Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01367
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘980 PATENT ..................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Background........................................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ‘980 Patent .................................................................................. 3
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘980 Patent ............................................. 7
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Proper Construction Of “An Interlayer Insulating Film” ............. 9
`
`The Proper Construction Of “A Metal Wire Layer Including
`Plural Metal Wires” ..........................................................................11
`
`The Proper Construction Of “At Least A Part Of Areas
`Among Said Metal Wires In Said Metal Wire Layer” .......................14
`
`The Proper Constructions Of “Said Bonding Pad” In/Covers
`“Said Opening And Said Second Dielectric Film Of Said
`Surface Protecting Film Completely Cover Said First
`Dielectric Film So As Not To Expose Said First Dielectric Film.” ....15
`
`E.
`
`The Proper Constructions Of “Wherein Said Bonding Pad
`Covers Said Opening” Recited In Claim 35 ......................................17
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART ...............................................................................................19
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,659, 201 (“Wollesen”) ..........................................20
`
`1. Wollesen’s Invention Relates To High Conductivity
`Interconnection Lines..............................................................20
`
`2. Wollesen’s Invention Teaches Away From Invention
`Claimed In The ‘980 Patent ....................................................22
`
`3. Wollesen Fig. 1 Does Not Disclose “An Interlayer
`Insulating Film” ......................................................................24
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`4. Wollesen Fig. 1 Does Not Disclose A “Metal Wire Layer
`Including Plural Metal Wires” ................................................24
`
`5. Wollesen Fig. 1 Does Not Disclose “Areas Among Said
`Metal Wires In Said Metal Wire Layer”..................................25
`
`6. Wollesen Discloses That The Bonding Pad And The
`Wire Bonding Layer In Fig. 1 Are Distinct Elements. .............26
`
`7. Wollesen Fig. 1 Does Not Disclose The Bonding Pad
`And The Second Dielectric Film Completely Covering
`The First Dielectric Film. ........................................................28
`
`8. Wollesen Fig. 1 Does Not Identify Element 10 An
`“Interconnect Layer” ...............................................................29
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,527,737 (“Jeng”) .................................................32
`
`VI. ARGUMENT..............................................................................................33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of Argument .....................................................................33
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That There Is A Reasonable
`Likelihood That At Least One Of The Challenged Claims Is
`Unpatentable For Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. §102 ......................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Wollesen Discloses
`The Claimed Interlayer Insulating Film ..................................36
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Wollesen Discloses
`The Claimed Metal Wire Layer Including Plural
`Metal Wires ............................................................................38
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Wollesen Discloses
`The Claimed Areas Among Said Metal Wires In Said
`Metal Wire Layer ....................................................................41
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Wollesen Discloses
`A Bonding Pad And A Second Dielectric Film Completely
`Covering A First Dielectric Film. ............................................43
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Wollesen Discloses
`The Claimed Bonding Pad That Covers Said Opening ............45
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That There Is A Reasonable
`Likelihood That At Least One Of The Challenged Claims Is
`Unpatentable For Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. §103 ......................49
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................52
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 34, 35
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................35
`
`In re Arkley,
`455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972) ...............................................................................34
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................49
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ..............................................................................36
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................36
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..........................................................................34
`
`In Re: Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`__ F.3d __, Appeal No. 2015-1300 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) ..................... 1, 2, 50
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................49
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 35, 40
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al. v. Optical Devices, LLC,
`IPR2014-00302, Paper 9 .............................................................................. 34, 40
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 8
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Symnatec Corp. v. RPost Comunications Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00357, Paper 14 ............................................................................ 34, 40
`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ........................................................................................... 1, 33, 34
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ......................................................................................... 33, 49, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. §313 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) .................................................................................................49
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(d) ................................................................................................49
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107 .................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108 ....................................................................................... 1, 34, 50
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`“Inter.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30, 2016.
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inter.
`
`“Intra.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 30, 2016.
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,432,811.
`
`“Layer.” OxfordDictionaries.com. Accessed September 28,
`2016. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/layer.
