throbber
Paper: 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: October 1, 2018
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`AND SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TESSERA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`____________
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Notice of Filing Date Accorded inadvertently omitted Samsung in
`“Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.” in the caption. See Paper 5, 1. The parties
`are encouraged to use the heading on the first page of this Decision, and not
`the first page of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded (Paper 5), for all future
`filings in the proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–13, and 15–18 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,954,001 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’001 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) did not file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to
`determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may be not instituted unless
`“the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). On April 24, 2018, the
`Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may
`not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc.
`v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). For the reasons set forth below,
`upon considering the Petition and evidence of record, we determine that the
`information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims
`based on the all of the grounds identified in the Petition.
`Our findings of fact and conclusions of law discussed below, are
`based on the evidentiary record developed thus far and made for the sole
`purpose of determining whether the Petition meets the threshold for
`initiating review. This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`the patentability of any challenged claim or the construction of any claim
`limitation. Any final decision will be based on the full record developed
`during trial.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`A.
`Petitioner identifies itself—Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.—as the real
`parties-in-interest. Pet. 3.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`The parties identify the following current patent litigation proceedings
`in which the ’001 patent is asserted: (1) the Matter of Certain Wafer-Level
`Packaging Semiconductor Devices And Products Containing Same
`(Including Cellular Phones, Tablets, Laptops, And Notebooks) And
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1080 (USITC); and (2) Tessera
`Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Civ. No. 2:17-cv-07621
`(D.N.J.). Id. at 3; Paper 7, 2. In addition, Petitioner identifies the following
`completed patent litigation proceeding in which the ’001 patent was
`asserted: Tessera, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Div. No. 1:16-cv-00380 (D.
`Del.). Pet. 3.
`Additionally, the parties identify two pending inter partes review
`proceedings: (1) Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc., Case
`IPR2018-00798 (involving the ’001 patent) and (2) Samsung Elecs. Co. v.
`Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc., Case IPR2018-00466 (involving a related
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,784,557). Id. at 3; Paper 7, 2. Petitioner also
`identifies Broadcom Corp. v. Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc., Case IPR2017-
`01486, which was terminated pursuant to a settlement agreement after trial
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`was instituted. See Pet. 3; Broadcom Corp. v. Tessera Advanced Techs.,
`Inc., Case IPR2017-01486, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Jan. 2, 2018) (Paper 13).
`
`The ’001 Patent
`C.
`The ’001 patent, titled “Semiconductor Device Including a Diffusion
`Layer,” states that an object of the invention is to provide a semiconductor
`device “having improved junction reliability between the metal wiring and a
`ball electrode mounted on an external electrode portion of the metal wiring.”
`Ex. 1001, [54], 2:35–41.
`Figure 15, reproduced below, illustrates a cross section of a
`conventional semiconductor device.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 15 above and as described in the ’001 patent, in a
`conventional semiconductor device, “the wiring electrodes of the substrate
`on which the semiconductor device is mounted are respectively connected to
`metal wirings 4 of [copper (Cu)] formed on the surface of semiconductor
`element 1 through ball electrodes 6 formed from the solder.” Id. at 2:4–9.
`According to the ’001 patent, “tin (Sn) contained in solder of the ball
`electrode 6 diffuses into [copper (Cu)] of the metal wiring 4 to form a Sn–
`Cu alloy layer.” Id. at 2:15–18. The ’001 patent states that, “[a]s a result, in
`the portion of the metal wiring 4 on which the ball electrode 6 is mounted
`(i.e., the external electrode portion) and the portion near the external
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`electrode portion, the Sn–Cu alloy grows in the most part of the metal
`wiring.” Id. at 2:18–22. The ’001 patent states that “[t]he Sn–Cu alloy is
`weak and hard” and “is likely to be broken by the stresses” generated due to
`differences in the thermal expansion coefficients of the semiconductor
`element, the resin film (if included), and the substrate. Id. at 2:1–3, 2:22–31.
`Figure 2 of the ’001 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of “the semiconductor device of
`the first embodiment.” Id. at 8:11–12. As illustrated in Figure 2 above,
`electrodes 12 are formed on the surface of semiconductor element 11. Id. at
`8:10–11. A passivation film 13, also formed over the surface of
`semiconductor element 11, has an opening on each electrode 12. Id. at
`8:13–17. According to the ’001 patent, metal wirings 14 containing copper
`are formed on passivation film 13, and “[e]ach metal wiring 14 is electrically
`connected to a corresponding one of the electrodes 12.” Id. at 8:18–21. The
`’001 patent discloses that insulating film 15 is formed on metal wirings 14
`and passivation film 13 and “has openings in order to expose a portion of
`each metal wiring 14 which functions as an external electrode (hereinafter,
`referred to as ‘external electrode portion 14a’).” Id. at 8:21–26. According
`to the ’001 patent, “ball electrodes 16, which are formed from solder, are
`connected in a molten state to the openings of the insulating film 15, that is,
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`the external electrode portions 14a of the metal wirings 14, respectively.”
