UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Xilinx, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,969,915
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Xilinx, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,969,915
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ iv
`
`Note Regarding Page Citations ........................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 1
`
`A. Real party-in-interest ................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Related matters .......................................................................................... 1
`
`C. Lead and back-up counsel and service information .................................. 2
`
`D. Grounds for standing ................................................................................. 2
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE PATENT AND
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES OF THE PRESENT PETITION ........................ 2
`
`A. Background of the technology .................................................................. 2
`
`B. The claimed subject matter of the `915 patent .......................................... 5
`
`C. Brief introduction to the prior art of the present petition .......................... 9
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 13
`
`A. Claims for which review is requested ..................................................... 13
`
`B. Claim construction ................................................................................... 13
`
`C. Statutory grounds for challenges ............................................................. 17
`
`D. The two grounds for challenges are not cumulative ............................... 17
`
`E. Level of ordinary skill ............................................................................. 19
`
`V. CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 OF THE `915 PATENT ARE
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`UNPATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART ............................................... 19
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 are unpatentable as being
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kawashima ................................. 19
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Kawashima ................................................................. 20
`
`2. Detailed analysis of Claim 1 ........................................................... 22
`
`3. Detailed analysis of Claim 2 ........................................................... 32
`
`4. Detailed analysis of Claim 6 ........................................................... 33
`
`5. Detailed analysis of Claim 8 ........................................................... 34
`
`6. Detailed analysis of Claim 61 ......................................................... 35
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 are unpatentable as being
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Liu ............................................... 45
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Liu .............................................................................. 45
`
`2. Detailed analysis of Claim 1 ........................................................... 49
`
`3. Detailed analysis of Claim 2 ........................................................... 59
`
`4. Detailed analysis of Claim 6 ........................................................... 59
`
`5. Detailed analysis of Claim 8 ........................................................... 61
`
`6. Detailed analysis of Claim 61 ......................................................... 62
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 72
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`February 1, 2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915 to Tago et al.
`
`Declaration of Peter Elenius Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Peter Elenius.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,669,077 to Kawashima et al.
`
`Liu et al., Electron microscopy study of interfacial reaction between
`eutectic and Cu/Ni(V)/Al thin film metallization, Journal of Applied
`Physics, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Jan. 15, 2000), pp. 750-754.
`
`R. J. Klein Wassink, Soldering in Electronics (2d ed. 1989), p. 196.
`
`John H. Lau, Flip Chip Technologies (1995), pp. 1-3.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`
`Note Regarding Page Citations
`For exhibits that include suitable page numbers as originally published,
`
`Petitioner’s citations are to those original page numbers and not to the page
`
`numbers added for compliance with 37 CFR § 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Xilinx, Inc., files this petition to institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915 to Tago et al. (Ex. 1001, “the
`
``915 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. The `915 Patent, titled
`
`“Semiconductor Device, Manufacturing Method and Apparatus for the Same” was
`
`issued on November 29, 2005, with a priority claim dating back to no earlier than
`
`January 15, 2001.1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real party-in-interest
`
`The petitioner and real party-in-interest is Xilinx, Inc. (“XILINX” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`B. Related matters
`
`The `915 Patent is involved in Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Civ.
`
`No. 5:17-cv-00509 (N.D. Ca.). To the best knowledge of Petitioner, the `915
`
`Patent is not involved in any other litigation matters or post-grant review
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`1 Petitioner notes that the `915 Patent claims priority to two Japanese applications.
`
`Petitioner assumes solely for the purpose of this response that the `915 Patent is
`
`entitled to the priority date of January 15, 2001. Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`challenge this priority date in this or other proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`C. Lead and back-up counsel and service information
`
`Lead Counsel is Steven H. Slater (972-732-1001, sslater@slatermatsil.com,
`
`Reg. No. 35,361). Back-up Counsel is Roger C. Knapp (972-707-9022, rknapp@
`
`slatermatsil.com, Reg. No. 46,836). The address for all counsel is Slater Matsil,
`
`LLP, 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75252.
`
`D. Grounds for standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the `915 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE PATENT AND
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES OF THE PRESENT PETITION
`
`A discussion of the technology background is provided below, followed by a
`
`brief introduction of the claimed subject matter of the `915 Patent as well as the
`
`prior art of the present petition. A more-detailed discussion of these items is also
`
`provided in the included Declaration of Peter Elenius (“Elenius Decl.”, Exhibit
`
`1002), at ¶¶ 25-86.