`
`
`Exhibit 2001:
`
`
`Exhibit 2002:
`
`
`Exhibit 2003:
`
`Exhibit 2004:
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge” or “Patent Owner”),
`
`submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`
`(“TSMC” or “Petitioner”) on July 8, 2016, against U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`(Exhibit 1001, “the ‘980 Patent”). The Petition challenges the patentability of
`
`claims 18, 19, 30-32, 34-36, 47-49, and 51 of the ‘980 patent (“the challenged
`
`claims”), but does not challenge claims 20-29, 33, 37-46, and 50. This Preliminary
`
`Response is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. §313 and 37 C.F.R. §42.107.
`
`The Petition asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable over (1) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,659,201 (“Wollesen”)(Exhibit 1006) under 35 U.S.C. §102, or (2)
`
`Wollesen in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,737 (“Jeng”)(Exhibit 1007). Petition,
`
`p.18.
`
`As explained herein, the Petition fails to demonstrate that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. §42.108. The Federal Circuit has recently held that “the
`
`Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party.” In Re:
`
`Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., __ F.3d __, Appeal No. 2015-1300, p.26
`
`(Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016). The Court stated further that “while the PTO has broad
`
`authority to establish procedures for revisiting earlier-granted patents in IPRs, that
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`authority is not so broad that it allows the PTO to raise, address, and decide
`
`unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner and not supported by
`
`record evidence.” Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner need not respond to arguments
`
`not raised in the Petition.
`
` As discussed herein, the Petition fails to establish that Wollesen discloses
`
`several of the limitations recited in the independent claims, i.e., claims 18 and 35,
`
`of the ‘980 patent. For example, the Petition fails to establish that the Wollesen Fig.
`
`1, the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner, discloses (1) the “interlayer insulating
`
`film” recited in claims 18 and 35; (2) the “metal wire layer including plural metal
`
`wires” recited in claims 18 and 35; (3) the “areas among said metal wires in said
`
`metal wire layer” recited in claims 18 and 35; (4) the bonding pad and the second
`
`dielectric film completely covering the first dielectric film, recited in claims 18 and
`
`35; and, (5) the “bonding pad that covers said opening” recited in claim 35. Thus,
`
`Wollesen does not anticipate any of the challenged claims.
`
`Additionally, the Petition’s limited obviousness argument fails to
`
`demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Thus, for at least the reasons set forth
`
`herein, the Board should deny institution of this IPR proceeding.
`
`2
`
`

`
`II. THE ‘980 PATENT
`
`A. Background
`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`The subject matter of the ‘980 patent relates to semiconductor devices and
`
`maintaining their reliability and performance. More particularly, the ‘980 patent
`
`relates to improvement in the structures of a bonding pad and a surface protective
`
`film, and decreasing parasitic capacitance between metal wires with a small pitch.
`
`Parasitic capacitance is undesirable because it can “increase signal delay
`
`times, crosstalk, and power dissipation in the integrated circuit.” Petition, p.6.
`
`Parasitic capacitance can be caused by filling in the areas between the metal wires
`
`with a small pitch with a material having a large dielectric constant.
`
`Moisture absorption is also is undesirable because it can cause a similar
`
`wiring delay problem.
`
`The ‘980 patent discloses novel solutions to overcome these problems, i.e.,
`
`to reduce parasitic capacitance and suppress moisture absorption.
`
`B. The ‘980 Patent
`
`The semiconductor device disclosed in the ‘980 patent comprises a
`
`semiconductor substrate bearing semiconductor elements; an interlayer insulating
`
`film formed on the semiconductor substrate; a metal wire layer including plural
`
`metal wires formed on the interlayer insulating film; a surface protecting film
`
`including a first dielectric film with a small dielectric constant for filling at least a
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`part of areas among the metal wires in the metal wire layer and a second dielectric
`
`film with a higher moisture absorption preventing function than the first dielectric
`
`film for covering the metal wire layer and the first dielectric film, the second
`
`dielectric film having a function of suppressing moisture absorption of the first
`
`dielectric film; an opening for a bonding pad formed in the surface protecting film;
`
`and a bonding pad formed in and/or covering the opening for obtaining an external
`
`electrical connection, wherein the bonding pad and the second dielectric film
`
`completely cover the first dielectric film to suppress moisture absorption.
