`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 24
`
`Date Entered: June 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`and
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002901
`Patent 5,965,924
` ____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01312 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`On June 8, 2016 we instituted an inter partes review of claims 7–12,
`15, and 17 of U. S. Patent No. 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”) based on a
`Petition filed by Intel Corporation. Paper 10 (“Dec. to Inst.”). DSS
`Technology Management, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) waived its right to file a
`Preliminary Response. On August 29, 2016 we instituted inter partes review
`of the same claims on the same grounds based on a substantially identical
`petition filed by Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc.,
`Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC &
`Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, in
`IPR2016-01312. We then joined IPR2016-00290 and IPR2016-01312.
`Papers 17, 18. In this joined proceeding, we refer to Intel Corporation,
`Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S. Inc.,
`Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, Globalfoundries
`Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, collectively as “Petitioner.”
`On September 7, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`that contained no citations to evidence and no argument, other than noting
`that in contrast to the standard applied in reaching a decision to institute (i.e.,
`a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail on its challenge to
`patentability of a claim), the standard for reaching a final decision is whether
`the Petitioner proved unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner then stated it “defers to the Board to make this
`determination based on its impartial analysis of the prior art and Petitioners’
`arguments.” Id.
`In its Reply filed on December 7, 2016, Petitioner stated that Patent
`Owner has provided no testimony or any other evidence that contradicts or
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`rebuts the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. John Bravman, and that the
`challenged claims should be found unpatentable (Paper 21, “Pet. Reply”).
`We did not conduct an oral hearing in this case.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a). We base our decision on
`the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties and the
`supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`THE ’924 PATENT (Ex. 1001)
`The ’924 Patent relates to semiconductor fabrication in general, and in
`particular concerns a metal plug local interconnect that is formed in the same
`process of forming metal plugs that are already designed as sub-metal
`plugged contacts. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9–11. The ’924 Patent discloses that
`in semiconductor fabrication, it is often necessary to make a local
`interconnect between a gate polysilicon layer to N+ or P+ diffusion regions.
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 16–17. According to the ’924 Patent, conventionally such
`local interconnects were fabricated using buried contacts, as shown in
`Figures 1A and 1B of the ’924 Patent (id. at col. 1, l. 25–col. 2, l. 11) or with
`a metallic local interconnect strap to shunt from a gate polysilicon to a
`diffusion region, as illustrated in Figures 2A and 2B of the ’924 Patent (id. at
`col. 2, l. 12–41).
`The ’924 Patent discloses a semiconductor structure in which a
`diffusion region is formed in a silicon substrate and a polysilicon gate is
`formed on the top surface of the silicon substrate adjacent to, but not
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`contacting, the diffusion region. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 1–6, 14–18. A layer of
`insulating material is then deposited on top of the polysilicon gate and the
`diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 6–7, 19–20. A via opening is formed in the
`insulating material to expose a portion of the polysilicon gate and a portion
`of the diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 7–8, 20–22. An electrically
`conducting material is deposited to at least partially fill the via opening to
`provide an electrical connection between the polysilicon gate and the
`diffusion region. Id. at col. 3, ll. 8–11, 23–27.
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`7. A method of forming a local interconnect in a semiconductor
`structure, comprising the step of:
`depositing an electrically conducting material in a via
`exposing at least a portion of a gate, a sidewall spacer
`adjacent to said gate and a portion of a diffusion region
`such that said electrically conducting material contacts and
`provides electrical communication between said gate and
`said diffusion region, said semiconductor structure
`comprising said diffusion region in a silicon substrate, said
`gate being on said substrate juxtaposed to but not
`contacting said diffusion region, said sidewall spacer
`being disposed above said diffusion region, said via being
`in an insulating material on said gate.
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUNDS OF INSTITUTION
`In our Decision to Institute, we instituted trial on the following
`challenges to patentability:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`Sakamoto;2 and
`Claims 10–12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum.3
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In our Decision to Institute, we applied the ordinary and customary
`meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable
`interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a
`claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner
`proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to
`mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains
`dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 24. As discussed in the
`Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims
`concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that
`there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said
`substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the
`complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the
`constructions.
`
`
`ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`Introduction
`As previously discussed, Patent Owner has provided no evidence or
`argument in response to claim challenges advanced in the Petition. Patent
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,475,240 issued Dec. 12, 1995, Ex. 1003 (“Sakamoto”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,100,817 issued Mar. 31, 1992, Ex. 1004 (“Cederbaum”).