`
`A. Background of the technology
`
`The `915 Patent is directed to flip-chip technologies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`14:1-5, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26, 31, 80. Generally, electronic devices, e.g.,
`
`transistors, etc., are formed on a semiconductor wafer and metallization layers are
`
`formed over the electronic devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 28. The metallization
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`layers are used to interconnect the electronic devices in order to form integrated
`
`circuits or dies. Id. The wafer is relatively large, and once the electronic devices
`
`and metallization layers are formed on the wafer, it is diced or separated into
`
`individual dies. Id. at ¶ 29. The individual dies are typically mounted to a
`
`packaging substrate and encapsulated in order to protect the dies from
`
`environmental damage and to aid in handling of the individual dies. Id. at ¶ 30.
`
`These packaged dies may be seen in today’s electronic devices, such as cell
`
`phones, televisions, etc. Id.
`
`There are many types of packaging technologies. Id. at ¶ 31. One type of
`
`packaging commonly used today and discussed in the `915 Patent is flip chip
`
`packaging. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 14:1-5, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 31. For flip
`
`chip packaging, the die is formed to include contact pads (e.g., power,
`
`input/output, etc.) along a surface of the die, which provide electrical contacts to
`
`the circuitry. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 31. Solder is placed on the contact pads, and
`
`then the solder is reflowed (melted) in order to attach the die to another substrate,
`
`such as a packaging substrate. Id. at ¶ 32.
`
`Direct bonding between the solder and the aluminum or copper contact pads,
`
`however, does not produce reliable bonds. Id. at ¶ 33. For example, aluminum is
`
`not wettable (i.e., capable of easily forming an intermetallic compound) with
`
`solder, which makes it very difficult to form a bond directly between aluminum
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`and solder. Id. Additionally, when solder is reflowed on a copper contact pad, the
`
`copper dissolves into the solder, which may destroy the metallization layers. Id.
`
`In order to address these problems, an under-bump metallization (UBM) is
`
`commonly used to provide a reliable bond between the solder and the contact pads
`
`of the die. Id. at ¶ 33. UBMs typically comprise layers with different functions,
`
`such as: an adhesion layer, a diffusion barrier layer, and a wettable layer. Id. at ¶
`
`34. The adhesion layer is formed over the contact pad (e.g., the copper or
`
`aluminum contact pad) and provides a bonding surface for additional UBM layers.
`
`Id. at ¶ 34. The diffusion barrier layer is formed over the adhesion layer and
`
`prevents diffusion of metals from either the contact pads or the solder. Id. at ¶ 34.
`
`The wettable layer, formed over the diffusion barrier layer, ensures that the UBM
`
`is wettable, or capable of easily forming an intermetallic compound, with the
`
`solder. Id. at ¶ 34.
`
`The `915 Patent asserts that previously known UBM structures were known
`
`to have reliability problems caused by a diffusion reaction in which tin of the
`
`solder erodes the metal (e.g., typically nickel or copper) of the UBM layer. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:41-49; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`The `915 Patent claims a specific composition of the resulting intermetallic
`
`compound to purportedly suppress “dissolving and diffusion of the UBM layer into
`
`the solder by forming the combined intermetallic compound layer at the UBM
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`layer interface.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 17:3-13; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 44.
`
`Unfortunately, however, the claimed composition of the intermetallic compound
`
`was well known in the art as detailed in the discussion of Challenge #1 and
`
`Challenge #2. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, pp. 39-72.
`
`B.
`
`The claimed subject matter of the `915 patent
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 of the `915 Patent are challenged in this petition,
`
`with claims 1 and 61 being independent claims. For reference, the claimed subject
`
`matter is discussed with reference to claim 1. Claims 2, 6, and 8 depend from
`
`claim 1, further limiting certain elements of claim 1 to specific materials.
`
`For ease of reference, we have annotated claim 1, setting off claim elements
`
`with reference numerals and colored text. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 51. Also
`
`throughout this petition, claim terms are presented in bold-italics.
