throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: December 8, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`A. Background
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Micron Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claim 31 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,969,539 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’539 patent”). The President and Fellows of
`
`Harvard College (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`
`respect to the claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not
`
`institute an inter partes review.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties note that the ’539 patent is at issue in President and
`
`Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. MAD-1-16-cv-
`
`11249 (D. Mass.), and in President and Fellows of Harvard College v.
`
`GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. MAD-1-16-cv-11252 (D. Mass.). Pet. 3; Paper
`
`4, 1. The ’539 patent also is being challenged in a separate inter partes
`
`review, which has been assigned case number IPR2017-00662. In addition,
`
`United States Patent No. 8,334,016 B2, which is related to the ’539 patent, is
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`being challenged in two currently pending inter partes review petitions,
`
`which have been assigned case numbers IPR2017-00663 and IPR2017-
`
`00664.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 31 of the ’539 patent is unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds (Pet. 38–67):1
`
`Statutory
`Ground
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`Dücsö2 and Buchanan3
`Ott4 and Vaartstra5
`
`31
`31
`
`D. The ’539 Patent
`
`The ’539 patent, titled “Vapor Deposition of Metal Oxides, Silicates
`
`and Phosphates, and Silicon Dioxide,” issued on November 29, 2005. Ex.
`
`1001, at [45], [54]. The ’539 patent “relates to novel reagents for use in thin
`
`film deposition processes such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and
`
`atomic layer deposition (ALD).” Id. at 1:22–24. The ’539 patent explains
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies on a declaration from Sanjay Banerjee, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1003.
`
`2 Csaba Dücsö, Nguyen Quoc Khanh, Zsolt Horváth, István Bársony, Mikko
`Utriainen, Sari Lehto, Minna Nieminen, & Lauri Niinistö, Deposition of Tin
`Oxide into Porous Silicon by Atomic Layer Epitaxy, 143 J.
`ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC’Y 683–87 (Feb. 1996) (Ex. 1006, “Dücsö”).
`
`3 Buchanan et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,984,591 B1, issued Jan. 10, 2006
`(Ex. 1005, “Buchanan”).
`
`4 A.W. Ott, J.W. Klaus, J.M. Johnson, S.M. George, K.C. McCarley, & J.D.
`Way, Modification of Porous Alumina Membranes Using Al2O3 Atomic
`Layer Controlled Deposition, 9 Chem. Materials 707–14 (Ex. 1007, “Ott”).
`
`5 Vaartstra, U.S. Patent No. 6,159,855, issued Dec. 12, 2000 (Ex. 1008,
`“Vaartstra”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`that prior deposition processes “deposit[ed] films containing residual
`
`chlorine, which can be deleterious to the properties of the film or to its
`
`adhesion to substrates or subsequent coatings” and can “corrode metal
`
`substrates or the apparatus used for the deposition.” Id. at 1:59–64. It is the
`
`aim of the ’539 patent to solve these problems. Id. at 1:64–65, 2:8–14. The
`
`’539 patent describes depositing layers of metal oxides, such as hafnium
`
`oxide, zirconium oxide, and tantalum oxide, by atomic layer deposition. Id.
`
`at 26:65–28:16. The deposition process for hafnium oxide is described as
`
`alternately injecting vapors of tetrakis(dimethylamido)hafnium and water
`
`“into a deposition chamber held at 250° C.” Id. at 26:65–27:3. The ’539
`
`patent also describes producing a hafnium oxide film using “tert-butanol
`
`vapor in place of water vapor.” Id. at 28:1–7. The deposition of zirconium
`
`oxide and tantalum oxide films using tetrakis(dimethylamido)zirconium and
`
`ethylimidotris(diethylamido)tantalum vapors in place of tetrakis(dimethyl-
`
`amido)hafnium vapor, respectively, are also described. Id. at 27:63–67,
`
`28:10–16. The ’539 patent discloses that “the use of tetrakis(alkylamido)
`
`hafnium precursors succeeded” in depositing “highly uniform films of
`
`hafnium oxide even in holes with very high aspect [ratios] (over 40).” Id. at
`
`20:4–7.