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`Owner’s election not to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response does not
`implicate any adverse inference. 37 C.F.R.§ 42.107(a); Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide. 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, as to
`the Patent Owner Response after institution of trial, under our Scheduling
`Order “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not
`raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 11, 3; see In re
`Nuvasive, 842 F. 3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that NuVasive
`waived public accessibility arguments in its Preliminary Response by failing
`to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase, i.e. by not addressing
`public accessibility in its Trial Response and explicitly declining to make
`further arguments at oral hearing). In this case, Patent Owner “defers to the
`Board” to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged
`claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2.
`There is no argument or evidence, other than that presented in the Petition
`and the accompanying Exhibits, for us to consider. Nevertheless, “In an
`inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove
`‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden
`never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).
`Anticipation By Sakamoto
`Petitioner contends that Sakamoto not only is directed to the same
`problem as that addressed by the ’924 Patent, i.e., connecting different
`transistor portions together, but also that Sakamoto discloses the same
`solution as that found in the ’924 Patent, i.e., using a single plug. Pet. 19–
`20.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`Sakamoto “relates to improvement of a contact structure of an
`interconnection in a region having steps in a semiconductor device having a
`multilayer interconnection structure.” Ex. 1103, col. 1, ll. 12–16. Petitioner
`provides the following figure comparing an annotated version of Figure 1 of
`Sakamoto on the left with an annotated version of Figure 3B of the ’924
`Patent on the right:
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s comparison of Sakamoto Fig. 1
` and ’924 Patent Figure 3B
`Pet. 20. Petitioner contends that Sakamoto discloses a plug filling an
`opening having a sidewall spacer that electrically connects a diffusion region
`to a gate, as claimed in the ’924 Patent. Id. at 20–21. Petitioner addresses
`each of the limitations of the claims challenged as anticipated by Sakamoto
`and discusses why specific features of Sakamoto are anticipatory. Id. at 27–
`46.
`
`Turning to claim 7, Petitioner notes that Sakamoto discloses a method
`of forming a local interconnect in a series of steps for manufacturing a static
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`random access memory (SRAM) cell and that the Sakamoto’s SRAM cell is
`a semiconductor structure. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1103, col. 7, ll. 14–15, col.
`6, l. 39–col. 8, l. 52; Bravman Decl. ¶ 70).
`Petitioner next compares the method recited in claim 7 with the
`disclosure in Sakamoto. Claim 7 recites the following elements as
`designated by Petitioner: (a) depositing an electrically conducting material
`in a via exposing at least a portion of a gate, a sidewall spacer adjacent to
`said gate and a portion of a diffusion region such that said electrically
`conducting material contacts and provides electrical communication between
`said gate and said diffusion region, (b) said semiconductor structure
`comprising said diffusion region in a silicon substrate, (c) said gate being on
`said substrate juxtaposed to but not contacting said diffusion region, (d) said
`sidewall spacer being disposed above said diffusion region, and (e) said via
`being in an insulating material on said gate. Although framed as a method
`claim, claim 7 recites the single step of depositing electrically conducting
`material in a via exposing at least a portion of a gate and a portion of a
`diffusion region, such that the electrically conducting material contacts the
`gate and diffusion region. The remaining elements of the claim recite effects
`(e.g., the contact by the electrically conducting material provides electrical
`communication between the gate and diffusion region) or structural features
`(e.g., the semiconductor structure comprising a diffusion region in the
`silicon substrate, a sidewall spacer, the via being in an insulating material on
`the gate).
`Turning to element (a), Petitioner provides the following annotated
`illustration of Figure 1 of Sakamoto, including an expanded view of the
`region where the electrically conducting plug is located:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated illustration of Figure 1 of Sakamoto
` with exploded view of electrically conducting contact
`Pet. 29. Petitioner uses this figure to illustrate that Sakamoto shows
`electrically conducting plug 15 in via opening 16 formed in insulating layer
`9 and that plug 15 is connected directly to source/drain region 7 and gate
`electrode 6. Id. at 29–30. Figure 1 of Sakamoto also shows sidewall spacer
`9'. Id. at 30. Petitioner points out that Sakamoto describes the plug layer 15
`is formed when polycrystalline silicon layer 15a is deposited to fill opening
`16 and is etched leaving a portion of the layer only within opening 16. Id. at
`29–30 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 72). An N type impurity is introduced into
`the polycrystalline silicon plug layer 15 to provide conductivity. Id. at 31
`(citing Ex. 1103, col. 6, ll. 49–col. 7, l. 14). Via 16 exposes a portion of gate
`electrode 6 and diffusion region (source/drain region 7), so that when plug
`layer 15 is present, contact between the gate and diffusion region provides
`electrical communication. Id. at 30–31.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`Element (b) of claim 7, as identified by Petitioner, recites that the
`semiconductor structure comprises the diffusion region in a silicon substrate.