`
`1. [1.0a] A semiconductor device having at least [1.0b] a solder
`bump formed of alloy solder on [1.0c] an under-bump layer
`including a first metal formed above [1.0d] a wiring layer,
`comprising:
`[1.1a] an intermetallic compound including [1.1b] a metal
`that is the main component of the alloy solder and [1.1c] a
`second metal different from the metal that is the main
`component of the alloy solder, [1.1d] said second metal
`also being different from a metal in the adjoining under-
`bump layer, wherein [1.1e] the intermetallic compound is
`formed between the solder bump and the adjoining under-
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`bump layer.
`
`To further illustrate the elements of claim 1, we have annotated Fig. 1, one
`
`of the exemplary embodiments of the `915 Patent. Each of the claim elements is
`
`identified using the same reference numerals and color scheme from claim 1
`
`above.
`
``915 Patent, Fig. 1, annotated
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 shows the structure of a semiconductor device (claim element [1.0a])
`
`having a solder bump 7 formed of an alloy solder (claim element [1.0b]). See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:57-59, 8:33-48; see also Ex.1002, ¶ 53. The solder bump 7 may
`
`be formed of a two-element alloy or a three-element alloy. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`9:27-36, 12:55-64, 14:13-23; see also Ex.1002, ¶ 53. More specifically, the solder
`
`bump 7 may be formed of a two-element eutectic solder alloy comprising 96.5
`
`weight % tin and 3.5 weight % silver or a three-element eutectic solder alloy
`
`comprising 96.5 weight % tin, 3.0 weight % silver, and 0.5 weight % copper. See,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`e.g., Ex. 1000, 8:44-48, 14:13-23, 14:61-64, 15:61-65; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 53.
`
`The `915 Patent further teaches that a metal that is the main component of the
`
`solder alloy making up solder bump 7 is tin. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:43-46, 6:1-9,
`
`8:6-8, 11:28-36; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 53.
`
`Fig. 1 also shows an under-bump layer (UBM layer 5) including a first
`
`metal (claim element [1.0c]). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:49-54, 8:65-9:20; see also Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 54. UBM layer 5 may be formed of nickel/vanadium alloy. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 8:49-54; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 54. UBM layer 5 may also be formed of
`
`nickel, nickel/phosphorous, nickel/tungsten, nickel/chrome, copper, or copper
`
`alloy. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:65-9:20; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 54.
`
`Fig. 1 shows a wiring layer (wiring 2) (claim element [1.0d]). See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 8:49-50; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 55. Wiring 2 may be formed of aluminum or
`
`an aluminum alloy. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:49-50; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 55. As
`
`shown in Fig. 1, the under-bump layer (UBM layer 5) is formed above the wiring
`
`layer (wiring 2). See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 55.
`
`Fig. 1 shows an intermetallic compound (combined solder alloy layer 6)
`
`(claim element [1.0a]). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:33-43; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 56. In an
`
`example, the `915 Patent teaches that the combined solder alloy layer 6 is a
`
`combination of a nickel/tin intermetallic compound and a copper/tin intermetallic
`
`compound. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:55-64, 13:13-24, 14:13-23; see also Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`56. Thus, the `915 Patent teaches that the intermetallic compound comprises tin,
`
`nickel, and copper. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 56. Combined solder alloy layer 6
`
`includes a metal that is the main component of the alloy solder (tin) (claim
`
`element [1.1b]) and a second metal (copper) different from the metal that is the
`
`main component of the alloy solder (tin) (claim element [1.1c]), said second
`
`metal (copper) also being different from a metal in the adjoining under-bump
`
`layer (nickel) (claim element [1.0d]). See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 56.
`
`Fig. 1 shows the intermetallic compound (combined solder alloy layer 6)
`
`formed between the solder bump 7 and the adjoining under-bump layer (UBM
`
`layer 5) (claim element [1.1e]). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:33-54; see also Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`57.
`
`All of these elements were known in the art; particularly, intermetallic
`
`compounds were necessarily used to connect solder bumps to under-bump layers
`
`in semiconductor devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 58.
`
`The purported novelty of the `915 Patent is the specific configuration of the
`
`intermetallic compound. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:51-56, 17:3-17; see also
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 58. Claim 1 recites that an intermetallic compound includes a metal
`
`that is the main component of the alloy solder (tin) and a second metal different
`
`from the metal that is the main component of the alloy solder (copper), said
`
`second metal also being different from a metal in the adjoining under-bump
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`layer (nickel), wherein the intermetallic compound is formed between the solder
`
`bump and the adjoining under-bump layer (claim elements [1.1a]-[1.1e]). See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 58.