`Id. at 8:27–35.
`The ’001 patent states that “[t]he present embodiment is characterized
`in that the thickness (e.g., 14 µm) of the external electrode portion 14a of the
`metal wiring 14 is greater than that of the other portion of the metal wiring
`14 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘non-electrode portion’).” Id. at 8:39–43. The
`’001 patent further states:
`When the metal wirings 14 contain, e.g., Cu (which is a
`commonly used metal wiring material), Sn contained in solder
`of the ball electrode 16 diffuses into Cu contained in the metal
`wiring 14, whereby a Sn–Cu alloy layer having low strength
`grows in the thickness direction of the external electrode
`portion 14a. However, since the thickness of the external
`electrode portion 14a of the metal wiring 14 is greater than that
`of the non-electrode portion of the metal wiring 14, this Sn–Cu
`alloy layer can be prevented from growing through the entire
`thickness of the external electrode portion 14a.
`Id. at 8:63–9:6. According to the ’001 patent, “[s]ince a part of the external
`electrode portion 14a is left unchanged into the Sn–Cu alloy layer, the
`strength of the metal wiring 14 can be maintained even if Cu is used as a
`metal wiring material.” Id. at 9:9–12. The ’001 patent adds that even if
`stresses due to a difference in thermal expansion coefficients are generated,
`“the . . . structure of the first embodiment can prevent the Sn–Cu alloy layer
`having low strength from being broken and thus can prevent disconnection
`of the metal wirings 14.” Id. at 9:20–24.
`The ’001 patent further states that “[i]n the first embodiment, the
`thickness of the external electrode portion 14a of the metal wiring 14 (e.g.,
`the total thickness of the non-electrode portion of the metal wiring 14 and
`the metal-material embedded portion) is preferably in the range of 10 µm to
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`20 µm.” Id. at 9:36–40. The patent also states that “in the first embodiment,
`the thickness of the non-electrode portion of the metal wiring 14 is
`preferably in the range of 0.01 µm to 8 µm, and more preferably in the range
`of 0.01 µm to 4 µm.” Id. at 9:25–28.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–18 of the ’001 patent. Pet. 4. Claims 1
`and 10 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the
`subject matter of the challenged claims and read as follows:
`1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
`a semiconductor element;
`a first electrode portion formed on the semiconductor element,
`said first electrode portion comprising a first metal
`component;
`a second electrode portion formed on the semiconductor
`element and electrically connected to said first electrode
`portion, said second electrode portion comprising a
`second metal component different from said first metal
`component; and
`a diffusion layer formed between said first electrode portion
`and said second electrode portion,
`wherein said diffusion layer comprises said first metal
`component and said second metal component. . . .
`10. A semiconductor device comprising:
`a semiconductor element;
`a first electrode portion formed on the semiconductor element,
`said first electrode portion comprising a first metal
`component;
`a second electrode portion formed on the semiconductor
`element and electrically connected to said first electrode
`portion, said second electrode portion comprising a
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`second metal component different from said first metal
`component; and
`a diffusion layer formed between said first electrode portion
`and said second electrode portion,
`wherein said diffusion layer comprises said first metal
`component and said second metal component, and
`said first electrode portion and said diffusion layer have a
`combined thickness in the range of 10 µm to 20 µm.
`Id. at 26:15–28, 26:61–27:9, Certificate of Correction (correcting claim 10).
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis2
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Kimura3 and Takizawa4
`§ 103(a) 1–4, 6–8, 10–13, and 15–17
`Kimura, Takizawa, and Nozawa5
`§ 103(a) 9 and 18
`
`Pet. 5. In its analysis, Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of
`Miltiadis K. Hatalis, Ph.D (“Ex. 1002.”).
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. § 100 et seq. effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’001 patent
`issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-
`AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`3 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Bulletin No. JP-2001-118957-A
`(published Apr. 27, 2001) (Ex. 1007). Petitioner provides an English
`language translation of Kimura. Ex. 1008. All references to foreign
`language documents in this Decision are made to the corresponding English
`translation.
`4 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2000-260894 (published Sept.
`22, 2000) (Ex. 1014). Petitioner provides an English language translation of
`Takizawa. Ex. 1015.