`Petitioner contends that Sakamoto teaches that the diffusion region
`constitutes source/drain region 7 and that the diffusion region contains
`dopants implanted in the silicon substrate. Pet. 33–34. Figure 1 of
`Sakamoto delineates a main silicon substrate 1 and a p-well region 2 above
`it. Petitioner acknowledges that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a p-well
`region 2, but contends that the p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.
`Id. at 35–37. Petitioner argues that p-well region 2 is formed below the top
`surface of silicon substrate and a source/drain region 7 is formed in the
`silicon substrate below the top surface of p-well region 2. Id. at 32–33.
`Petitioner contends that p-well region 2 is part of the silicon substrate
`because p-well region 2 is formed in the surface of the substrate. Id. at 35
`(citing Ex. 1103, col. 7, ll. 17–21, disclosing that a “p type impurity is
`implanted in a main surface of a silicon substrate” and that the “implanted p
`type impurity is diffused to the depth of about 2–3 µm from the main surface
`of substrate 1 by heat treatment to form a p well 2”). Petitioner also notes
`that during prosecution, the applicant for the ’924 Patent did not dispute the
`Examiner’s assertion that a diffusion region is formed within a silicon
`substrate and argued that the cited reference (Kinoshita) disclosed buried
`ground layers in the substrate. Id. at 35–37 (citing Ex. 1113 and Ex. 1114).
`Petitioner further contends that in at least one embodiment (the fifth
`embodiment shown in Figure 25), Sakamoto does not delineate the p-well
`region, stating that an n-type impurity region is formed on a surface of the
`silicon substrate. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1103, col 12, ll. 57–58). Whether or
`not there is a distinction to be drawn between Sakamoto’s first four
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`embodiments, which all delineate p-well region 2 and Sakamoto’s fifth
`embodiment in which p-well region 2 is not shown, based on the record in
`this proceeding, we are persuaded that the evidence supports Petitioner’s
`contention that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.
`Based on this analysis, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that
`Sakamoto discloses element (a) depositing an electrically conducting
`material in a via exposing at least a portion of a gate, a sidewall spacer
`adjacent to said gate and a portion of a diffusion region such that said
`electrically conducting material contacts and provides electrical
`communication between said gate and said diffusion region. As to element
`(b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a
`semiconductor structure comprising a diffusion region in a silicon substrate.
`Element (c) of claim 7, as designated by Petitioner, recites “said gate
`being on said substrate juxtaposed to but not contacting said diffusion
`region.” Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates field oxide film 4 and p+ isolation
`layer 3 formed on a prescribed region of a surface of p-well 2 for isolation.
`Ex. 1103, col. 7, ll. 22–23. Oxide film 5 is formed on the surface of the p-
`well 2. Id. at col. 7, ll. 23–24. A polycide film of polysilicon and refractory
`metal silicide is deposited on the surface of oxide film 5 and patterned to
`form gate electrode 6. Id. at col. 7, ll. 24–31.
`Petitioner contends that the placement of the gate electrode in
`Sakamoto over a field oxide layer constitutes forming the gate on said
`substrate because the applicant for the ’924 Patent relied on conception of
`the same physical construct during prosecution in a Declaration under
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (“Rule 131 Declaration”). Pet. 38 n.7 (citing Ex. 1106,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`Ex. A).4 The specification of the ’924 Patent does not discuss forming the
`gate electrode on the substrate in detail, stating only that a photoresist layer
`used to pattern and etch openings for the diffusion regions is removed and
`that polysilicon then deposited on substrate 74 is etched to form gate
`electrode 74. Ex. 1101, col. 3, ll. 49–58. In this context, the statements in
`applicant’s Rule 131 Declaration provide context to the meaning of “said
`gate being on said substrate.” In order to antedate a reference, Patent Owner
`demonstrated an invention in which the gate electrode is formed over a field
`oxide layer. Therefore, based on the complete record before us, we agree
`with Petitioner that taken in the proper context, notwithstanding the presence
`of the field oxide layer 4 and field oxide film 5, Sakamoto discloses the gate
`electrode formed on the substrate.
`Petitioner also argues that the gate in Sakamoto is juxtaposed from but
`is not in direct contact with the diffusion region, as recited in claim 7. Pet.
`39–41. Petitioner contends that oxide film 5 separates the gate from the
`diffusion region, noting that there would be no need for the claimed plug to
`connect the gate and the diffusion region if this were not the case. Id. at 40.
`Sakamoto states:
`The sectional structure of the memory cell shown in FIG. 1 [of
`Sakamoto] is the same as the sectional structure of a
`conventional memory cell shown in FIG. 28 except for a
`structure of direct contact. . . .
`Direct contact portion 10 includes an n type
`polycrystalline silicon plug layer 15 . . . directly connected to
`the n+ source/drain region 7 and gate electrode 6 . . . embedded
`within opening 16.