`
`An embodiment of the claimed invention is depicted in Fig. 1 (reproduced
`
`below):
`
`As shown above, metal wires 12 on top of interlayer insulating film 11
`
`comprise a metal wire layer. The wires are formed by stacking and then patterning
`
`a Ti film and the like. See Exhibit 1001, 7:29-48. A surface protecting film 20 is
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`formed so as to cover the interlayer insulating film 11 and the metal wires 12. Id.
`
`The surface protecting film 20 is a composite film including a buried insulating
`
`film 13 with a small dielectric constant and a passivation film 14 with a large
`
`dielectric constant and high moisture absorption resistance (such as a silicon nitride
`
`film). Id. In areas among the metal wires 12 directly below the surface protecting
`
`film 20, the buried insulating film 13 with a small dielectric constant is formed at
`
`least in an area with the smallest wire pitch. Id. A bonding pad 15 covers opening
`
`20a of the surface protecting film 20 of the composite film. Id. The bonding pad
`
`15 in this embodiment completely covers the side faces of the buried insulating
`
`film 13 with a small dielectric constant within the opening 20a and is drawn above
`
`the passivation film 14. Id. An alternative embodiment of the claimed invention is
`
`depicted in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 (reproduced below), the top surface of the bonding
`
`pad is at the same level as the passivation film 14 and extends across the opening
`
`20a:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Another alternative embodiment of the claimed invention is depicted in Fig.
`
`7 (reproduced below):
`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`In the above embodiment, there is an opening 20a in the composite film 20
`
`and the top surface of the bonding pad 15 is placed “at a lower level than the top
`
`surface of the passivation film 14.” Id., 11:51-55.
`
`The above embodiments of the ‘980 patent have an interlayer insulating
`
`film, a metal wire layer including plural metal wires formed on the interlayer
`
`insulating film, a surface protecting film comprising first and second dielectric
`
`films, and a bonding pad, arranged such that the bonding pad and second dielectric
`
`film completely cover the first dielectric film. The first dielectric film has a small
`
`dielectric constant and the second dielectric film has a higher dielectric constant
`
`than the first dielectric layer. The second dielectric film also has a higher moisture
`
`absorption preventing function than the first dielectric film and functions to
`
`suppress moisture absorption of the first dielectric film.
`
`6
`
`

`
`C. Prosecution History Of The ‘980 Patent
`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`The ‘980 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,232,656 (“the ‘656 patent”).
`
`More than one reissue application has been filed for the ‘656 patent. The reissue
`
`applications are application numbers Ser. No. 11/984,551 (the present application)
`
`and Ser. No. 10/438,348 (now RE39,932). Reissue application Ser. No.
`
`11/984,551 is a continuation reissue application of reissue application Ser. No.
`
`10/438,348 filed May 15, 2003, which is a reissue application of 09/387,834, filed
`
`September 1, 1999 (now the ‘656 patent), which is a divisional application of
`
`08/925,442, filed September 8, 1997 (now U.S. Patent No. 5,989,992). As such,
`
`the claimed subject matter of the ‘980 patent has been examined several times.
`
`Included in the prior art before the Examiner and identified on the ‘980
`
`patent is U.S. Patent No. 5,527,737 (“Jeng”). Exhibit 1001, Certificate Of
`
`Correction, p.36.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the application
`
`leading to the ‘980 patent was filed would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree,
`
`and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and
`
`fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`As explained further herein, the Petition does not provide adequate
`
`reasoning based on rational underpinnings for why a POSITA would have
`
`modified the alleged prior art to arrive at the features of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ‘980 patent will expire on September 8, 2017, which is within 18
`
`months from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition, entered
`
`on July 12, 2016. As such, a district court-type claim construction approach under
`
`the standard provided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`should be applied in this IPR in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)(effective
`
`May 2, 2016). Under the “Phillips standard,” claim terms are given “the meaning
`
`that [a] term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention.” Id. Patent Owner timely filed a Motion for District Court-
`
`Type Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) on August 2, 2016 (Paper
`
`No. 6).