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,010 B1 (issued Jan. 30, 2001) (Ex. 1012).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`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
`also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable construction standard).
`“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812
`F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, the Board may not “construe
`claims during [an inter partes review] so broadly that its constructions are
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis
`omitted). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different
`from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner contends, for purposes of this proceeding, that no terms
`need to be construed. Pet. 22.
`Having considered the evidence presented, we conclude that no
`express claim construction is necessary for our determination of whether to
`institute review of the challenged claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need
`be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`
`Legal Principles of Obviousness
`B.
`An invention is not patentable as obvious “if the differences between
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and, (4) where
`in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness such as commercial
`success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17−18 (1966). When evaluating a combination of
`teachings, we also must “determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn,
`441, F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We analyze the ground based on
`obviousness in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`C.
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955,
`962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In a given case, “one or more factors may
`predominate.” Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention
`would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in mechanical
`engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a
`related field and 3–5 years of experience in the
`design/development of semiconductor packages; (ii) a Master’s-
`level degree in mechanical engineering, materials science,
`electrical engineering, or a related field and 1–3 years of
`experience in the design/development of semiconductor
`packages; or (iii) a Ph.D.-level degree in mechanical
`engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a
`related field and some experience in the area of semiconductor
`packaging.
`Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–23).
`For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art.6
`
`D. Obviousness over Kimura and Takizawa
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–13,
`and 15–17 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention in light of the teachings of Kimura and Takizawa.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted obviousness ground with
`respect to claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–13, and 15–17.
`
`1. Summary of Kimura
`Kimura is titled “Semiconductor Device” and is directed “to a ball
`grid array (BGA) type semiconductor device, and particularly to a wiring
`
`
`6 To the extent Patent Owner proposes a materially different level of
`ordinary skill in the art, that difference and its effect on the unpatentability
`analysis should be explicitly set forth in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`structure on a chip in chip-size BGA, in which bumps for external
`connection are provided on the chip.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 1, [54].
`Kimura discloses “a semiconductor device” including “a
`semiconductor chip as well as a first insulating resin [(first polyimide film)],
`a wire, a second insulating resin [(second polyimide film)], a bump for
`external connection and a first metal film, all of which are formed on the
`chip.” Id. ¶ 12; see also id. ¶ 18. “[T]he wire is formed on the chip with the
`first insulating resin therebetween, and connects a bonding pad on the chip
`with the bump.” Id. ¶12. Additionally, “the second insulating resin is
`formed overlaid on the wire and covers the entire surface of the chip
`excluding a region in which the bump is formed.” Id. Moreover, “the first
`metal film is formed on the second insulating resin and covers the entire
`surface of the chip excluding the area of the bump.” Id. Kiumra further
`discloses lands “formed at predetermined positions above the first polyimide
`film” “on which solder balls for external connection are mounted” and
`which are connected to the pads by wires. Id. ¶ 18. These features are
`shown in Figure 2, annotated by Petitioner, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`Pet. 25. Figure 2 “is an enlarged sectional view of a portion” of the
`semiconductor device in which Petitioner has identified the chip, first
`polyimide layer, land, pad, wire, and second polyimide layer. Ex. 1008, 6;
`Pet. 25.
`
`2. Summary of Takizawa
`Takizawa is titled “Semiconductor Device and Method of
`Manufacturing Semiconductor Device.” Ex. 1015, [54]. Takizawa discloses
`a “semiconductor device [that] has [a] wiring part 2 containing [copper] that
`is connected to a semiconductor chip 1.” Id. ¶ 34. Takizawa further states
`that “the solder ball 11 containing [tin] is connected to the wiring part 2.”
`Id. Takizawa also discloses “an electrode part 12 that is placed on the
`semiconductor chip 1 on the semiconductor device according to the present
`embodiment, and the solder ball 11 and the electrode part 12 are connected
`by the metal 5.” Id. The Petition contains an annotated version for
`Takizawa Figure 1, reproduced below, that Petitioner contends shows those
`features.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 26. Takizawa Figure 1 “is a cross sectional view illustrating the
`semiconductor device according to one embodiment of the present
`invention” and has been annotated by Petitioner to identify the solder ball,
`wiring part, and electrode. Id.; Ex. 1015, 10
`Takizawa also discloses that “a strong [copper-tin] alloy layer is
`formed on the bonding part between the solder ball 11 and the wiring part 2,
`or in other words, the land 7 portion on which the solder ball 11 is placed on
`the wiring part 2.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 35; see also id. ¶ 20 (discussing the benefit of
`having the tin from the solder ball diffuse to the copper to “form a Cu-SN
`alloy layer with sufficient thickness to prevent detachment of the solder ball
`near the bonding part, [which] can increase the strength of the bonding
`parts[] and . . . reduce the occurrence rate of fractures and cracks near the
`bonding part.”). Takizawa further discloses that “[f]orming the [copper-tin]
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`alloy layer with a thickness of at least 1.87 μm . . . was preferable in order to
`prevent detachment of the solder ball 11.” Id. ¶ 40.