`
`
`4 Petitioner appears to be citing to the center figure at the top of page 11 of
`Ex. 1106.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`Ex. 1103, col. 6, ll. 42–58. Figures 1 and 28 in Sakamoto illustrate that
`because of the presence of oxide film 5, in the absence of plug 15, there is
`no direct contact between gate 6 and source/drain region 7. Therefore, on
`this record we agree that Petitioner has shown Sakamoto discloses element
`(c) of claim 7, as designated by Petitioner.
`Petitioner designates as element (d) of claim 7 the recitation “said
`sidewall spacer being disposed above said diffusion region.” Pet. 41.
`Petitioner designates as element (e) of claim 7 the recitation of “said via
`being in an insulating material on said gate.” Id. at 43. Petitioner cites
`insulating layer 9 shown in Figure 1 of Sakamoto as disclosing element (e)
`of claim 1 of the ’924 Patent. Id. Petitioner cites sidewall spacer 9' in
`Figure 1 of Sakamoto as disclosing the claimed sidewall spacer. Id. at 41–
`42. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments because Sakamoto
`discloses interlevel insulating layer 9 disposed above the gate and diffusion
`region and that an opening 16 for direct contact formed using a
`photolithography method leaves sidewall spacer 9'. Ex. 1103, col. 7, ll. 47–
`51.
`
`Based on this analysis and the record in this proceeding, Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sakamoto discloses
`all of the elements of claim 7.
`Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites that the diffusion region is
`an N+ or P+ region. Petitioner notes, and we agree, that Sakamoto discloses
`the diffusion region as an N+ region because it expressly refers to an n+
`source drain region 7. Pet. 44.
`Claim 9 depends from claim 7 and recites that the insulating material
`is selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide and silicon nitride.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing
`BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating
`that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 44–45 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶
`91; Ex. 1115, at 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are
`persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.
`Claim 15 depends from claim 7 and recites “said gate is a polysilicon
`gate.” Claim 17 depends from claim 7 and recites “said gate comprises
`polysilicon.” Petitioner notes, and we agree, that Sakamoto discloses the
`gate electrode 6 is formed of polycrystalline silicon, which is another name
`for polysilicon. Id. at 46.
`In consideration of the above, the record in this proceeding
`demonstrates that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 7–9, 15 and 17 are anticipated by Sakamoto.
`
`Obviousness Over Sakamoto and Cederbaum
`Petitioner contends that claims 10–12 are obvious over the
`combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum. Comparing Figure 7 of
`Cederbaum to Figure 3B of the ’924 Patent, Petitioner contends that
`Cederbaum discloses a structure that includes components arranged in a way
`that is identical to those of Fig. 3B of the ’924 Patent. Pet. 23. The figure
`below is Petitioner’s comparison of Fig 7 of Cederbaum on the left and
`Figure 3B of the ’924 Patent on the right.
`
`
`5 Although Petitioner does not cite Ex. 1115 as a basis for its challenge that
`claim 9 is anticipated by Sakamoto, we understand Petitioner’s citation to
`demonstrate that one of ordinary skill would infer the limitation is disclosed
`by Sakamoto. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir.
`1991).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Comparison of Fig. 7 of Cederbaum
`to Fig 3B of the ’924 Patent
`Id. at 22. Petitioner emphasizes that, like the ’924 Patent, Cederbaum
`concerns the use of a contact stud or conducting plug to fill an opening with
`a sidewall spacer to directly connect a source/drain region to a gate
`electrode. Id.
`Claim 10 recites “said electrically conducting plug is a metal plug.”
`Claim 11 recites “said electrically plug is preferably a refractory metal
`plug.” Claim 12 recites “said electrically conducting plug is formed of a
`material selected from the group consisting of titanium, tantalum,
`molybdenum and tungsten.” Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at
`column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 47–
`48. Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because
`they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same
`problem, i.e., stacking transistors in a SRAM. Pet. 49. Petitioner points out
`that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting
`plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a
`diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 50–51. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s
`disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the
`conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a
`conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 51–52. In view of these
`disclosures, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to one
`of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a
`refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 48–49.
`The complete record before us supports Petitioner’s contentions. In
`consideration of the above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 10–12 are
`obvious over the combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
`CONCLUSION
`Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that:
`Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 of the ’924 Patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Sakamoto; and
`Claims 10–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over the combination of Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the above it is:
`ORDERED that claims 7–10, 12, 15, and 17 of the ’924 Patent are
`unpatentable; and
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00290
`Patent 5,965,924
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED, that because this is a final written decision,
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Grant K. Rowan
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, LLP
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`yung-hoon.ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Andriy Lytvyn
`Anton J. Hopen
`Nicholas Pfeifer
`Smith & Hopen, P.A.
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com
`
`
`
`17
`
`