Impinj, Inc. v. NXP B.V.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,680,523
`
`Petitioner’s Presentation in Support of Unpatentability
`
`IPR2020-01630
`
`1
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,680,523
`
`Petitioner’s Presentation in Support of Unpatentability
`
`IPR2020-01630
`
`1
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`THE CLAIMS
`
`2
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1),
`having a multitude of chips (5),
`of which chips (5) each one of a given number of chips (5) is situated in
`one of a multitude of adjacent exposure fields (2),
`and having process control modules (4) which are each arranged in a given
`area on the semiconductor wafer (1),
`in which the given areas are formed by the exposure fields (2), and in
`which each process control module (4) takes the place of at least one chip
`(5).
`
`3
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 2
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as claimed in claim 1,
`in which a process control module (4) is present in each one of at least 25%
`of all the exposure fields (2), and in which the process control modules (4)
`are situated at equal distances from each other with respect to two mutually
`perpendicular coordinate directions (7, 8).
`
`4
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 3
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as claimed in claim 2,
`in which a process control module (4) is present in each exposure field.
`
`5
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 4
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as claimed in claim 1,
`in which all the process control modules (4) are each situated at the same
`location (6) in the respective exposure fields (2).
`
`6
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`
`7
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`JANUARY 14, 2003 OFFICE ACTION
`
`APRIL 10, 2003 AMENDMENT
`
`8
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 11, Ex. 1002 at 37-39.
`Pet. at 11, Ex. 1002 at 29-33.
`Applicant argued the claims are distinguishable from the Have patent because
`the claims require multiple chips.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`July 14, 2003 NOTICE OF ALLOWABILITY
`
`9
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 12, Ex. 1002 at 46-48.
`
`Petitioner’s prior art overcomes this failure
`as all of the recited limitations are shown
`with multiple chips and exposure fields.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`THE PRIOR ART
`
`10
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Prior Art: Yamaguchi
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,492,189
`
`Filed: October 26, 2000
`
` Wafer
` Multitude of chips
` Adjacent exposure fields
` PCMs take the place of at
`least one chip
`
`11
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 15.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1),
`having a multitude of chips (5),
`of which chips (5) each one of a given
`number of chips (5) is situated in one of a
`multitude of adjacent exposure fields (2),
`and having process control modules (4)
`which are each arranged in a given area on
`the semiconductor wafer (1),
`in which the given areas are formed by the
`exposure fields (2), and in which each
`process control module (4) takes the place
`of at least one chip (5).
`
`12
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 20-22.
`Figures 1 and 7 (modified).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1),
`having a multitude of chips (5),
`of which chips (5) each one of a given
`number of chips (5) is situated in one of a
`multitude of adjacent exposure fields (2),
`and having process control modules (4)
`which are each arranged in a given area on
`the semiconductor wafer (1),
`in which the given areas are formed by the
`exposure fields (2), and in which each
`process control module (4) takes the place
`of at least one chip (5).
`
`13
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 23-24.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`•
`
`“PCMs” refers to process control monitors or process control modules (which can contain multiple monitors) “that [are]
`placed on a wafer to assist in the process of producing the integrated circuits … on the wafer.” Petition at 13. “[T]he
`ordinary meaning of PCMs encompasses test structures used to detect flaws at any point in the wafer fabrication
`process.” Pet. Reply at 12.
`• A POSITA would understand the test element groups (“TEGs”) to be within the scope of PCMs
`
`14
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Thompson Dec. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 42, 44, 74.
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`“…in which the given areas are formed by
`the exposure fields (2)…”
`
`Pet. at 15-19, Ex. 1003 at 1:17-22.
`
`Pet. at 23, Ex. 1003 at 5:10-11; Figure 1 (modified).
`
`15
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`“…each control module (4) takes the place
`of at least one chip (5).”
`
`Pet. at 24, Ex. 1003 at 2:1-5.
`
`Pet. at 23, Ex. 1003 at 5:10-11, (modified).
`
`16
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 4
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as claimed in claim 1, in which all of the process
`control modules (4) are each situated at the same location (6) in the
`respective exposure fields (2).
