UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM LTD.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TESSERA, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00172
`Patent No. 6,573,609
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ........................ - 1 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ........................................................ - 1 -
`
`RELATED MATTERS .................................................................... - 1 -
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ...................................................................... - 2 -
`
`D. DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL ......................................... - 2 -
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION ............................................................ - 2 -
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY ............................................................... - 3 -
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................... - 3 -
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING ........................................................... - 3 -
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................... - 3 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Background of the Technology .............................................. - 3 -
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................. - 6 -
`
`C.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........... - 6 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ground 1: Iyogi ...................................................................... - 7 -
`
`Ground 2: Iyogi and the Knowledge of One of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art ........................................................................ - 7 -
`
`Ground 3: Iyogi in combination with Kato and the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................... - 7 -
`
`Overview of the Challenged Claims ...................................... - 7 -
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE '609 Patent ............................................................. - 9 -
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE '609 PATENT ..................................... - 9 -
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '609 PATENT AND FILE HISTORY ......... - 9 -
`i
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... - 12 -
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................... - 12 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“connection component” ...................................................... - 13 -
`
`“microelectronic component” .............................................. - 13 -
`
`“microelectronic element” ................................................... - 14 -
`
`“first interposer” ................................................................... - 14 -
`
`“second interposer” .............................................................. - 14 -
`
`Directional terms such as “over,” “under,” “front,”
`“rear,” “top,” “bottom,” etc. ................................................. - 15 -
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................ - 15 -
`
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................... - 15 -
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness .................................................................................... - 16 -
`
`VI. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ........................................................................................... - 18 -
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-3, 6-8, 10, 22-28, 40-42, 45-47, 55-
`58, AND 70-72 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS ANTICIPATED
`BY IYOGI ...................................................................................... - 18 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................. - 18 -
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................. - 21 -
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................. - 22 -
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................. - 23 -
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................. - 23 -
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................. - 24 -
`
`Claim 10 ............................................................................... - 25 -
`
`Claim 22 ............................................................................... - 26 -
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`Claim 23 ............................................................................... - 27 -
`
`10. Claim 24 ............................................................................... - 27 -
`
`11. Claim 25 ............................................................................... - 28 -
`
`12. Claim 26 ............................................................................... - 30 -
`
`13. Claim 27 ............................................................................... - 31 -
`
`14. Claim 28 ............................................................................... - 32 -
`
`15. Claim 40 ............................................................................... - 33 -
`
`16. Claim 41 ............................................................................... - 35 -
`
`17. Claim 42 ............................................................................... - 35 -
`
`18. Claim 45 ............................................................................... - 36 -
`
`19. Claim 46 ............................................................................... - 37 -
`
`20. Claim 47 ............................................................................... - 38 -
`
`21. Claim 55 ............................................................................... - 39 -
`
`22. Claim 56 ............................................................................... - 39 -
`
`23. Claim 57 ............................................................................... - 39 -
`
`24. Claim 58 ............................................................................... - 39 -
`
`25. Claim 70 ............................................................................... - 40 -
`
`26. Claim 71 ............................................................................... - 41 -
`
`27. Claim 72 ............................................................................... - 41 -
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIM 5 IS UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF IYOGI ...................................................................... - 42 -
`
`1.