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 31 of the ’539 patent is the only claim challenged in the
`
`Petition; it recites:
`
`31. A process as in any one of claims 24, 26, 29 or 30, in which
`the metal oxide film covers an aspect ratio over 40.
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:39–40. Claim 31 is a multiple dependent claim that depends
`
`from any of claims 24, 26, 29, or 30; claim 24 is illustrative of this group
`
`and recites:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`24. A process for forming a metal oxide, comprising:
`
`exposing a heated surface alternately to the vapor of one or
`more metal amides having an amido group selected from the
`group consisting of dialkylamido, disilylamido and
`(alkyl)(silyl) amido moieties, and then to the vapors of water or
`an alcohol.
`
`Id. at 32:17–22.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (upholding
`
`the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claim terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Neither party proposes construing any claim terms, and we conclude
`
`that no term requires express construction for the purpose of the present
`
`decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`B. Obviousness over Dücsö and Buchanan
`
`Petitioner argues that the subject matter of claim 31 would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Dücsö
`
`and Buchanan. Pet. 38–53.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`1. Dücsö
`
`Dücsö relates to the formation of “[t]in oxide films . . . from SnCl4
`
`and H2O precursors by atomic layer epitaxy.” Ex. 1006, 683.6 The process
`
`disclosed by Dücsö was carried out “between 430 and 545°C,” and it
`
`involved “SnCl4 and H2O pulses separated by pure N2 purging steps. . . .”
`
`Id. These “pulses” and “purging steps” were repeated 150 times. Id. at 684.
`
`This process resulted in “a conformal coverage of SnOx on [porous
`
`silicon] . . . in the extreme 140:1 aspect ratio pores.” Id. at 687.
`
`2. Buchanan
`
`Buchanan relates to “[a] precursor source mixture useful for CVD or
`
`ALD of a film. . . .” Ex. 1005, at [57]. In the manufacture of
`
`semiconductors, Buchanan teaches that it is important to be able to deposit
`
`uniformly thick layers of oxides. Id. at 1:15–27. Buchanan notes that the
`
`chemical precursors used in conventional CVD and ALD processes to
`
`deposit films of uniform thickness suffer from drawbacks, including the
`
`difficulty in maintaining constant temperature and thermal degradation of
`
`the precursors. Id. at 1:28–54. To solve these problems, Buchanan discloses
`
`a “precursor source mixture” comprising “at least one precursor composed
`
`of an element selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr,
`
`Be, Mg, Ti, Zr, Hf, Sc, Y, La, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Re, Fe, Ru, Os,
`
`Co, Rh, Ir, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, Cd, Hg, B, Al, Ga, In, Tl, Si, Ge, Sn,
`
`Pb, As, P, Sb and Bi,” with the element “bound [to] at least one ligand. . . .”
`
`Id. at 4:1–7. The ligand is “selected from” a list of ligands that includes
`
`
`6 Our citations to Dücsö refer to the page numbers of the reference itself
`rather than to the page numbers added to the bottom of the exhibit pages by
`Petitioner.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`“amido” groups. Id. at 4:7–12. The bound element and ligand are
`
`“dissolved, emulsified or suspended in an inert liquid. . . .” Id. at 4:12–18.
`
`Buchanan discloses using its precursor source mixture “in any CVD or ALD
`
`process. . . .” Id. at 7:30–32. Among other precursors, Buchanan discloses
`
`that “tetrakis(dimethylamino), tetrakis(diethylamino) Ti, Zr, Hf, Si, Ge, Sn,
`
`or Pb” are “[h]ighly preferred precursor source mixtures comprised of at
`
`least one amino-containing precursor. . . .” Id. at 14:55–58.
`
`One of Buchanan’s specific examples discloses depositing a metal
`
`oxide film in an ALD reactor. Id. at 19:60–21:2. In this example, Buchanan
`
`discloses pulsing precursor and reactant vapors alternately into the reactor,
`
`with inert purge gas introduced between the precursor and reactant vapors.