`
`3. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Kimura and Takizawa
`teaches all of the limitations recited in claim 1 and that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`two references. Pet. 34–50.
`Petitioner contends Kimura teaches “[a] semiconductor device.” See
`id. at 39. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Kimura explains that “[t]he
`present invention relates to a . . . semiconductor device” and claims “a
`semiconductor device characterized by . . . .” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 1,
`claim 1) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 11, 17, Fig. 1).
`Petitioner further contends Kimura teaches “a semiconductor
`element.” See id. at 39–41. Specifically, Petitioner points to “chip 2 into
`which desired functions are built.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 18). Petitioner
`further asserts that the word chip is shorthand for semiconductor chip. Id. at
`40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 82).
`Petitioner also argues Kimura teaches “a first electrode portion
`formed on the semiconductor element, said first electrode portion
`comprising a first metal component.” See id. at 41–44. Specifically,
`Petitioner argues Kimura teaches that “lands 5 [are] formed at predetermined
`positions above the first polyimide film 4, on which solder balls for external
`connection are mounted; wires 6 [are] formed on the first polyimide film 4,
`which connect pads 3 and the lands 5.” Id. at 41 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 18)
`(emphasis omitted). Petitioner asserts that the combination of the land and
`the wire below the land constitute the first electrode portion. Id. at 41–42
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84; Ex. 1001, 8:39–55, 9:36–40). Additionally, Petitioner
`asserts that “[t]he first electrode portion is comprised of a first metal
`component because Kimura’s wires and lands are comprised of copper.” Id.
`at 43 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 22–24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner further contends Kimura and Takizawa both teach “a
`second electrode portion formed on the semiconductor element and
`electrically connected to said first electrode portion, said second electrode
`portion comprising a second metal component different from said first metal
`component.” See id. at 44–46. Specifically, Petitioner argues “Kimura
`teaches that solder balls (i.e., second electrode portion) are mounted on the
`lands (i.e., the top portion of a first electrode portion) to form external
`connections.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 87); see also
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 26. Petitioner also argues that a person having ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood . . . that the solder balls were comprised of a
`metal, other than copper, having a low melting point,” and “that solder at
`that time was typically comprised of tin and lead.” Pet. 44 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 87).
`With respect to Takizawa, Petitioner asserts Takizawa teaches a
`second electrode portion comprising a second metal component because it
`employs a solder ball (i.e., second electrode portion) that comprises tin and
`is mounted on a copper wiring layer (i.e., first electrode portion). Id. at 45
`(citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 3, 9, 19, 20, 33–35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 88).
`Petitioner also argues Kimura and Takizawa both teach “a diffusion
`layer formed between said first electrode portion and said second electrode
`portion.” Id. at 46–48. More specifically, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Kimura discloses a
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`diffusion layer as a result of the reflow process that Kimura describes for
`bonding the solder balls to the lands for external connection. Id. at 46 (citing
`(Ex. 1008 ¶ 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 90). Petitioner further asserts that the ’001 patent
`teaches that “[t]he formation of a diffusion layer was well known by
`[persons having ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001,
`2:15–18).
`Additionally, Petitioner contends Takizawa teaches a diffusion layer,
`formed between its wiring and solder ball. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1015
`¶¶ 3, 34, 35, Fig. 2(b), Fig. 8(b); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91–92).
`Petitioner also contends Kimura and Takizawa both teach “wherein
`said diffusion layer comprises said first metal component and said second
`metal component.” Id. at 48–50. Specifically, Petitioner avers that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art “would have known that the reflow process
`would result in a diffusion layer comprising Cu from the land (i.e., a first
`metal component) and Sn from the solder (i.e., a second metal component).”
`Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94).
`Alternatively, Petitioner asserts “Takizawa discloses a diffusion layer
`that forms between the first and second electrode portions. Takizawa further
`discloses that the diffusion layer comprises the first metal component (from
`the first electrode portion) and the second metal component (from the second
`electrode portion).” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 35, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 95);
`see also id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 3, 9, 19, 20, 33–35, 42, 44, Figs. 2,
`8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97).