`
`The Petition does not provide definitions for any of the claim terms. There
`
`are two independent claims within the set of challenged claims, i.e., claims 18 and
`
`35. Patent Owner asserts that the following claim terms should be construed
`
`consistent with their ordinary and accustomed meanings, for purposes of this
`
`preliminary response.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`Terms/phrases recited in independent claims 18 and 35:
`
`• an interlayer insulating film;
`
`• a metal wire layer including plural metal wires;
`
`• at least a part of areas among said metal wires in said metal wire layer;
`
`• said bonding pad and second dielectric film of said surface protecting film
`
`completely cover said first dielectric film so as not to expose said first
`
`dielectric film.
`
`Additional terms/phrases recited in independent claim 35 but not claim 18:
`
`• wherein said bonding pad covers said opening.
`
`A. The Proper Construction Of “An Interlayer Insulating Film”
`
`The claim limitation “interlayer insulating film” should be accorded its
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning, i.e., “an insulating film located between but
`
`not within layers.” This construction is supported by the specification. See
`
`Exhibit 1001, Abstract; 1:39-47; 1:58-65; 2:52-53; 3:18-20; 4:26-30; 7:15-28;
`
`12:24-33; Figs. 1-17.
`
`Every figure in the ‘980 patent depicting the interlayer insulating film shows
`
`that it is below the metal wire layer and not within the metal wire layer. Exhibit
`
`1001, Figs. 1-17. For example, Fig. 1 (reproduced below) shows that interlayer
`
`insulating film 11 has a substantially smooth top surface and does not fill the
`
`spaces between the metal wires 12 that are formed on the interlayer insulating film.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, every figure in the ‘980 patent depicts the interlayer insulating
`
`film entirely above, and not within, any other adjacent layer. For example, Fig. 1
`
`(reproduced above) shows that the insulating film 11 has a substantially smooth
`
`bottom surface and does not fill any areas in an adjacent layer.
`
`Additionally, the specification uses a different term, “buried insulating
`
`film,” when describing a film that is located within the metal wire layer. Exhibit
`
`1001, 8:4-9; 10:44-49; 13:39-47; 15:7-16; 15:52-57; Fig. 1 (element 13). This
`
`term, which describes a film that is buried within a metal wire layer, contrasts with
`
`the claim term “interlayer insulating film,” which describes a film that is located
`
`between layers and not buried within another layer.
`
`This claim interpretation is further supported by dictionary definitions and
`
`extrinsic evidence. The dictionary provides several definitions for the prefix
`
`“inter,” the most applicable in context of the ‘980 patent being “located between”
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`or “between the limits of.”1 The prefix “intra” means within, in, or into
`
`something.2 Thus, a POSITA would have understood an interlayer insulation film
`
`to be different from an intralayer dielectric, the interlayer insulating film located
`
`between but not within an adjacent layer. See also U.S. Patent No. 6,432,811, filed
`
`December 20, 2000 (“The term intralayer dielectric as used in this field is
`
`understood to refer to the dielectric material disposed between interconnect lines
`
`on a given interconnect level. That is, an intralayer dielectric is found between
`
`adjacent interconnect lines, rather than vertically above or below those
`
`interconnect lines.” Exhibit 2003, 3:48-53.
`
`Accordingly, the claim limitation “interlayer insulating film” should be
`
`construed to mean “an insulating film located between but not within layers.”
`
`B.
`
`The Proper Construction Of “A Metal Wire Layer Including
`Plural Metal Wires”
`
`
`The claim limitation “a metal wire layer including plural metal wires”
`
`should be accorded its ordinary and accustomed meaning, i.e., “a metal wire layer
`
`including more than one metal wire.” As such, this claim limitation requires two
`
`or more wires located in the same layer.
`
`A layer is defined as “a sheet, quantity, or thickness of material, typically
`
`
`
`1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inter; Exhibit 2001.