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................. - 42 -
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`C. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 4, 9, 11-21, 29-39, 43-44, 48-54, 59-69,
`AND 73 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF IYOGI IN COMBINATION WITH KATO ............................ - 43 -
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................ - 43 -
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................. - 43 -
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................. - 44 -
`
`Claim 11 ............................................................................... - 45 -
`
`Claim 12 ............................................................................... - 46 -
`
`Claim 13 ............................................................................... - 47 -
`
`Claim 14 ............................................................................... - 48 -
`
`Claim 15 ............................................................................... - 51 -
`
`Claim 16 ............................................................................... - 53 -
`
`10. Claim 17 ............................................................................... - 53 -
`
`11. Claim 18 ............................................................................... - 54 -
`
`12. Claim 19 ............................................................................... - 54 -
`
`13. Claim 20 ............................................................................... - 54 -
`
`14. Claim 21 ............................................................................... - 55 -
`
`15. Claim 29 ............................................................................... - 55 -
`
`16. Claim 30 ............................................................................... - 56 -
`
`17. Claim 31 ............................................................................... - 57 -
`
`18. Claim 32 ............................................................................... - 58 -
`
`19. Claim 33 ............................................................................... - 59 -
`
`20. Claim 34 ............................................................................... - 59 -
`
`21. Claim 35 ............................................................................... - 59 -
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`22. Claim 36 ............................................................................... - 60 -
`
`23. Claim 37 ............................................................................... - 61 -
`
`24. Claim 38 ............................................................................... - 62 -
`
`25. Claim 39 ............................................................................... - 63 -
`
`26. Claim 43 ............................................................................... - 64 -
`
`27. Claim 44 ............................................................................... - 64 -
`
`28. Claim 48 ............................................................................... - 64 -
`
`29. Claim 49 ............................................................................... - 65 -
`
`30. Claim 50 ............................................................................... - 65 -
`
`31. Claim 51 ............................................................................... - 65 -
`
`32. Claim 52 ............................................................................... - 66 -
`
`33. Claim 53 ............................................................................... - 66 -
`
`34. Claim 54 ............................................................................... - 66 -
`
`35. Claim 59 ............................................................................... - 67 -
`
`36. Claim 60 ............................................................................... - 69 -
`
`37. Claim 61 ............................................................................... - 70 -
`
`38. Claim 62 ............................................................................... - 71 -
`
`39. Claim 63 ............................................................................... - 73 -
`
`40. Claim 64 ............................................................................... - 74 -
`
`41. Claim 65 ............................................................................... - 74 -
`
`42. Claim 66 ............................................................................... - 75 -
`
`43. Claim 67 ............................................................................... - 75 -
`
`44. Claim 68 ............................................................................... - 76 -
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`45. Claim 69 ............................................................................... - 76 -
`
`46. Claim 73 ............................................................................... - 76 -
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... - 77 -
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................................... - 13 -
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................ - 16 -
`
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... - 17 -
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... - 17 -
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... - 17 -
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc.v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... - 17 -
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .............................................................................................. - 16 -
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ..................................................................................................... - 6 -
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) ............................................................................................ - 2 -
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................. - 3 -
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................... - 12 -
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .................................................................................................. - 2 -
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) ..................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`37 CFR § 42.6(a)(2)(ii) ......................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`37 CFR § 42.6(a)(2)(iii) ........................................................................................ - 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`United States Patent No. 6,573,609
`1002
`Certified File History for Exhibit 1001
`1003
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H8-64711
`(including certified translation)
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H9-64236
`(including certified translation)
`Expert Declaration of Wei H. Koh, Ph.D.
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Broadcom, Ltd., Avago Technologies Limited, Avago Technologies U.S.
`
`Inc. and Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioner” or “Broadcom”) hereby respectfully petition for institution of inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,573,609 (the “'609 Patent”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`The following real parties-in-interest are identified: Broadcom Ltd., Avago
`
`Technologies Limited; Avago Technologies U.S., Inc.; and Avago Technologies
`
`Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. Broadcom Ltd. owns 100% of Avago
`
`Technologies Limited; Avago Technologies U.S., Inc.; and Avago Technologies
`
`Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc..
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ‘609 Patent has been asserted against Avago Technologies Limited;
`
`Avago Technologies U.S., Inc.; and Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.)
`
`Manufacturing, Inc. in Tessera Inc. et al. v. Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 16-cv-1034-LPS-CJB (D. Del.). Avago Technologies Limited is no
`
`longer a defendant in that action.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`A payment of $56,800 may be charged against Deposit Account No. 20-
`
`1430. Thus, this Petition meets the fee requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 and
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`D. DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner is Kristopher L. Reed (Reg. No. 58,694), of
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. Matthew Holohan (Reg. No. 73,288), also
`
`of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP is Backup Counsel for Petitioner.