`
`Id. at 20:25–40. The substrate on which the oxide film is deposited “is about
`
`100°–1200° C., and preferably 150°–500° C.” Id. at 20:26–27. For
`
`depositing an oxide film, the reactant is “an oxidant” such as “oxygen,
`
`ozone, water, hydrogen peroxide, nitrous oxide and combinations thereof.”
`
`Id. at 20:16–19. The precursors used in this example are zirconium nitrate
`
`and hafnium tertbutoxide. Id. at 20:7–11. Buchanan discloses altering the
`
`example process “to include growth of any single component . . . metal
`
`oxide . . . film deposited by atomic layer deposition utilizing one precursor
`
`source mixture which contains only one precursor.” Id. at 20:63–67.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that all limitations of claim 31 are taught or
`
`suggested by the combination of Dücsö and Buchanan. Pet. 38–53.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have modified the process of Dücsö to use tetrakis(dimethylamino) or
`
`tetrakis (diethylamino) tin, as taught by Buchanan, in place of Dücsö’s tin
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`tetrachloride. Id. at 42–43. In addition, Petitioner argues that carrying out
`
`this modified process would achieve the limitation of claim 31 that requires
`
`“the metal oxide film [to] cover[] an aspect ratio over 40.” Id. at 43. Patent
`
`Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to show that [the] modified process
`
`produces a metal oxide film which covers an aspect ratio over 40” and
`
`instead “improperly conflat[es] its proposed modification with the original
`
`process disclosed in Dücsö. . . .” Prelim. Resp. 20 (emphasis removed).
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s argument with respect to
`
`the aspect ratio limitation of claim 31 relies on two portions of Dücsö and
`
`one paragraph from the Banerjee declaration. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129;
`
`Ex. 1006, 683–84, 687). None of these pieces of evidence relates to the
`
`modified process using Buchanan’s tetrakis(dimethylamino) or
`
`tetrakis(diethylamino) tin in place of Dücsö’s tin tetrachloride. Pages 683
`
`and 684 of Dücsö describe the substrate used in Dücsö’s process as 2
`
`microns thick, with pores having an average diameter of 14 nanometers, for
`
`an aspect ratio of more than 140. Ex. 1006, 683–84. Page 687 of Dücsö
`
`describes the result of Dücsö’s process as “a conformal coverage of SnOx on
`
`[porous silica] . . . in the extreme 140:1 aspect ratio pores.” Id. at 687. Both
`
`of these disclosures relate to Dücsö’s process itself, not to the process of
`
`Dücsö modified to use the precursors of Buchanan. The same is true of
`
`paragraph 129 of the Banerjee declaration, which merely summarizes the
`
`disclosure of Dücsö without extending that disclosure to Petitioner’s
`
`proposed modified process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 129.
`
`Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`not have been deterred by the size of tin dialkylamides, with regard to their
`
`use in ALD to form a metal oxide to cover an aspect ratio over 40.” Pet. 51.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`This is because “Dücsö teaches that with proper selection of pulse time and
`
`other reaction conditions, a conformal metal oxide can be deposited to cover
`
`features having a much higher (140:1) aspect ratio.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 136; Ex. 1006, 686–87). But Dücsö states that, with “small pore
`
`diameters,” “the slow diffusion of the relatively heavy Sn precursor leads to
`
`inhomogeneous deposition and the possibility of gas-phase mixing of the
`
`reactants,” which can cause the ALD process to become a chemical vapor
`
`deposition process. Ex. 1006, 686. Only by “carefully select[ing] pulse
`
`durations . . . as well as appropriately cho[osing] pressure and temperature
`
`conditions” was it possible to achieve coverage of pores with aspect ratios of
`
`140:1 using Dücsö’s process. Id. at 686–87. Given Dücsö’s disclosure that
`
`the weight of the precursor adversely affects the coverage of high-aspect
`
`ratio pores, it is not clear whether the same results could be achieved using
`
`Buchanan’s precursors tetrakis (dimethylamido) tin or tetrakis(diethylamido)
`
`tin rather than Dücsö’s precursor tin tetrachloride. Thus, Dr. Banerjee’s
`
`statement that the “reasonable expectation of success [in covering high-
`
`aspect ratio pores using Dücsö’s process modified with Buchanan’s
`
`precursor] would not have been affected by the size of tin dialkylamide
`
`precursors” is contradicted by Dücsö, the very evidence that Dr. Banerjee
`
`cites as support for his statement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 136 (citing Ex. 1006, 686–87).