`
`Same location
`
`17
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 26-27, Ex. 1003 Figures 1 and 6C (modified).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of Prior Art: Satya
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,174
`
`Filed: August 25, 2000
`Claims priority to two
`provisional patents filed
`December 4, 1999 and April
`18, 2000
` Wafer
` Multitude of chips
` Adjacent exposure fields
` PCMs take the place of at
`least one chip
`
`18
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 27.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1),
`having a multitude of chips (5),
`of which chips (5) each one of a given
`number of chips (5) is situated in one of a
`multitude of adjacent exposure fields (2),
`and having process control modules (4)
`which are each arranged in a given area on
`the semiconductor wafer (1),
`in which the given areas are formed by the
`exposure fields (2), and in which each
`process control module (4) takes the place
`of at least one chip (5).
`
`19
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. at 30.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Figures 4A and 4B (modified).
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1),
`having a multitude of chips (5),
`of which chips (5) each one of a given
`number of chips (5) is situated in one of a
`multitude of adjacent exposure fields (2),
`and having process control modules (4)
`which are each arranged in a given area on
`the semiconductor wafer (1),
`in which the given areas are formed by the
`exposure fields (2), and in which each
`process control module (4) takes the place
`of at least one chip (5).
`
`Pet. at 30, Ex. 1004 10:33-35.
`
`20
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 27-28, EX1004 at 10:33-35.
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`•
`
`“PCMs” refers to process control monitors or process control modules (which can contain multiple monitors) “that [are]
`placed on a wafer to assist in the process of producing the integrated circuits … on the wafer.” Petition at 13. “[T]he
`ordinary meaning of PCMs encompasses test structures used to detect flaws at any point in the wafer fabrication process.”
`Pet. Reply at 12.
`• A POSITA would understand the test die to be within the scope of PCMs
`
`21
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 42-44, 99.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 at 10:35-38.
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`“…in which the given areas are formed by
`the exposure fields (2)…”
`
`Thompson Reply Dec., Ex. 1011 at ¶ 9.
`
`22
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Figures 4A and 4B (modified).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`“…in which the given areas are formed by
`the exposure fields (2)…”
`
`The reticle is “stepped” across
`the wafer creating a pattern with
`the test die in a “given area
`formed by the exposure fields”
`
`23
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶ 41.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 1
`
`“…each control module (4) takes the place of at least one chip (5).”
`
`Pet. at 30, EX1004 at 11:4-5.
`
`Petition at 31, Thompson Decl. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 100.
`
`24
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 2
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as
`claimed in claim 1, in which a
`process control module ( 4) is
`present in each one of at least
`25% of all the exposure fields
`(2) and in which the process
`control modules (4) are situated
`at equal distances from each
`other with respect to two
`mutually perpendicular
`coordinate directions (7, 8).
`
`Petition at 33, Ex. 1004 at 8:48-53, Thompson Dec., Ex.
`1007 at ¶ 101-02.
`
`25
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 2
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as
`claimed in claim 1, in which a
`process control module ( 4) is
`present in each one of at least
`25% of all the exposure fields
`(2) and in which the process
`control modules (4) are situated
`at equal distances from each
`other with respect to two
`mutually perpendicular
`coordinate directions (7, 8).
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1007 at ¶ 101.
`
`26
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 3
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as
`claimed in claim 2, in which a
`process control module (4) is
`present in each exposure field
`(2).
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1007 at ¶ 101.
`
`27
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Satya Anticipates and Renders Obvious : Claim 4
`
`A semiconductor wafer (1) as
`claimed in claim 1, in which all
`the process control modules (4)
`are each situated at the same
`location (6) in the respective
`exposure fields (2).
`
`Petition at 35, Ex. 1004 at 8:48-52.
`
`Petition at 35, Ex. 1004 at 10:63-64.