`
`E.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition, in
`
`its entirety, is being served to the address of the attorney or agent of record in the
`
`Patent Office for the '609 Patent. Counsel for Petitioner may be contacted via the
`
`methods below:
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Registration No. 58,694
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202-5549
`(303) 405-8536 (telephone)
`(303) 648-6683 (facsimile)
`
`Matthew C. Holohan
`Registration No. 73,288
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202-5549
`(303) 405-8536 (telephone)
`(303) 648-6683 (facsimile)
`
`The following email address may be used for service and all
`
`communications to both Lead and Backup Counsel:
`
`BC609IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by
`
`Petitioner appointing the above designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the '609 Patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and further certifies that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`inter partes review challenging the '609 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-73 of the '609 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`The ʼ609 Patent relates to packaging microelectronic devices. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:19-24. At the time of the priority date, microelectronic components with rigid
`
`and flexible “interposers” were well-known and used in a variety of applications.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 56. An “interposer” is a medium placed between a device and a
`
`substrate, typically to help account for thermal stress at connection points. Id. At
`
`the time of the priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art selecting an
`
`interposer would have considered parameters such as thermal stress, coefficients of
`
`thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch, interposer position, interposer materials, and
`
`the like. Id. Generally, after selecting a type of microelectronic component for a
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`particular thermal tolerance application, the designer would select materials and
`
`dimensions for the structural elements of the component. Id.
`
`It was well-known that to be useful in packaging, interposers must be
`
`electrically conductive. Id., ¶ 58. Because interposers were typically constructed
`
`of non-conductive material, the necessary electrical conductivity was established
`
`by creating electrically conductive structures that run through the interposer while
`
`attaching to both the semiconductor and the substrate, creating conductive links
`
`between the device and the substrate. Id.
`
`At the time of the purported invention, it was known in the art that one could
`
`create through-holes in an interposer and fill them with conductive materials for
`
`this purpose. Id. Moreover, it was known that one could create contacts between
`
`these conductive structures and the semiconductor. Id. Thus, it was known to
`
`create electrically conductive structures running through an interposer with
`
`contacts on each surface, one set joined to the semiconductor and one set joined to
`
`the substrate. Id. For example, in one microelectronic component known at that
`
`time a composite of 37% PB and 63% Sn solder paste is used to fill through holes
`
`in an interposer. Id. It was also known that solder balls could be used at the
`
`substrate connection points, which could be optimized for specific applications. Id.
`
`Several well-known principles of electrical engineering apply to
`
`microelectronic component design. Id. at ¶ 59. As a general rule, given a particular
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`application for a microelectronic component, both the electrical conductance
`
`properties and thermal tolerance properties need to be considered in designing the
`
`package for the microelectronic component. Id.
`
`The problem of electrical conductance in packaging was well-known to a
`
`person skilled in the art at the time of the purported invention given the technology
`
`at issue. Id. For example, differing metal compositions of solder balls and solder
`
`pastes were known to be used and adjusted for optimal performance prior to the
`
`purported invention. Id. Because different package sizes and tolerances are needed
`
`for different applications, this in turn necessitated different types and composites
`
`of conductive structures in those packages. Id. For a package to work properly, the
`
`electrical conductance needs to be exact to meet performance requirements. Id.
`
`From this need sprang many well-known options and parameters for those skilled
`
`in the art. Id.
`
`The problem of thermal stress was also well-known to a person skilled in the
`
`art. Id. at ¶ 60. Specifically, interposers were created to solve the problem of
`
`breakage at one or more contact points due to repeated thermal stresses. Id.
`
`Because of this need, it was well-known to create interposers from various
`
`materials with differential flexibilities in order to best accommodate the thermal
`
`stresses of a particular package. Id.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`A person skilled in the art designing a microelectronic component at the
`
`time of the priority date of the '609 Patent would have known of several different
`
`options both for the creation of interposers from various materials of differential
`
`flexibilities and the creation of conductive structures running through those
`
`interposers linking a semiconductor or other microelectronic element to a substrate.
`
`Id.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The effective filing date of the '609 Patent is November 25, 1997 (as
`
`described further below). The prior art relied on are:
`
`• Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H8-64711 (“Iyogi”); and
`
`• Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H9-64236 (“Kato”).
`
`Iyogi was filed in Japan on August 25, 1994 and published on March 8,
`
`1996, and thus is prior art to the '609 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`See Ex. 1003. Kato was filed in Japan on August 22, 1995 and published on March
`
`7, 1997, and thus is prior art to the '609 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`See Ex. 1004.
`
`C.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this Petition requests cancellation of claims 1-
`
`73 of the '609 Patent in accordance with the following grounds.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Ground 1: Iyogi
`
`Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 22-28, 40-42, 45-47, 55-58, and 70-72 are unpatentable
`
`as anticipated by Iyogi.