`
`In light of this evidence, and given the lack of evidence explaining what a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would need to do to achieve high-aspect
`
`ratio coverage with the Dücsö/Buchanan process and why these activities
`
`would be within the level of ordinary skill, we are not sufficiently persuaded
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`how to combine the teachings of Dücsö and the teachings of Buchanan to
`
`achieve the coverage mandated by claim 31.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence to
`
`support its argument that the process obtained by modifying Dücsö’s process
`
`to use the precursors of Buchanan would satisfy the limitation of claim 31
`
`requiring coverage of “an aspect ratio over 40.” Thus, we are persuaded
`
`that, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Dücsö and Buchanan teaches or suggests the limitations of
`
`claim 31.
`
`C. Obviousness over Ott and Vaartstra
`
`Petitioner argues that the subject matter of claim 31 would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Ott and
`
`Vaartstra. Pet. 53–67.
`
`1. Ott
`
`Ott relates to the deposition of “Al2O3 films . . . with atomic layer
`
`control inside the pores of Anodisc alumina membranes.” Ex. 1007, 707.7
`
`Ott teaches that “[t]he alumina membranes were heated to 500 K” and
`
`“[trimethylaluminum] and H2O were alternately dosed.” Id. at 709. This
`
`process resulted in “aspect ratios” of “~285:1 in the ~2000 Å pores with a
`
`length of ~57 μm” in “the asymmetric alumina membrane. . . .” Id. at 712.
`
`Ott notes that the trimethylaluminum used in its process “is a pyrophoric
`
`material and must be handled in an inert atmosphere.” Id. at 708.
`
`
`7 Our citations to Ott refer to the page numbers of the reference itself rather
`than to the page numbers added to the bottom of the exhibit pages by
`Petitioner.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`2. Vaartstra
`
`Vaartstra relates to preparing “[m]ulti-metallic films . . . from multi-
`
`metallic mixtures of metalloamide compounds.” Ex. 1008, at [57]. “Multi-
`
`metallic . . . oxide . . . films may be prepared by appropriate choice of
`
`metalloamide compounds and reactant gas(es).” Id. Vaartstra teaches using
`
`CVD to form “a multi-metallic oxide . . . by reacting the metalloamide vapor
`
`with oxygen, nitrous oxide, water vapor or ozone.” Id. at 10:58–65, 11:8–
`
`10. In Vaartstra’s CVD process, a precursor such as tetrakis-(diethylamido)-
`
`hafnium or tetrakis-(diethylamido)-zirconium “is exposed to a heated
`
`substrate on which deposition will occur.” Id. at 6:19–56, 10:42–57.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that all limitations of claim 31 are taught or
`
`suggested by the combination of Ott and Vaartstra. Pet. 53–67.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have modified the process of Ott to use hexakis(dimethylamido)
`
`dialuminum, as taught by Vaartstra, in place of Ott’s trimethylaluminum. Id.
`
`at 56–57. In addition, Petitioner argues that carrying out this modified
`
`process would achieve the limitation of claim 31 that requires “the metal
`
`oxide film [to] cover[] an aspect ratio over 40.” Id. at 58. Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioner “fails to show that [the] modified process produces a
`
`metal oxide film which covers an aspect ratio over 40” and instead
`
`“improperly conflat[es] its proposed modification with the original process
`
`disclosed in Ott.” Prelim. Resp. 45.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s argument with respect to
`
`the aspect ratio limitation of claim 31 relies on one portion of Ott and one
`
`paragraph from the Banerjee declaration. Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 147; Ex.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`1007, 712). Neither of these pieces of evidence relates to the modified
`
`process using Vaartstra’s hexakis(dimethylamido) dialuminum in place of
`
`Ott’s trimethylaluminum. Page 712 of Ott describes the result of Ott’s
`
`process as covering “aspect ratios” of “~285:1 in the ~2000 Å pores with a
`
`length of ~57 μm.” Id. at 712. This relates to Ott’s process itself, not to the
`
`process of Ott modified to use the precursor disclosed by Vaartstra. The
`
`same is true of paragraph 129 of the Banerjee declaration, which merely
`
`summarizes the disclosure of Ott without extending that disclosure to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed modified process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 147.