`
`28
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Figure 4B (modified).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION
`ARGUMENTS FAIL
`
`29
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`PO ASSERTS YAMAGUCHI DOES NOT DISCLOSE PCMS (BUT IT DOES)
`PO’s relies on the following:
`•
`Improperly limiting the meaning of PCMs to test structures: (1) used during the wafer
`manufacturing process (i.e., “in-line” testing); and (2) tested only using optical lithography
`equipment (e.g., no electrical testing).
`• Arguing that TEGs cannot be used for in-line testing.
`
`30
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Resp. at 18.
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`IMPINJ HAS OFFERED THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM
`PO wrongly asserts that Petitioner did not disclose the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Board merely disagreed that the PCMs encompass alignment marks. Petitioner disagrees, but
`regardless, Yamaguchi’s TEGs and Satya’s test die are PCMS.
`
`Petition at 13.
`
`Pet. Reply at 12.
`
`31
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 12, Decision to Institute at 6.
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`IMPINJ HAS PROVIDED TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE
`ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM
`
`Dr. Thompson testified that process control monitors are sometimes called process control modules and
`that process control monitors include test structures.
`
`32
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 42, 44.
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM SHOULD APPLY ABSENT
`DISCLAIMER OR CLEAR LEXICOGRAPHY BY THE APPLICANT
`“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant
`community at the relevant time.” Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2014), vacated on other grounds, 135 S. Ct. 1846, 1846 (2015)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term should apply unless the patentee: (1) acted as his
`own lexicographer and defined that term differently in the patent, Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 3M Innov. Prop. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365,
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A] definition of a claim term in the specification will prevail over a term’s
`ordinary meaning if the patentee has acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a different
`definition.”); or (2) “demonstrate[d] an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d
`1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N.A. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002)).
`
`33
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 8-9.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THERE IS NO CLEAR DISCLAIMER OF THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM OR REDEFINING OF THE TERM
`BY THE APPLICANT
`
`Claim 1 cannot be limited to a particular process unless “the patentee made clear that the process steps are
`essential.” Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n order to read a process
`limitation into a product claim, it must meet one more criterion. … [P]rocess steps can be treated as part of a product
`claim if the patentee has made clear that the process steps are an essential part of the claimed invention.”).
`
`34
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THERE IS NO CLEAR DISCLAIMER OF THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM OR REDEFINING OF THE TERM
`BY THE APPLICANT
`Neither the specification nor the prosecution history limited the meaning of PCM.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:4-9.
`
`35
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`THE PATENT DOES NOT LIMIT PCMS TO THOSE TESTED USING OPTICAL LITHOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT
`
`- The fact that wafers are formed by optical lithography techniques does not limit the meaning of
`PCMs.
`
`36
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Thompson Reply Dec., Ex. 1011 at ¶ 7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`PO asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,415,769 is not probative of the plain and ordinary meaning of PCMs.
`-
`In contradiction to expert testimony that confirmed the meaning did not change from prior to 2001 to
`the time of the ’769 patent.
`
`37
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Thompson Reply Dec. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 4.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`
`THE PATENT DOES NOT LIMIT PCMS TO THOSE USED FOR IN-LINE TESTING
`
`- Dr. Subramanian admitted detecting or recognizing flaws “during the wafer fabrication process” is
`never stated in the patent.
`
`38
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Subramanian Dep., Ex. 1012 at 56:20-57:7.
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM WAS NOT AT THE TIME OF INVENTION LIMITED,
`TO IN-LINE TESTING
`Dr. Subramanian agrees the plain and ordinary meaning does not limit PCMs to in-line test
`structures tested using optical lithography equipment.
`
`39
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 3-4, Subramanian Dep., Ex. 1012 at
`Pet. Reply at 7, Subramanian Dep., Ex.
`41:17-42:3.
`1012 at 109:10-21.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM WAS NOT AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION,
`LIMITED TO IN-LINE TESTING
`PO asserts TEG regions are not PCMs because they perform electrical testing which is performed after
`the wafer fabrication process.
`- However, electrical testing can be performed during the wafer fabrication process.
`
`Thompson Reply Dec. Ex. 1011 ¶ 2.