`
`2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra; Exhibit 2002.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`one of several, covering a surface or body.”3 “Conventional semiconductor
`
`devices typically comprise a semiconductor substrate, normally made of
`
`monocrystalline silicon, and a plurality of dielectric and conductive layers formed
`
`thereon.” Exhibit 1006, 1:13-15 (emphasis added).
`
`The ‘980 patent states that a “plurality of metal wires are formed on an
`
`underlying interlayer insulating film.” Exhibit 1001, Abstract. Examples of wires
`
`in an integrated circuit include “conductive lines separated by interwiring spacings,
`
`and a plurality of interconnect lines, such as bus lines, bit lines, word lines and
`
`logic interconnect lines.” Exhibit 1006, 1:15-19. A conductive layer is not
`
`synonymous with a metal wire or a metal wire layer. A conductive layer may or
`
`may not contain metal wires, however, metal wires are not inherently present in a
`
`conductive layer.
`
`The phrase “metal wire layer” should also be accorded its ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning to mean a layer containing one or more metal wires.
`
`
`
`3 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/layer; Exhibit
`
`2004.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 1 of the ‘980 patent (reproduced above), a plurality of
`
`metal wires 12 on top of interlayer insulating film 11 comprise a metal wire layer.
`
`It is important not to confuse the “metal wire layer” recited in the claims of
`
`the ‘980 patent with the “wire bonding layer” disclosed in Wollesen. “The
`
`uppermost conductive layer which is connected externally is typically referred to
`
`as the wire bonding layer.” Exhibit 1006, 1:45-47. Thus, reference to the “wire
`
`bonding layer” in Wollesen means the uppermost conductive layer of the IC (e.g.,
`
`conductive layer 10).
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`The “wire” referred to in the “wire bonding layer” in Wollesen is an external
`
`wire connected to the IC. Wollesen Fig. 1 (reproduced above) depicts external
`
`wire 15. Id., 2:14-15. Specifically, external wire 15 is joined to bonding pad 14.
`
`Id.,1:43-46. Thus, a wire bonding layer is simply a conductive layer which may or
`
`may not contain metal wires within the layer, i.e., a wire bonding layer is not
`
`inherently a “metal wire layer.”
`
`Accordingly, the claim limitation “a metal wire layer including plural metal
`
`wires” should construed to mean a metal wire layer including more than one metal
`
`wire.
`
`C. The Proper Construction Of “At Least A Part Of Areas Among
`Said Metal Wires In Said Metal Wire Layer”
`
`As noted above, the challenged independent claims recite “a metal wire
`
`layer including plural metal wires.” The phrase “areas among said metal wires”
`
`appearing in the claim limitation “at least a part of areas among said metal wires in
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`said metal wire layer” refers to plural “areas.” For there to be a plurality of “areas”
`
`among said metal wires, there must be at least three metal wires so that there can
`
`be a plurality of “areas” among said wires, i.e., at least two “areas” among three
`
`metal wires. This claim construction is consistent with the specification which
`
`repeatedly refers to the plural “areas” among the metal wires. See Exhibit 1001,
`
`3:8-9; 3:54-55; 4:45-46; 7:39-40; 8:62-63; 10:57; 12:4-5; 13:42; 15:16-17; 16:42-
`
`43; 16:60; 17:2; 18:29. Additionally, Figs. 1 through 7 of the ‘980 patent (Exhibit
`
`1001) each depict more than three metal wires, such that each figure also depicts a
`
`plurality of “areas” among the metal wires.
`
`Accordingly, the phrase “areas among said metal wires” appearing in the
`
`claim limitation “at least a part of areas among said metal wires in said metal wire
`
`layer” should be construed to mean a plurality of areas.
`
`D. The Proper Constructions Of “Said Bonding Pad” In/Covers
`“Said Opening And Said Second Dielectric Film Of Said Surface
`Protecting Film Completely Cover Said First Dielectric Film So
`As Not To Expose Said First Dielectric Film.”