`
`However, prior art publications that were not before the Examiner described
`
`this exact configuration such that an intermetallic compound formed between a
`
`solder bump and an under-bump layer included a metal different from both the
`
`main component of the alloy solder and the metal of the under-bump layer. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 59.
`
`C. Brief introduction to the prior art of the present petition
`
`There are two primary references in the present petition, both of which
`
`render the challenged claims unpatentable: U.S. Patent No. 6,669,077 to
`
`Kawashima et al. (“Kawashima,” Ex. 1004) and C. Y. Liu et al., Electron
`
`Microscopy Study of Interfacial Reaction Between Eutectic SnPb and Cu/Ni(V)/Al
`
`Thin Film Metallization, 87 J. Applied Physics 750 (2000) (“Liu,” Ex. 1005). See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 76, 81.
`
`An annotated version of Fig. 1 of Kawashima2 is shown along with
`
`annotated Fig. 1 of the `915 Patent, again using the same color scheme and
`
`reference numerals for claim 1 of the `915 Patent. Petitioner notes that Fig.1 of the
`
`2 Fig. 1 of Kawashima has been rotated 180 degrees to reflect the orientation used
`
`in the ‘915 Patent for ease of comparison. The labels have similarly been rotated.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
``915 Patent discloses an additional layer, contact layer 4, between the UBM layer 5
`
`and the wiring 2. The contact layer 4 is not recited in the challenged independent
`
`claims 1 and 61, but is recited in dependent claim 13. Claim 13 is not subject to
`
`the current petition, and as such, Petitioner does not address the contact layer 4
`
`herein.
`
``915 Patent, Fig. 1, annotated, compared to
`Kawashima, Fig. 1, annotated and rotated
`
`
`
`The above illustration clearly illustrates that Kawashima teaches all of the
`
`same claim elements as in Fig. 1 and claim 1 of the `915 Patent. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶ 76-81, pp. 39-56. Importantly, Kawashima also discloses the specific
`
`composition of the intermetallic compound as recited in claim 1:
`
`[1.1a] an intermetallic compound including [1.1b] a metal
`that is the main component of the alloy solder and [1.1c] a
`second metal different from the metal that is the main
`component of the alloy solder, [1.1d] said second metal
`also being different from a metal in the adjoining under-
`bump layer, wherein [1.1e] the intermetallic compound is
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`formed between the solder bump and the adjoining under-
`bump layer.
`
`In particular, as discussed in greater detail below, Kawashima teaches a
`
`solder layer 4 (the solder bump) formed of tin-silver-copper alloy with tin being
`
`the main component, an under-bump layer comprising nickel layer 2 (the under
`
`bump layer), and an intermetallic compound layer 3 (the intermetallic compound)
`
`formed of tin, copper, and nickel. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:3-23; see also Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 39-56. Thus, Kawashima discloses that the intermetallic compound layer 3 has
`
`a metal (nickel) that is different from the metal that is the main component of the
`
`alloy solder (the main component is tin), and the intermetallic compound layer 3
`
`has a second metal (copper) that is different from the metal of the adjoining nickel
`
`layer 2 (nickel). See, e.g., Ex. 1002, pp. 39-56.
`
`Liu also teaches all of the elements of claim 1 of the `915 Patent. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 82-87, pp. 57-71. For reference, an annotated version of Fig. 5(a)
`
`from Liu is shown below besides an annotated Fig. 1 of the `915 Patent, again
`
`using the same color scheme and reference numerals for claim 1 of the `915 Patent.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
``915 Patent, Fig. 1, annotated, compared to Liu, Fig. 5(a), annotated
`
`
`
`The above illustration clearly illustrates that Liu teaches all of the same
`
`claim elements as in Fig. 1 and claim 1 of the `915 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`82-87, pp. 57-71. Importantly, Liu also discloses the specific composition of the
`
`intermetallic compound. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, pp. 60-63.
`
`In particular, as discussed in greater detail below, Liu teaches a eutectic
`
`SnPb solder (the solder bump) is a tin-lead alloy with tin being the main
`
`component, an under-bump layer comprising a Ni(V) (nickel-vanadium alloy)
`
`layer (the under bump layer), and a copper-tin intermetallic compound (Cu6Sn5
`
`and Cu3Sn compounds) (the intermetallic compound). See, e.g., Ex. 1005, pp.