`
`40
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM WAS NOT AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION,
`LIMITED TO IN-LINE TESTING
`
`Contrary to NXP’s arguments (Sur-Reply at 11),
`Nistler confirms that PCMs are test structures
`that encompass both electrical and process
`verification testing.
`
`41
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Nistler, Ex. 2007, 1:33-44.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCM WAS NOT AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION,
`LIMITED TO IN-LINE TESTING
`PO’s definition contradicts PO’s own understanding of PCM use in Patent Owner’s own U.S. Patent
`No. 8,415,769.
`
`Pet. Reply at 4; EX1011 at ¶ 4., U.S. PATENT NO. 8,415,769, Attachment A at 3:67-4:48
`
`42
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCMS ENCOMPASSES ELECTRICAL TESTING
`
`Thompson Dep., Ex. 2006 at 42:9-14.
`
`Thompson Reply Dec., Ex. 1011 ¶ 4.
`
`Pet. Reply at 5.
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1007 42:9-14.
`
`43
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of PCM
`Fail
`THE ORDINARY MEANING OF PCMS ENCOMPASSES ELECTRICAL TESTING
`
`44
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 6, Thompson Reply Dec., EX1011 at ¶ 5,
`Attachment B at 546, 549.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of “Take
`the Place of” Fail
`
`PO asserts that “taking the place of” a chip requires the replacement be the exact size of the chip or
`larger. Sur-Reply at 15-16.
`- The ordinary meaning of “Take the Place of” does not require they be the exact same size
`- PO cites nothing that would change the ordinary meaning to require the same size
`- The claims do not require the PCMs be the same size
`
`45
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of “Take
`the Place of” Fail
`Yamaguchi’s TEGs “tak[e] the place of at least one chip”.
`
`Both as disclosed in Yamaguchi itself, and as understood by one of ordinary skill.
`
`Pet. Reply at 13, Ex. 1003 at
`2:49-54.
`
`Pet. at 24, Ex. 1003 at 2:1-5.
`
`46
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 13-14, Subramanian Dep., Ex. 1012
`at 82:5-9, 10-20.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of “Given
`Areas” Fail
`
`PO asserts that “given areas” “must have some meaning—they cannot simply be ‘merely a design
`choice.’” Sur-Reply at 17-18.
`- However, NXP’s explanation that “the stated objective of the ’523 patent to distribute ‘process control
`modules’ in such a way that exposure fields could be identified visually” adds an additional limitation
`in the claims that is not required.
`
`47
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Subramanian Dep., Ex. 1012 at 111:13-15.
`
`
`
`NXP’s Arguments to Narrow the Meaning of “Given
`Areas” Fail
`
`Satya discloses PCMs in “given areas” on the wafer. Sur-Reply at 17.
`- The reticle in Satya is “stepped over” the wafer to produce various layouts.
`-
`In the various layouts, a “given area[ ]” is designated for PCMs.
`
`Thompson Dec., Ex. 1011 at ¶ 9.
`
`48
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 18-19.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Figures 4A and 4B (modified).
`
`
`
`THE CLAIMS ARE
`SIMPLE
`
`49
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Claims are Simple
`
`PO’S ADDITIONAL PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ARE NOT IN THE CLAIMS
`
`The claims only require a wafer, a multitude of chips, adjacent exposure fields, process control modules
`in the exposure fields, and that the process control modules take the place of at least one chip.
`- All of which are provided in Yamaguchi and Satya.
`
`What the claims do not require:
`- That the PCMs be in-line test structures
`- That the PCMs be tested using optical lithography equipment
`- The the PCMs be for something other than testing electrical characteristics
`
`50
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Pet. Reply at 9-10.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Claims are Simple Invalid
`
`Yamaguchi
`
`Satya
`
` Wafer
` Multitude of chips
` Adjacent exposure fields
` PCMs
` PCMs take the place of at least
`one chip
`
`What would one of ordinary skill in
`the art understand?
`
`The claims are unpatentable!
`
`51
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Figures 1 and 7 (modified).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Figures 4A and 4B (modified).
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS
`
`52
`
`| © 2021 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
