSS sta tes that there are two differ ent tech niques for
`
`achieving the sa me result.
`
`The first one, acc ording to DSS , is described in the
`
`patent as using two diffe rent patte rns, and the second
`
`technique, accord ing to DSS , is des cribed in Jinbo as using the
`
`sa me pattern albe it shifted, and DS S sa ying the evid ence
`
`requiring an extra step of shifting t he pattern or the second
`
`patterning step.
`
`The Board's claim construction covers both of
`
`these techniques. Petitioners sub mit that this inoperability
`
`argu ment that an additional step is required b y the cl ai ms of
`
`shifting the mask relative to t he wa fer is reall y an at te mpt to
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`li mit the clai ms t o only that disclo sed in the pref err ed
`
`e mbodi ment.
`
`As an analog y, if I can describe a p atent, consider
`
`the patent whe re t he specification mentions a copper wire, a
`
`clai m re cites a metal wi re, and a p rior art ref erence describes
`
`an alu minu m wir e .
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Is that the sit uation we have
`
`here, that Jinbo describes the r eali gn ment but the pa tent itself
`
`does not?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Ji nbo describes aligning, in the
`
`second patterning step, it describes align ing the pattern offset
`
`fro m the first alig n ment. I believe an align ment occ urs in
`
`ever y ti me that p hotolithography i s used. Jinbo's second step,
`
`the align ment has an offset align ment.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: The re's a shif t.
`
`MR. O'DELL: It' s a shift.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: The patent, the challenged
`
`patent here is that specification is going to that sa me shift.
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes, it does , Your Honor. First of
`
`all, I would like to refe r to figures 2 and 4 of the dra wings in
`
`the '084 patent, a nd it appears f ro m look ing at those figures
`
`that it is the sa me pattern shifted.
`
`So here we a re sh owing on the scre ens, I think 2 is
`
`the botto m one and 4 is the top one , it is the sa me pa ttern
`
`shifted, and this i s the sa me concep t that the Court re cognized
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`in its court order t hat the '084 pate nt -- and it also li sts these
`
`figures along wit h other figures -- describes that the first and
`
`second patterns c an be the sa me , just me rel y shifte d in the
`
`'084 patent.
`
`So the '084 patent teaches shifting i n these figures.
`
`And not onl y t hat , it t eaches -- I would like to describe the
`
`specification, the actual words of t he '084 patent an d, that is,
`
`if we c an turn to slide 13, here I've reproduced a por tion of the
`
`'084 patent at col u mn 6 , lines 12 t hrough 16.
`
`And this portion of the paten t is describing the
`
`second patterning step. And here i t sa ys: The se cond i maging
`
`la yer is patterned in accordanc e wi th the second pattern to
`
`for m a second pat terned la yer and a n y suitable lithographic
`
`patterning technique ma y be used.
`
`And there is no q uestion that alignment and
`
`shifting were kno wn in the art and Jinbo is the easiest
`
`evidence of that. Jinbo is a prior a rt docu ment that shows that
`
`align ment and shi fting were well k nown concepts.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: You point us to figure 2 and 4
`
`to show tha t the s pecification shows the shifting. Does the
`
`specification description itself be yond the figures ta lk about
`
`that also?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Th e specification do es not use the
`
`word shift.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Does it use anything that
`
`would suggest shifting?
`
`MR. O'DELL: No, it does not sa y an ything to
`
`suggest shifting other than this lan guage here but it also does
`
`not describe diffe rent or non -duplicate. The specifi cation
`
`reall y leaves it up to the dra wing.
`
`JUDGE F RANKLIN: In the portion of the
`
`specificatio n that you have reprodu ced here , refe rrin g to an y
`
`suitable patterning technique, it se e ms that the Pate nt Owner
`
`is placing a gre at e mphasis on that ter m suitable and providing
`
`so me definition or explanation for it.
`
`Wh at is your explanation of that te r m?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Th ank you for that q uestion. So
`
`according to the Patent Owner , using the sa me patterns for
`
`both the first and second pattern, th e sa me geo metrie s, the
`
`sa me patterns, is not suitable.
`
`Yet, the Patent Owner ad mits that Jinbo is a
`
`technique that ac hieves the sa me r esult. Jinbo is ev idence --
`
`I' m not using it n ow as prior a rt - - Jinbo is evidence that it is
`
`suitable and operable to use the sa me pattern .
`
`JUDGE F RANKLIN: So are you s a ying that your
`
`understanding of the ter m suitable there me a ns an y k nown
`
`technique?