`
`750-752; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 82-87, pp. 57-71. Thus, Liu discloses the copper-
`
`tin intermetallic compound includes a metal (copper) that is different from the
`
`metal that is the main component of the alloy solder (the main component is tin),
`
`and the copper-tin intermetallic compound has a second metal (copper) that is
`
`different from the metal of the adjoining under-bump layer (Ni(V) layer
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`comprising nickel-vanadium). See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 82-87, pp. 57-71.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Claims for which review is requested
`
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61,
`
`and the cancellation of those claims as unpatentable. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 of
`
`the `915 Patent are challenged in the present petition.
`
`B. Claim construction
`
`This petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to advocate a different claim interpretation in other forums that
`
`apply a different standard.
`
`1.
`
`“solder bump”
`
`Claims 1 and 61 of the `915 patent recite a solder bump formed of alloy
`
`solder. The `915 Patent refers to a “solder ball” as the solder material before a
`
`reflow process (such as that illustrated in Fig. 2 of the `915 Patent), and refers to a
`
`“solder bump” as the solder material after a reflow process has been performed
`
`(such as that illustrated in Fig. 1 of the `915 Patent). For example, the `915 refers
`
`in many places to supplying the solder as a solder ball. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract, Figs. 2, 7A, and 7B, 2:1-4, 5:31-33, 5:55-67, 7: 57-65, 8:6-8, 8:23-28,
`
`8:44-48, 10:51-56, 12:50-64, 13: 42-60, 14:8-23, 14:60-64, 15:44-47, 15:61-65,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`16:32-49; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 61-62. After the reflow process, the `915 Patent
`
`refers to the solder material as a solder bump. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 4-6, 14,
`
`1:31-40, 4:52-64, 8:9-43, 8:49-64, 9:42-55, 14:13-23; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 62-63.
`
`Accordingly, the term solder bump should be interpreted to mean solder
`
`material after a reflow process has been performed. This definition is consistent
`
`with how a POSITA would understand the term under a broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`
`2.
`
`“under-bump layer”
`
`Claim 1 and 61 of the `915 Patent recite an under-bump layer including a
`
`first metal formed above a wiring layer. This term should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning – a metal layer formed between a solder bump and a wiring
`
`layer. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 66. The `915 Patent recites that a “semiconductor
`
`device according to one aspect of the present invention has at least solder bumps
`
`formed of alloy solder on an under-bump layer including first metal formed on a
`
`wiring layer, and an intermetallic compound including metal that is a main
`
`component of the alloy solder with a second metal different from the metal that is
`
`the main component of the alloy solder being formed between a solder bump and
`
`the under-bump layer” (emphasis added). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:41, 7:66-8:8,
`
`8:49-9:8, 12:42-54, 13:64-14:12, 13:34-47. Based on this description, an under-
`
`bump layer is a metal layer formed between a solder bump and a wiring layer.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`Further, a POSITA would understand that an intermetallic compound may be
`
`formed between the under-bump layer and the solder bump. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`7:66-8:22, 12:42-64; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 67-68.
`
`Accordingly, the term under-bump layer should be interpreted to mean a
`
`metal layer disposed between a solder bump and a wiring layer. This definition is
`
`consistent with how a POSITA would understand the term under a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 69.
`
`3.
`
` “intermetallic compound”
`
`Claims 1 and 61 of the `915 Patent recite an intermetallic compound. This
`
`term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning – an alloy layer comprising
`
`two or more metals between adjoining metal layers. The `915 Patent uses the term
`
`intermetallic compound is consistent with this plain and ordinary meaning. For
`
`example, the `915 Patent teaches that a “semiconductor device according to one
`
`aspect of the present invention has at least solder bumps formed of alloy solder on
`
`an under-bump layer including first metal formed on a wiring layer, and an
`
`intermetallic compound including metal that is a main component of the alloy
`
`solder with a second metal different from the metal that is the main component of
`
`the alloy solder being formed between a solder bump and the under-bump layer”
`
`(emphasis added). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:7; see also Ex. 1002, ¶71. In the
`
``915 Patent, the under-bump layer (UBM layer 5) and the solder bump 7 are the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`adjoining metal layers that the intermetallic compound is between.
`
`Accordingly, the term intermetallic compound should be interpreted to
`
`mean an alloy layer comprising two or more metals between adjoining metal
`
`layers. This definition is consistent with how a POSITA would understand the term
`
`under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶72.
`
`4.