`
`2. Ground 2: Iyogi and the Knowledge of One of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art
`
`Claim 5 of the ‘609 Patent is not patentable as obvious in view of Iyogi and
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`3. Ground 3: Iyogi in combination with Kato and the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Claims 4, 9, 11-21, 29-39, 43-44, 48-54, 59-69, and 73 of the ‘609 Patent are
`
`not patentable as obvious in view of Iyogi in combination with Kato and the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`4. Overview of the Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-73 are directed toward a component comprising a microelectronic
`
`element, a first interposer, a second interposer that is more flexible than the first
`
`interposer, conductive structures running through the interposers and connected to
`
`the microelectronic element, and planar leads connected to the conductive
`
`structures at the junction between the second interposer and a substrate. For
`
`example, claim 1 recites a connection component comprising:
`
`a first interposer having first and second surfaces;
`
`a second interposer having top and bottom surfaces, said
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`top surface being disposed under said second surface,
`
`wherein the second interposer is more flexible than the
`
`first interposer;
`
`a plurality of conductive structures exposed at the first
`
`surface of the first interposer; and
`
`a plurality of planar leads exposed at the bottom surface
`
`of the second interposer, wherein each of the planar
`
`leads is electrically connected to at least one of the
`
`conductive structures.
`
`In short, claim 1 and the other claims merely cover the routine and well-
`
`known process of creating a typical interposer in two pieces with differential
`
`flexibilities.
`
`With limited exceptions, the claims of the '609 Patent provide no quantities,
`
`specific materials, or performance parameters that the formed microelectronic
`
`component would need to possess. Even claims 22-23, 31, and 56-57, which recite
`
`that the first interposer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of
`
`alumina, beryllia, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, forsterite, mullite, silicon,
`
`glass/ceramic composite, polyester /fiberglass composite, polyimide/fiberglass
`
`composite, epoxy/fiberglass composite and BT., (claims 22 and 56), that the
`
`second interposer comprises polyimide (claims 23 and 57), or that a conductive
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`polymer comprises conductive adhesive (claim 31), provide no detail other than a
`
`material for one of several elements within the claim.
`
`During prosecution, the applicant amended rejected claim 1 to include the
`
`term “component”, rewrote the dependent claims to remove dependence on
`
`rejected base claims, and argued that the cited Miyazaki reference did not
`
`anticipate any of the claims because it did not disclose the presence of a first
`
`interposer and a second interposer. Ex. 1002 at p. 129-132. Thus, all claims
`
`included a limitation directed to having both a first interposer and a second
`
`interposer.
`
`The claimed packages amount to nothing more than the presence of two
`
`interposers (or, functionally, a single interposer in two discrete portions), one of
`
`which is more flexible than the other.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE '609 Patent
`
`A.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE '609 PATENT
`
`The '609 Patent was filed on January 26, 2001 and claims priority to U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/978,082, filed on November 25, 1997. Thus, the earliest
`
`priority date of the ʼ609 Patent is November 25, 1997.
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '609 PATENT AND FILE HISTORY
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The '609 Patent
`
`describes microelectronic
`
`connection components
`
`including a first (rigid)
`
`interposer, a second
`
`interposer that is more
`
`flexible than the first
`
`interposer, and a plurality of
`
`conductive parts that may be
`
`positioned in both interposers and may be exposed at a first surface of the first
`
`interposer, a bottom surface of the second interposer, or both.
`
`The specification of the '609 Patent describes a connection component that
`
`includes a rigid interposer, a flexible interposer, and a plurality of joining units. Ex.
`
`1001 at col. 3-5. Figures 1 and 2 of the '609 Patent illustrate those features.
`
`The rigid
`
`interposer (2, 21) has a
`
`first surface (4,24) and a
`
`second surface (5,25) and
`
`a plurality of electrical
`
`contacts on said second
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`surface (6,26). Id. at 11:11-25. The flexible interposer (7,27) has a top surface (8,
`
`28), a bottom surface (9, 29) and terminals (10), apertures (30) or conductive vias
`
`(31). Id. at 11:26-40. There is also a plurality of joining units (12,32) with
`
`spherical solid cores (13,33) with diameters less than the pitch or distance between
`
`adjacent terminals. Id. at 11:41-44. Each joining unit further includes a layer of a
`
`unit bonding material (14, 34). Id. at 11: 52-54. The assembly further includes a
`
`compliant layer (15, 36) formed from an elastomer, gel, adhesive, or other
`
`compliant material. Id. at 11:61-65. The compliant layer (15, 36) is disposed
`
`between the second surface (5, 25) of the rigid interposer (2, 21) and the top
`
`surface (8, 28) of the flexible interposer (7, 27). Id.
