Case IPR2017-00903 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
`
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00903
`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 IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ‘980 PATENT ..................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background........................................................................................ 2
`
`The ‘980 Patent .................................................................................. 3
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘980 Patent ............................................. 8
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Proper Construction Of “An Interlayer Insulating
`Film” ................................................................................................10
`
`The Proper Constructions Of “A Surface Protecting
`Film” And “An Opening For A Bonding Pad Formed In
`Said Surface Protecting Film” ...........................................................13
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART ...............................................................................................14
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,785,236 (“Cheung”) ..............................................15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,739,579 (“Chiang”) ..............................................18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,617,824 (“Shinoda”) .............................................23
`
`Excerpt of El-Kareh, “Fundamentals of Semiconductor
`Processing Technologies,” Kluwer Academic Publishers
`(1995) (“El-Kareh”) ..........................................................................25
`
`Excerpt of Stanley Wolf, Ph.D., “Silicon Processing for
`the VLSI Era,” Lattice Press (Vol. 2 1990) (“Wolf”) .........................26
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘980 PATENT ARE
`PATENTABLE OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART .....................................27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Does Not Assert Anticipation Under 35
`U.S.C. §102 ......................................................................................27
`
`The Petition Asserts Unpatentability Only For
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................28
`
`Inherency Is Limited When Applied To Obviousness .......................30
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over Cheung
`Alone Or In Combination with Chiang, Shinoda and/or
`El-Kareh ...........................................................................................33
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`1.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over
`Cheung Alone .........................................................................33
`
`a. Cheung Does Not Disclose An “Interlayer
`Insulating Film.” ...............................................................33
`
`b. Cheung Does Not Teach A Metal Wire Layer
`Formed On Said Interlayer Insulating Film .......................37
`
`c. Cheung Does Not Teach The Need Of A
`Surface Protecting Film Including A First
`Dielectric Film With A Small Dielectric
`Constant ............................................................................37
`
`d. Cheung Does Not Disclose A Second
`Dielectric Film With A Higher Moisture
`Absorption Preventing Function Than Said
`First Dielectric Film ..........................................................38
`
`Claims 32 and 49 Are Further Patentable Over
`Cheung Alone .........................................................................40
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over
`Cheung in View of Chiang, Shinoda and/or El-
`Kareh ......................................................................................41
`
`Claims 32 and 49 Are Further Patentable Over
`Cheung in View of Chiang, Shinoda and/or El-
`Kareh ......................................................................................44
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`E.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over Chiang
`Alone or in View of Cheung and/or El-Kareh ...................................47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over
`Chiang Alone ..........................................................................47
`
`Claims 32 and 49 Are Further Patentable Over
`Chiang Alone ..........................................................................50
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Over
`Chiang in View of Cheung and/or El-Kareh ...........................53
`
`Claims 32 and 49 Are Further Patentable Over
`Chiang in View of Cheung and/or El-Kareh ...........................55
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD APPLY ITS DISCRETION UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) AND 325(d) AND DENY INSTITUTION .................56
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`VIII. THE DECLARATION FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE
`PETITION IS ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT .............................................58
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Does Not Cite To Portions Of the
`Declaration .......................................................................................58
`
`B.
`
`The Declaration Omits Pertinent Information ...................................60
`
`IX. THE PETITION MAY NOT HAVE IDENTIFIED THE REAL
`PARTIES-IN-INTEREST ...........................................................................61
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................64
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Application of Shetty,
`566 F.2d 81 (C.C.P.A. 1977) .............................................................................31
`
`Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01443, Paper 13 (PTAB January 23, 2017) .........................................57
`
`Coalition For Affordable Drugs VII LLC, v. Pozen Inc.,
`IPR2015-01718, Paper 40 (PTAB February 21, 2017) ................................. 59, 60
`
`Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB August 18, 2015) ..........................................63
`
`Fidelity Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. v. Data Treasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, Paper 9 (PTAB August 13, 2014) ............................................60
`
`Hansgirg v.Kemmer,
`102 F.2d 212 (C.C.P.A. 1939) ...........................................................................31
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................29
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ......................................................... 31, 32, 37, 48
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................ 30, 31
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................30
`
`In re Spormann,
`363 F.2d 444 (C.C.P.A. 1966) ...........................................................................31
`
`In Re: Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 28, 30, 46
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................... 28, 29, 41
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Xactware Sols, Inc., v. Eagle View Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2017-00021, Paper 9 (PTAB April 14, 2017) ...............................................57
`
`Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp.,
`IPR2014-01254, Paper 32 (PTAB February 12, 2015) .......................................63
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) .............................................................................................63
`
`35 U.S.C. §313 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................56
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) .................................................................................................28
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(b) ................................................................................................63
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(d) ................................................................................................28
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) ............................................................................................62
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107 .................................................................................................. 1
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`Case IPR2017—00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`US. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108 ............................................................................................. 2, 30
`37 CPR. §42.108 ........................................................................................... ..2, 30
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ..........................................................................................59
`37 CPR. §42.22(a)(2) ........................................................................................ ..59
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................59
`37 CPR. §42.6(a)(3) .......................................................................................... ..59
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 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.
