`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
`
`