`
`Claims 18 and 35 of the ‘980 patent recite “said bonding pad” is either in or
`
`covers “said opening and said second dielectric film of said surface protecting film
`
`completely cover said first dielectric film so as not to expose said first dielectric
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`film.”4 This phrase should be accorded its ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`which would be “the bonding pad and the second dielectric film collectively cover
`
`the first dielectric film so that it is not exposed to above.”
`
`This claim construction is supported by the specification. For example, Fig.
`
`1 of the ‘980 patent (reproduced below) shows passivation film 14 (second
`
`dielectric film) and bonding pad 15 completely covering buried insulating film 13
`
`(first dielectric film):
`
`
`
`The ‘980 patent states: “Moreover, in order to suppress moisture absorption
`
`through exposed portions of the passivation film 14 and the buried insulating film
`
`13 therebelow within the opening 20a for the bonding pad 15, the exposed portions
`
`are completely covered with the bonding pad 15.” Exhibit 1001, 9:2-6 (emphasis
`
`
`
`4 Claim 18 recites “said bonding pad in said opening …” whereas claim 35 recites
`
`“wherein said bonding pad covers said opening …”
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`added). Other embodiments disclosed in the ‘980 patent similarly show the
`
`bonding pad and the passivation film 14 (second dielectric film) collectively
`
`covering the buried insulating film 13 (first dielectric film) so that it is not exposed
`
`to above. E.g., see Id., Figs. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 15.
`
`Patent Owner’s claim construction is further supported by the plain language
`
`of the claims, which requires that “said bonding pad…and said second dielectric
`
`film…completely cover said first dielectric film” (claim 18) or “said bonding pad
`
`covers said opening and said second dielectric film...completely covers said first
`
`dielectric film” (claim 35)(emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the claim limitations “said bonding pad [in/covers] said
`
`opening and said second dielectric film of said surface protecting film completely
`
`cover[s] said first dielectric film so as not to expose said first dielectric film”
`
`should be construed to mean the bonding pad and the second dielectric film
`
`collectively cover the first dielectric film so that it is not exposed to above.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`The Proper Constructions Of “Wherein Said Bonding Pad Covers
`Said Opening” Recited In Claim 35
`
`Claim 35 of the ‘980 patent recites “wherein said bonding pad covers said
`
`opening and said second dielectric film of said surface protecting film completely
`
`covers said first dielectric film so as not to expose said first dielectric film.”
`
`(Emphasis added). The phrase “wherein said bonding pad covers said opening”
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`should be accorded its ordinary and accustomed meaning in context with the
`
`disclosure of the ‘980 patent, which means “wherein said bonding pad extends
`
`across said opening.”
`
`The ‘980 patent discloses several embodiments showing a bonding pad that
`
`covers the opening. For example, the embodiment depicted in Fig.1 of the ‘980
`
`patent (reproduced below) depicts the bonding pad drawn above the passivation
`
`film 14 so as to cover the opening 20a:
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 clearly shows the bonding pad 15 extending across the opening 20a
`
`thereby covering it. Fig. 5 of the ‘980 patent depicts another embodiment where a
`
`bonding pad extends across the opening so that the bonding pad covers the
`
`opening. In Fig. 5 (reproduced below), the top surface of the bonding pad is at the
`
`same level as the passivation film 14 and extends across the opening 20a:
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`
`The embodiment of Fig. 5, like the embodiment of Fig. 1, depicts the
`
`bonding pad 15 extending across the opening 20a. Other figures of the ‘980 patent
`
`similarly depict the bonding pad (element 15) extending across the opening
`
`(element 20a) in the surface protecting film (element 20). Exhibit 1001, Figs. 3, 7,
`
`8, 10, 12, 14, 16.
`
`Accordingly, the phrase “wherein said bonding pad covers said opening”
`
`should be construed to mean “wherein said bonding pad extends across said
`
`opening.”
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are anticipated by Wollesen
`
`(Exhibit 1006), or in the alternative would have been obvious over the combination
`
`of Wollesen in view of Jeng (Exhibit 1007). Petition, p.18. Although other
`
`documents are mentioned in the Petition, they are not considered part of the
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-1367 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`proposed rejections, and