`
` “main component of the alloy solder”
`
`Claims 1 and 61 of the `915 Patent recite a metal that is the main
`
`component of the alloy solder. The `915 Patent teaches that a “two-element or
`
`three-element solder ball 9 with tin as a main component and containing no lead is
`
`supplied onto this electrode.” Ex. 1001, 8:6-8 (emphasis added). The `915 Patent
`
`further teaches that “to be more specific, a description will now be given for use of
`
`a typical metal composition in the case of using eutectic solder having 96.5 weight
`
`% tin and 3.5 weight % silver in a tin-based two element alloy solder ball 9 as
`
`lead-free solder.” Ex. 1001, 8:44-48 (emphasis added). Thus, the `915 Patent
`
`describes that tin is the main component of the alloy solder because tin is present in
`
`the greatest weight percentage. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 73-74.
`
`Accordingly, the term the main component of the alloy solder should be
`
`interpreted to mean the element of the alloy solder that is present in the alloy solder
`
`in the highest weight percentage. This definition is consistent with how a POSITA
`
`would understand the term under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See, e.g.,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶75.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory grounds for challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 are unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by: U.S. Patent No. 6,669,077 to Kawashima et
`
`al. (“Kawashima,” Ex. 1004).
`
`Kawashima was filed on September 1, 2000, claimed priority to a Japanese
`
`patent application filed on September 3, 1999, and is prior art to the `915 Patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(e) (Pre-AIA). Ex. 1004.
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 are unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over C. Y. Liu et al., Electron Microscopy Study
`
`of Interfacial Reaction Between Eutectic SnPb and Cu/Ni(V)/Al Thin Film
`
`Metallization, 87 J. Applied Physics 750 (2000) (“Liu,” Ex. 1005).
`
`Liu was published on January 15, 2000, and is prior art to the `915 Patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pre-AIA). Ex. 1005.
`
`D. The two grounds for challenges are not cumulative
`
`The two challenges presented in the current petition are substantially
`
`different and are not cumulative. While the challenged claim is a device claim, the
`
``915 Patent essentially discloses two methods of forming an intermetallic
`
`compound, each method using different materials. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 40-50.
`
`The first method employs a solder ball 9 having a small amount of copper. See,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:27-36, 9:42-55, 14:55-64; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 42-47. Fig. 1 of
`
`the `915 Patent illustrates the resulting structure of the second embodiment after
`
`bonding. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:33-43; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 42-47. The second
`
`method, on the other hand, employs the use of a solder alloy making layer 8
`
`formed over a UBM layer 5 as illustrated in Fig. 2 of the `915 Patent, which after
`
`bonding results in a structure having a combined solder alloy layer 6 formed
`
`between the solder bump 7 and the UBM layer 5. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:66-9:36,
`
`12:42-13:31; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 46-50. It should be further noted that the
`
`material composition of the intermetallic compound as compared to the material
`
`composition of the solder bump may differ depending on whether the first method
`
`or the second method is used. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 40-50.
`
`Petitioner’s Challenge #1 is similar to the first method, and Petitioner’s
`
`Challenge #2 is similar to the second method. To the extent that Patent Owner
`
`may assert that certain ones of the challenged claims are limited to a resulting
`
`structure of only one of the first method or the second method, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that the challenges are not cumulative. Petitioner further
`
`submits that since the compositions of the solder bump and the intermetallic
`
`compound are likely to be a source of argument, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that both Challenges be adopted.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,969,915
`
`E.
`
`Level of ordinary skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the application
`
`leading to the `915 Patent was filed would have an equivalent of a bachelor’s
`
`degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science,
`
`physics, or the equivalent, working knowledge of semiconductor processing
`
`technologies for integrated circuits, and at least three years of experience relating
`
`to semiconductor devices and semiconductor chip packaging. See, e.g., Ex. 1002,
`
`¶23. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience,
`
`and significant work experience could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`V. CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 OF THE `915 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART
`
`The inventors of the `915 Patent were not the first to use the disclosed
`
`configurations of an intermetallic compound in a semiconductor device to form an
`
`electrode structure. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 88-93, pp. 39-72. The petition presents
`
`two sets of prior art references that both individually show an intermetallic
`
`compound in a semiconductor device, exactly as set forth in the challenged claims
`
`of the `915 Patent.
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 are unpatentable as being
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kawashima
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 61 of the `
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