`
`MR. O'DELL: An y known te chnique would work.
`
`An y technique that works. And Ji nbo is evidence of both of
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`those, that using the sa me pattern works. It achieves the
`
`result.
`
`And, in fact , I bel ieve the DSS has slides that sa y
`
`that Jinbo achieves this result, albeit through the use of using
`
`the sa me patte rn. That means to me that the s a me pattern
`
`works. Using the sa me pattern is s uitable. It is ope rable.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: What about the c o mprising ter m
`
`in the prea mble , does that su pport your a rgu ment that another
`
`step could be included or does that work against you?
`
`MR. O'DELL: Yes, thank you, Judge Kalan . The
`
`clai m is open -end ed. The clai m does not sa y consisting of
`
`these steps. DSS' argu ment is that additional steps would be
`
`required, that is, shifting the alignment to achieve the result of
`
`the clai m, but the clai m s a ys co mpr ising, and that me ans
`
`additional steps can be added to the clai ms , which i s, in f act,
`
`what man y d ependent clai ms do an d still be within t he scope
`
`of the clai ms .
`
`So DSS' argu men t that an additional align ment step
`
`is needed or ne ce ssar y, A, contradi cts the figures of the
`
`specification and contradicts this language that an y suitable
`
`lithographic patterning technique can be used, but it also
`
`contradicts the fa ct that the clai m uses the word co mprising.
`
`The cl ai m is an o pen -ended clai m. The Patentee did not
`
`choose to make th is a closed -ended consisting of clai m.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`I' m going to turn to slide 14 now. In su mmar y, for
`
`the first a rgu ment , the Board should confir m its claim
`
`construction. Thi s issue has been a rgued and decide d in the
`
`Institution Decisi on because this ar gu ment was made in DSS'
`
`preli minar y response. It is further confir med b y the Mark man
`
`hearing and clai m construction order for the District Court a nd
`
`b y the patent exa mination of the '0 84 patent fa mil y.
`
`Once the Board a ffir ms its results, this is
`
`deter minative -- c lai m construction -- this is deter mi native.
`
`That is, DSS pres ents no argu ments for patentabilit y based on
`
`this clai m construction.
`
`Before I go on to this next step, ar e there an y
`
`questions?
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: Just to let yo u know you have
`
`less than a minut e of the ti me you' ve allocated for yourself.
`
`MR. O'DELL: Oh, my goodness.
`
`JUDGE B ONI LLA: You can take more ti me if you
`
`like.
`
`MR. O'DELL: I would like to tak e more ti me .
`
`Thank you . I wil l move at a faster pace .
`
`So the second a rgu ment is even un der DSS'
`
`construction, Jinbo anticipates the clai ms . I would l ike to
`
`make a fe w ver y quick points about this. On slide 15 I have
`
`reprod uced figure 1 ( E) of Jinbo. Contrar y to DSS ' argu ment ,
`
`Jinbo teaches two non -duplicate patterns.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-01030, and IPR2014-01493
`Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`
`Figure 1 ( E) of Jinbo shown here s hows the result
`
`of two patte rning steps. In the fi rst patterning step a first
`
`pattern is used to make fe atures 13 b . The y are the s horter,
`
`darker f eatures. And a second patterning step uses the second
`
`pattern to produce fe atures 15 a. The y are the taller , lighter
`
`figures or f eature s in the figure .
`
`And as can be see n b y looking at th is figure, these
`
`features a re in d if ferent locations. And this is ver y i mportant,
`
`Your Honors. Th ese fe atures shown in this figure r e fer to
`
`metal lines or ele ctrodes in an inte grated circuit and the y are
`
`in different locati ons. Wh at that means is these a re going to
`
`make diffe rent co nnec tions in that integrated circuit.
`
`And this shows th at the t wo pattern s, the first and
`
`second patterns used in Jinbo are d ifferent bec ause t he y
`
`produce features in different locati ons. A shifted pa ttern is a
`
`different pattern .
`
`If you turn to slid e 16, we actuall y discussed this
`
`with DSS' expert , Dr. Mack . And we t alked about shifting a
`
`pattern and a specified distance to the left . And Dr . M ack,
`
`DSS ' expert Dr. Mack could not b e more clea r. He stated: "A
`
`pattern that's plac ed in a different position is a diffe rent
`
`pattern."
`
`Moving ahead to slide 18, I did sa y we were going
`
`to discuss, the y a re separ ate in ti me, but I do want t o re mind
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22