`
`DECISION Denying Request for Rehearing, IPR2016-01331,
`Paper 11, March 30, 2017.
`
`DECISION Denying Request for Rehearing, IPR2016-01367,
`Paper 10, March 13, 2017.
`
`Peercy, “The Drive To Miniaturization,” NATURE, Volume
`406, pp. 1023-1026, August 31, 2000.
`
`
`Exhibit 2001:
`
`
`Exhibit 2002:
`
`
`Exhibit 2003:
`
`Exhibit 2004:
`
`
`Exhibit 2005:
`
`
`Exhibit 2006:
`
`
`Exhibit 2007:
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 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 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. (“Global” or “Petitioner”) on
`
`February 16, 2017, against U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE41,980 to Yabu et al.
`
`(Exhibit 1001, “the ‘980 Patent”). The ‘980 patent will expire on September 8,
`
`2017.
`
`The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 18, 19, 30-36, and 47-51
`
`of the ‘980 patent (“the challenged claims”), asserting that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable (1) over U.S. Patent No. 5,785,236 (“Cheung”)(Exhibit 1004)
`
`alone or in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,739,579 (“Chiang”)(Exhibit 1005), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 3,617,824 (“Shinoda”)(Exhibit 1006) and/or an excerpt of El-Kareh,
`
`“Fundamentals of Semiconductor Processing Technologies,” Kluwer Academic
`
`Publishers (1995) (“El-Kareh”)(Exhibit 1007) under 35 U.S.C. §103; and, (2) over
`
`Chiang alone or in view of Cheung and/or El-Kareh. Petition, p.22.
`
`The due date for filing the Preliminary Response is June 14, 2017 (Paper 6,
`
`Notice Of Filing Date Accorded To Petition And Time For Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response, filed March 14, 2017). This Preliminary Response is timely
`
`filed under 35 U.S.C. §313 and 37 C.F.R. §42.107.
`
`1
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. §42.108.
`
`II. THE ‘980 PATENT
`
`A. Background
`
`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, an interlayer insulating
`
`film, a surface protective film comprising two dielectric films, preventing moisture
`
`absorption and decreasing parasitic capacitance between metal wires with a small
`
`pitch.
`
`Moisture absorption is undesirable because it can decrease reliability and
`
`cause wiring delay problems. Parasitic capacitance is undesirable because it can
`
`increase signal delay times, crosstalk, and power dissipation in the integrated
`
`circuit. 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.
`
`The ‘980 patent discloses novel solutions to overcome these problems, i.e.,
`
`suppress moisture absorption and reduce parasitic capacitance.
`
`2
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The ‘980 Patent
`
`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`As shown in the Figures of the ‘980 patent, every embodiment of the
`
`disclosed and claimed invention has at least three separate insulating films, i.e.,
`
`interlayer insulating film 11, and a surface protecting film 20 including a buried
`
`insulating film 13 and a passivation film 14. See Exhibit 1001, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`10, 12, 14 and 16.1 Figs. 12 and 14 depict an additional underlying moisture
`
`proofing film 17.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ‘980 patent is reproduced below:
`
`‘980 Patent, Fig.1
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`1 In Fig. 14, “surface protecting film 20 is formed out of a composite film
`
`including the underlying moisture proofing film 17, the buried insulating film 13
`
`and a passivation film 14.” Exhibit 1001, 16:66-17:1. In Fig. 16, surface
`
`protecting film 20 comprises a buried insulating film 13 and a passivation film 14.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`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. 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 is depicted in Fig. 5, which shows the top
`
`surface of the bonding pad at the same level as the passivation film 14 and extends
`
`across the opening 20a. As in Fig. 1, Fig. 5 also depicts three separate insulating
`
`films; interlayer insulating film 11, and a surface protecting film 20 including a
`
`buried insulating film 13 and a passivation film 14. Fig. 5 is reproduced below:
`
`‘980 Patent, Fig.5
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`Another alternative embodiment of the claimed invention is depicted in Fig.
`
`7 (reproduced below), which also depicts three separate insulating films; interlayer
`
`insulating film 11, and a surface protecting film 20 including a buried insulating
`
`film 13 and a passivation film 14:
`
`‘980 Patent, Fig.7
`
`
`
`In the above embodiment depicted in Fig. 7, opening 20a is in 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 all have an interlayer insulating
`
`film, a metal wire layer including plural metal wires formed on the interlayer
`
`insulating film, a surface protecting film including 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`absorption preventing function than the first dielectric film and functions to
`
`suppress moisture absorption of the first dielectric film.