`Finally, Petitioner argues a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of Kimura and
`Takizawa. See id. at 34–39. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`skill in the art would have “incorporate[ed] Takizawa’s teaching to improve
`the connection reliability between a solder ball and a metal wire by forming
`a copper-tin diffusion layer between the wiring and the solder ball in the
`optimum thickness range of 1.87 μm to 4 μm.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 73); see also id. at 35–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74–79; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 6–10, 35,
`40, 42–44; Ex. 1008 ¶ 26).
`Having reviewed the record, we determine, for the reasons stated in
`the Petition and discussed above, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for
`the purpose of institution that the combination of Kimura and Takizawa
`teaches each limitation of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings in the
`manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`4. Claim 10
`For most of the limitations recited in independent claim 10, Petitioner
`relies on arguments and evidence discussed above with respect to
`independent claim 1. See id. at 60–61.
`In addition to the limitations recited in claim 1, claim 10 further
`recites: “wherein . . . said first electrode portion and said diffusion layer
`have a combined thickness in the range of 10 μm to 20 μm.” Ex. 1001,
`27:8–9, Certificate of Correction. Petitioner asserts Kimura in combination
`with Takizawa teaches this additional limitation. Pet. 61–66.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that Kimura teaches that “the
`thickness of the first electrode portion in Kimura is 10.7-15.7 μm.” Id. at 61
`(citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 22, 23; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122; Ex. 1015 ¶ 40).
`Petitioner further contends Takizawa teaches the advantages of having
`a specific thickness to the diffusion layer. Id. at 61–63. Based on the ranges
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`in Takizawa, Petitioner asserts that the combined thickness could range
`between 10.7 μm and 19.7 μm, which is within the range cited in claim 10.
`Id. at 64–666 (Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 9–12, 35, 40, Figs. 2, 8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125).
`Having reviewed the record, we determine, for the reasons stated in
`the Petition and discussed above, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for
`the purpose of institution that the combination of Kimura and Takizawa
`teaches each limitation of claim 10, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings in the
`manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`5. Dependent Claims 2–4, 6–8, 11–13, and 15–17
`Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`success in proving that at least one claim of the ’001 patent is unpatentable,
`we will institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. Given
`that we have found Petitioner has satisfied its burden to move forward as to
`claims 1 and 10, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every
`other ground raised by Petitioner, especially, whereas here, Patent Owner
`has elected not to file a Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response.
`Nevertheless, we note that Petitioner provides detailed explanations
`supported by the testimony of Dr. Hatalis and specific citations to Kimura
`and Takizawa indicating where in the references the limitations of claims 2–
`4, 6–8, 11–13, and 15–17 are taught. Pet. 50–58, 66–67. At this preliminary
`stage in the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s analyses of claims 2–4,
`6–8, 11–13, and 15–17 and adopt them as our own.
`
`E. Obviousness over Kimura, Takizawa, and Nozawa
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claim 9 and 19 would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`invention in light of the teachings of Kimura, Takizawa, and Nozawa
`(Ex. 1012). Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted
`obviousness ground with respect to claims 9 and 18.
`
`1. Summary of Nozawa
`Nozawa “relates to a semiconductor device and method of
`manufacturing the same, a circuit board and an electronic instrument.”
`Ex. 1012, 1:6–8.
`Nozawa discloses a “semiconductor chip 100 [upon which] a plurality
`of electrodes 104 are formed.” Id. at 4:34–36. Nozawa further discloses
`that “the electrodes 104 are connected [to] an interconnect layer 120 [which]
`extends into a region avoiding the electrodes 104.” Id. at 4:42–45. “In the
`position (part or region) of the interconnect layer 120 avoiding the electrodes
`104 [is] provided a conducting layer 122,” upon which “an underlying metal
`layer 124” is placed. Id. at 4:46–5:11. Additionally, a resin layer 126 is
`formed on the interconnect layer 120 and a bump 200 is provided on the
`underlying metal layer 124. Id. at 5:12–20, 5:40–52. According to Nozawa,
`the claimed invention results in a device that allows for a reliable connection
`to be formed directly between the semiconductor device and the substrate
`resulting in electronic instruments that are more compact and lightweight.
`Ex. 1012, 1:41–48. Figure 1 of Nozawa, which shows these features, is
`reproduced below.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00799
`Patent 6,954,001 B2
`
`
`FIG. 1 shows a first embodiment of the semiconductor device
`of the present invention. The semiconductor device shown in
`FIG. 1 comprises a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip)
`100 on which is provided a bump 200 with a stress relief
`function interposed. This configuration allows flip-chip having
`a stress relief function, and can also be classified as CSP (Chip
`Siz

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