`
`The '609 Patent was filed with 98 claims directed to components and devices
`
`containing multiple interposers, and methods for making the same. In response to a
`
`restriction requirement, the applicant elected to prosecute the seventy-three (73)
`
`claims directed to components and devices containing multiple interposers and to
`
`withdraw the twenty-five (25) claims (70-94) directed to methods for making the
`
`same.
`
`In the first office action, four claims (95-98) were allowed because the
`
`examiner found
`
`the applied reference fails to teach having a plurality of joining units
`
`disposed at the bottom surface of the second interposer, wherein each
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`of the joining units is electrically connected to one of the planar leads;
`
`and a support substrate having a plurality electrically connected
`
`contact pads [sic], wherein each of the pads is electrically connected
`
`to one of the joining units.
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 107-108 (Office Action issued May 23, 2002, p. 4-5). The remaining
`
`dependent claims were found to be allowable if re-written in independent form. Id.
`
`
`
`The next office action allowed all claims, stating no specific reasons for
`
`allowance other than withdrawal of the earlier rejections upon consideration of
`
`Applicant’s remarks. Id. at 136. Patentability of all issued claims of the '609 Patent
`
`was based on the presence of a first interposer and a second interposer.
`
`C.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the
`
`’609 patent would have been someone with at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering or an equivalent discipline, and (i) an advanced degree in
`
`electrical engineering or an equivalent discipline, or (ii) at least two years of
`
`industrial, academic, or practical experience in the field of electronic packaging.
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 54.
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the claim terms of an unexpired patent
`
`subject to inter partes review shall receive the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear.” See Cuozzo Speed
`
`Tech., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142-43 (2016). The constructions proposed
`
`below, and applied by Petitioner here for these proceedings only, are consistent
`
`with the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. Unless
`
`otherwise discussed below, any claim term not specifically identified for claim
`
`construction by Petitioner need not be construed by the Board.
`
`1.
`
` “connection component”
`
`The ‘609 patent states that connection components include “chip carriers.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 8:15-18. Therefore, the term “connection component” should be
`
`construed to include chip carriers for the purposes of this proceeding. Ex. 1005, ¶
`
`65.
`
`2.
`
`“microelectronic component”
`
`The ‘609 patent states that microelectronic components include
`
`semiconductor chips, a rigid interposer, a flexible interposer, a plurality of
`
`conductive structures, and a plurality of planar leads. Ex. 1001 at 9:64-10:21.
`
`Therefore, the term “microelectronic component” should be construed to include
`
`chip carriers with the recited structures for the purposes of this proceeding. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶ 66.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`“microelectronic element”
`
`The ʼ609 patent states that microelectronic elements are “single
`
`semiconductor chips, a plurality of individual semiconductor chips, a plurality of
`
`interconnected semiconductor chips or a wafer of un-diced semiconductor chips.
`
`Other microelectronic elements, such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc., may
`
`also be connected to the test socket assembly.” Ex. 1001 at 13:41-50. Therefore,
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “microelectronic element” should be
`
`to include semiconductor chips. Ex. 1005, ¶ 67.
`
`4.
`
`“first interposer”
`
`The ’609 patent teaches that, in one embodiment, the “first interposer” is an
`
`interposer with a first surface, a second surface, and a plurality of electrical
`
`contacts on such second surface. Ex. 1001 at 11:15-17. Additionally, the
`
`specification of the ’609 patent designates that the first interposer is a “rigid
`
`interposer.” Ex. 1001 at 3:13-48. Under the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard, therefore, the term “first interposer” should be construed to include
`
`relatively rigid interposers with two surfaces and electrical contacts on one of those
`
`surfaces. Ex. 1005, ¶ 68.
`
`5.
`
`“second interposer”
`
`The ’609 patent teaches that, in one embodiment, the “second interposer” is
`
`an interposer with a top surface, a bottom surface, apertures, and terminals. Ex.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`1001 at 11:26-40. Additionally, the specification of the ’609 patent designates that
`
`the second interposer is a “flexible interposer