`
`Additionally, all of the above embodiments of the ‘980 patent have an
`
`opening for a bonding pad formed in the surface protecting film with a bonding
`
`pad formed in said opening.
`
`Independent claims 18 and 35 of the ‘980 patent recite:
`
`18. A semiconductor device comprising:
`
`a semiconductor substrate bearing semiconductor elements;
`
`an interlayer insulating film formed on said semiconductor substrate;
`
`a metal wire layer including plural metal wires formed on said interlayer
`
`insulating film;
`
`a surface protecting film including a first dielectric film with a small
`
`dielectric constant for filling at least a part of areas among said metal wires in
`
`said metal wire layer and
`
`a second dielectric film with a higher moisture absorption preventing
`
`function than said first dielectric film for covering said metal wire layer and
`
`said first dielectric film, said second dielectric film having a function of
`
`suppressing moisture absorption of said first dielectric film;
`
`an opening for a bonding pad formed in said surface protecting film; and
`
`a bonding pad formed in said opening for obtaining external electrical
`
`connection,
`
`wherein said bonding pad in 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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`35. A semiconductor device comprising:
`
`a semiconductor substrate bearing semiconductor elements;
`
`an interlayer insulating film formed on said semiconductor substrate;
`
`a metal wire layer including plural metal wires formed on said interlayer
`
`insulating film;
`
`a surface protecting film including a first dielectric film with a small
`
`dielectric constant for filling at least a part of areas among said metal wires in
`
`said metal wire layer and
`
`a second dielectric film with a higher moisture absorption preventing
`
`function than said first dielectric film for covering said metal wire layer and
`
`said first dielectric film, said second dielectric film having a function of
`
`suppressing moisture absorption of said first dielectric film;
`
`an opening for a bonding pad formed in said surface protecting film; and
`
`a bonding pad formed in said opening for obtaining external electrical
`
`connection,
`
`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.
`
`For at least the reasons discussed herein, the Petition fails to demonstrate
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History Of The ‘980 Patent
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`applications are Application Nos. 11/984,551 (the present application) and
`
`10/438,348 (now RE39,932). Reissue Application No. 11/984,551 is a
`
`continuation reissue application of Reissue Application No. 10/438,348 filed May
`
`15, 2003, which is a reissue application of 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.
`
`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.
`
`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 March 14, 2017. 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`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 March 15, 2017
`
`(Paper 7).
`
`In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited et al, 2:16-cv-00134 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), the district court entered a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order,
`
`dated November 9, 2016, which construed certain claim limitations recited in the
`
`‘980 patent and identified other claim limitations to which the parties agreed.
`
`Exhibit 1014.
`
`For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts that the
`
`following terms/phrases recited in independent Claims 18 and 35 should be
`
`construed by the Board:
`
`• an interlayer insulating film;
`
`• a surface protecting film; and,
`
`• an opening for a bonding pad formed in said surface protecting film.
`
`A. The Proper Construction Of “An Interlayer Insulating Film”
`
`The claim limitation “interlayer insulating film” recited in Claims 18 and 35
`
`should be accorded its ordinary and accustomed meaning, i.e., “an insulating film
`
`located between but not within other layers.” This construction is supported by
`
`the specification. See Exhibit 1001, Abstract; 1:39-47; 1:58-65; 2:52-53; 3:18-20;
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`4:26-30; 7:15-28; 12:24-33; Figs. 1-17. Moreover, this construction was adopted
`
`by the Board in IPR2016-01331 (Exhibit 1010) and IPR2016-01367 (Exhibit
`
`1013), and is consistent with the claim construction determined by the district
`
`court. Exhibit 1014.
`
`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 or any
`
`other layer. Exhibit 1001, Figs. 1-17. Similarly, no other layer is within the
`
`interlayer insulating film. For example, Fig. 1 (reproduced below) shows that
`
`interlayer insulating film 11 has a substantially smooth top surface, such that the
`
`interlayer insulating film is not within the metal wire layer and the metal wire layer
`
`is not within the interlayer insulating film:
`
`‘980 Patent, Fig.1
`
`
`
`Moreover, every figure in the ‘980 patent depicts the interlayer insulating
`
`film not within any other layer, or any other layer within the interlayer insulating
`
`film. See Exhibit 1001, Figs. 1-17.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`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”
`
`or “between the limits of.”2 The prefix “intra” means within, in, or into
`
`something.3 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.
`
`
`2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inter; Exhibit 2001.
`
`3 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra; Exhibit 2002.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`Additionally, an “interlayer insulating film” is different from a pre-metal
`
`dielectric (PMD). An insulating layer formed directly on a substrate would be
`
`considered a PMD by a POSITA at the time of the invention. Exhibit 2007. In
`
`contrast, the ‘980 patent describes that the “interlayer insulating film” is above
`
`other wires and is below another metal wire layer. Exhibit 1001, 7:27-29 (“merely
`
`uppermost metal wires 12, an interlayer insulating film 11 formed under the metal
`
`wires 12 and elements formed on them are shown in FIG. 1”). An example of a
`
`PMD is shown in Exhibit 2007, Fig. 5. The layer under the first layer of metal is
`
`clearly labeled “Pre-metal dielectric,” as a POSITA would have understood it to be
`
`at the time of the invention.
`
`Accordingly, the claim limitation “interlayer insulating film” should be
`
`construed to mean “an insulating film located between but not within other layers.”
`
`B.
`
`The Proper Constructions Of “A Surface Protecting Film” And
`“An Opening For A Bonding Pad Formed In Said Surface
`Protecting Film”
`
`The claim limitation “a surface protecting film” recited in Claims 18 and 35
`
`should be construed to mean “a surface protecting film including distinct first and
`
`second dielectric films.” This construction is supported by the specification. See
`
`Exhibit 1001, Abstract; 2:49-65; 7:33-43; 8:4-9; 8:37-39; 10:2-9; 10:44-55; 11:9-
`
`10; 12:14-16; 13:48-50; 15:13-16; 15:52-57; 16:65-17:1; see also surface
`
`protecting film 20 in Figs. 1, 2(b), 3, 4(b), 5, 6(b), 7, 8, 10, 11(a), 12, 13(b), 14,
`
`13
`
`

`

`15(c), 16 and 17(c). For example, Fig. 1 depicts surface protecting film 20
`
`comprised of buried insulating film 13 and passivation film 14:
`
`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`‘980 Patent, Fig.1
`
`
`
`Additionally, the surface protecting film must have an opening for a bonding
`
`pad with a bonding pad formed in said opening. Exhibit 1001, Claims 18 and 35.
`
`An opening for a bonding pad should be afforded its ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning.
`
`These constructions are consistent with the claim construction determined by
`
`the district court. Exhibit 1014.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims would have been obvious over
`
`(1) Cheung alone or in view of Chiang, Shinoda and/or El-Kareh; and, over (2)
`
`Chiang alone or in view of Cheung and/or El-Kareh. Petition, p.22.
`
`14
`
`

`

`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,785,236 (“Cheung”)
`
`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`Cheung is entitled “Advanced Copper Interconnect System That Is
`
`Compatible With Existing IC Wire Bonding Technology.” Exhibit 1004. The
`
`disclosed invention “relates generally to metal interconnects and wire bonding
`
`employed in semiconductor technology, and more particularly, to wire bonding to
`
`form electrical connection with copper interconnects which are used for connecting
`
`IC (integrated circuit) devices formed in semiconductor wafers.” Id., 1:8-13.
`
`As shown in Petitioner’s Annotated Fig. 2D below, Cheung discloses
`
`integrated circuit structure 10 (yellow), interconnects 12 (blue); dielectric 14;
`
`passivation layer 26; and, aluminum pad 20’ with surface 30 (Exhibit 1004, 4:30-
`
`38, 57- 61):
`
`Petitioner’s Annotated Cheung Fig. 2D (See Petition, p.13)
`
`Cheung Fig. 1D (reproduced below) is similar to Cheung Fig. 2D, also
`
`
`
`depicting integrated circuit structure 10, interconnects 12; dielectric 14; passivation
`
`15
`
`

`

`layer 26; aluminum pad 20’ with surface 30; bonding pad opening 28; and pad
`
`opening area 32:
`
`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`Cheung Fig. 1D
`
`
`
`There is no insulating layer between the integrated circuit structure 10 and
`
`the interconnects 12/dielectric 14 in any embodiment disclosed in Cheung. Indeed,
`
`every Figure of Cheung depicts interconnects 12 and dielectric 14 formed directly
`
`on the integrated circuit structure 10. Moreover, Cheung expressly states that
`
`interconnects 12 are formed on the integrated circuit structure 10: “an integrated
`
`circuit structure 10 is depicted having metal, e.g., copper interconnects 12 formed
`
`thereon.” Exhibit 1004, 3:3-5 (emphasis added).
`
`Cheung additionally states “[e]ach level of metal interconnects 12 is
`
`supported above the semiconductor substrate by an interlayer dielectric[14].” Id.,
`
`3:13-15. The interlayer dielectric is identified as element 14, and shown between
`
`interconnects 12 in Cheung Figs. 1D and 2D. Cheung’s “interlayer dielectric 14”
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00903 for
`U.S. Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`is not an “interlayer insulating film” as recited in the challenged claims. 4 Rather,
`
`Cheung’s “interlayer dielectric