`
`Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known “how to adjust the conditions in [atomic layer deposition] to
`
`achieve self-limiting deposition. . . .” Pet. 65. Because “Ott demonstrates”
`
`that covering pores with an aspect ratio over 40 “can be achieved by self-
`
`limiting ALD,” Petitioner argues that the combination of Ott and Vaartstra
`
`teaches or suggests that the Ott process modified with Vaartstra’s precursor
`
`would achieve the aspect ratio limitation of claim 31. Id. at 66 (citing Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 154). Even with the larger precursor of Vaartstra, Petitioner argues
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art could select a proper “pulse time and
`
`other conditions” to “facilitate[] precursor diffusion into high-aspect ratio
`
`structures.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 154; Ex. 1006, 686–87). We are not
`
`persuaded by this argument. First, even if Ott teaches that coverage of high
`
`aspect ratio pores “can be achieved by self-limiting ALD,” as Petitioner
`
`argues, at best that is evidence that some self-limiting ALD processes can
`
`result in coverage of high aspect ratio pores. It does not necessarily follow
`
`that the ALD process achieved by combining Ott and Vaarstra would result
`
`in coverage of high aspect ratio pores.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Second, the support for Petitioner’s argument that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could select proper conditions to “facilitate[]
`
`precursor diffusion into high-aspect ratio structures” comes from Dücsö,
`
`which states that, with “small pore diameters,” “the slow diffusion of the
`
`relatively heavy Sn precursor leads to inhomogeneous deposition and the
`
`possibility of gas-phase mixing of the reactants,” which can cause the ALD
`
`process to become a chemical vapor deposition process. Ex. 1006, 686.
`
`Only by “carefully select[ing] pulse durations . . . as well as appropriately
`
`cho[osing] pressure and temperature conditions” was it possible to achieve
`
`coverage of pores with aspect ratios of 140:1 using Dücsö’s process. Id. at
`
`686–87. Given Dücsö’s disclosure that the weight of the precursor
`
`adversely affects the coverage of high-aspect ratio pores, it is not clear
`
`whether the same results could be achieved using Vaartstra’s precursor
`
`hexakis(dimethylamido) dialuminum rather than Ott’s trimethylaluminum.
`
`Thus, Dr. Banerjee’s statement that the “reasonable expectation of success
`
`[in covering high-aspect ratio pores using Ott’s process modified with
`
`Vaartstra’s precursor] would not have been affected by the size of aluminum
`
`dialkylamide precursors” is contradicted by Dücsö, the very evidence that
`
`Dr. Banerjee cites as support for his statement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 154 (citing Ex.
`
`1006, 686–87). In light of this evidence, and given the lack of evidence
`
`explaining what a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to do to
`
`achieve high-aspect ratio coverage with the Ott/Vaartstra process and why
`
`these activities would be within the level of ordinary skill, we are not
`
`sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been able to determine how to combine the teachings of Ott and the
`
`teachings of Vaartstra to achieve the coverage mandated by claim 31.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence to
`
`support its argument that the process obtained by modifying Ott’s process to
`
`use the precursor of Vaartstra would satisfy the limitation of claim 31
`
`requiring coverage of “an aspect ratio over 40.” Thus, we are persuaded
`
`that, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Ott and Vaartstra teaches or suggests the limitations of claim
`
`31.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 31 of the
`
`’539 patent is unpatentable as obvious over either Dücsö and Buchanan or
`
`Ott and Vaartstra. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review on
`
`either of those grounds.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied,
`
`and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01493
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`Thomas Engellenner
`Andrew Schultz
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`schultza@pepperlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket