- Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01671 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 6, and 10–12 and denied entry of substitute claims 18–22, finding claims 18–21 indefinite and claim 22 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 11–12), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“II. MOTION TO AMEND A. ORIGINAL CHALLENGED CLAIMS As noted above, Patent Owner requests that we “unconditionally consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 6, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 18–22.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 18 and 20, which require a comparison of the particle size of the sugar used in the recited mesh pouch against the particle size of Sugar in the Raw. For all of the reasons discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the trademark Sugar in the Raw identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparison of particle sizes that proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)6; MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“analogous art. Reply 7. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that Thijssen is not from the same field of endeavor because, inter alia, it involves the use of a packed bed, we still find Thijssen to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors were involved. The ’330 patent teaches that “[t]he larger sugar granules allow the water to flow around it at the same time you are extracting tea from the tea blend.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17. This indicates that among the problems “with which the inventor[s were] involved” were extraction of flavor from tea and the flow of water around the particles involved in the tea brewing process. Thijssen likewise addresses the flow of solvent through solid particles during extraction of a beverage product. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 2:46–48. In view of this, we find Thijssen is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor[s were] involved.” Bigio, 381 F. 3d at 1325.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,468,330 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,468,330 - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01662 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 8, 13, and 17; it denied entry of substitute claims 23–26 because claims 23 and 25 lacked written-description support and claims 24 and 26 were indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it 1 “One degree Brix is one gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution . . . . Brewed sweetened tea has a typical Brix level of 10½ to 11.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6– 8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 12–13), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 7–10; Reply 4. Proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 compare the dissolution of the claimed beverage brewing product against the dissolution of a product using typical grocery store sugar (i.e., EFG). Patent Owner explains that the size of the particles affects dissolution – namely that larger sugar is more advantageous – in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Revised MTA 5; Ex. 1001, 9:23–27, 10:19–22. This suggests that an EFG sugar product having a greater percentage of large particles will be capable of dissolving “more of granulated sugar” as compared to an EFG sugar product having a lower percentage of large particles. As a result, using the dissolution properties of “typical grocery store sugar” as a comparator in the claims is problematic as there is a potential for inconsistent results based on which particular EFG sugar product is used. The potential for inconsistent results undermines Patent Owner’s argument that these claims satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art “can buy EFG . . . and perform brew tests with it in order to determine the scope of the claims.” Reply 4. Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 24 and 26, which require a comparison of dissolution properties of the sugar used in the recited brewing product and typical grocery store sugar. Patent Owner contends “[t]here is an ‘informed and confident’ choice for ‘typical grocery store sugar’ - EFG sugar.” Reply 4. The evidence of record, however, shows the number of large particles (3–35 mesh) varies among EFG sugars. Ex. 2003, 42; Ex. 1004, at pages 51–53. In view of this, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “typical grocery store sugar” identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparisons that proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021); MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 25
§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,725,232 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852 - Intel Corporation / Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2020 · IPR2017-00279 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–26, 64, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“not entitled to claim priority to a filing date any earlier than the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application, and, therefore, each of the asserted references qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Pet. 9. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’264 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the December 4, 1995 filing date of the ’224 application because the ’224 application fails to disclose a chuck having a “thermal mass” or selecting that thermal mass to” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art at the relevant time would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (iii) a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the ’264 patent, the cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“terms appearing in the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. First, we construed selected thermal mass to mean “thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both.” Id. at 10. Second, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed 13 Neither party disputes that the ’264 patent is expired. The earliest patent application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the ’264 patent was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than December 4, 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2012 & Supp. III 2015) (stating that the term of a patent grant ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed”). 13 construction of thermal mass . . . selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time as meaning “the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second temperature within a specific time period.” Id. at 11. During the instituted trial, neither party disagreed with these constructions; nor did either party ask that we construe additional claim terms. We, therefore, leave our prior constructions in place unaltered.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“claimed invention. PO Resp. 15–19. As Patent Owner correctly notes, art is analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Id. at 15–16 (citing MPEP § 2141.01(a)). As we find below that Hinman satisfies the second prong of this test, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding field of endeavor. A reference is “reasonably pertinent” to a problem if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Petitioner argues that Hinman and the ’264 patent address the same problem, namely “controlling temperature to increase throughput.” Reply 5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 45, 48. Patent Owner disagrees, alleging that the ’264 patent is “concerned with achieving or improving etch selectivity in a high throughput etch process for semiconductor processing,” 32 and that this is different than the problems addressed by the prior art. PO Resp. 18. In defining the problem addressed by the inventor, the specification of the challenged patent is often instructive. Here, the ’264 patent notes that prior art substrate etching processes used “batch” modes in which etching was done at a single temperature, and that the invention improves upon these processes by providing a multi-stage etching process using different temperatures. Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:11. As such, the invention allegedly overcame disadvantages of prior art processes, which required lowered throughput and etch rate in order to avoid excessive damage to a workpiece. Id. at 2:11–14. Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we cannot agree that etch selectivity, as opposed to throughput, is the problem addressed by the ’264 patent. As Dr. Bravman points out, “[t]he specification of the ’264 patent is devoid, however, of description of improved or high selectivity processes or explanation of how the purported invention achieves both high selectivity and high etch rates.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 46. This is in contrast to the specification’s direct statement that the invention “overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device damage.” Ex. 1001, 2:11– 14 (emphasis added). It is clear to us that the problem faced by the ’264 patent is one of throughput and etching rate. The applicability of the cited prior art, including Hinman, to” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01512 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Samsung’s declarant, Dr. Shanfield, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1997 would be an individual who possesses the following: (i) a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[;] or (ii) a Master’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field[,] and two or three years of work experience of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[]. Ex. 1002 ¶ 18. According to Dr. Shanfield, “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Conversely, the named inventor of the ’264 patent, Dr. Flamm, does not offer an assessment of the level of skill in the art as of September 1997, nor does Dr. Flamm explicitly state his intent to adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment. See generally Ex. 2001.3 Given Dr. Flamm’s silence on this matter, we adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“halogen lamp with Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus would degrade uniformity and control. In particular, we do not credit Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimony on this particular issue because it is conclusory in nature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). For instance, Dr. Flamm testifies that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not have combined Narita with Kadomura to effectuate a temperature change because a [person of ordinary of skill in the art] would know that heating through intimate contact with Kadomura’s electrostatic chuck was operable to provide better uniformity and control than an [IR] lamp or halogen lamp taught by Narita. Such [IR] lamp or halogen lamp is primarily for rapid heating, commonly called “RTP,” which would not be combined with Kadomura’s technique that emphasizes better uniformity and control for cryogenic processing. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that these different techniques teach away from each other. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Dr. Flamm, however, provides little, if any, support for these statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support his opinion, we are not convinced that heating with an IR lamp or halogen lamp, as taught by Narita, would degrade uniformity and control. See Pet. Reply 19–20 (referencing teachings in Narita that provide for control and uniformity).” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Flamm does not dispute that the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent is the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application. Consequently, because all the references that serve as the basis of the grounds instituted in this proceeding were filed before September 11, 1997, they qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“The relevant inquiry here is whether Samsung has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the Supreme Court framed the question as whether “[one] of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading [the prior art].” 550 U.S. at 424. The Supreme Court explained that we “must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. The Supreme Court stated that, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. Based on the record developed during trial, we agree with Samsung that using Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious combination that would provide better temperature control, particularly with respect to accurately controlling the thermal history curve. See Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 60, 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We begin our analysis by examining the problem addressed by Matsumura. In its “Background of the Invention” section, Matsumura discloses that the thermal history curve (i.e., the temperature changing pattern) of the wafer-stage has a large influence on the resolution” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01379 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10 and 12 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill, Aoyama, and Wetzel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“example, the first resist pattern [step g]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step i]/patterned fourth insulating film [step j]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”8 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (i) of claim 10. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.17 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10 and 12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.17 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10 and 12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 17 Because we find that claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,197,696 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01377 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Grill and Aoyama because the combination teaches the claimed steps and a skilled artisan had reason and a reasonable expectation of success to combine them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush” with second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (i) of claim 10. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,197,696 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01376 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13 and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill and Aoyama; the Board found a reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Construction of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the phrase “using the [designated layer] as a mask”6 as “using the [designated layer] to 6 Claim 13 recites several steps of etching “using” various layers—for example, the first resist pattern [step f]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step h]/patterned third insulating film [step i]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush with” second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (h) of claim 13. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,197,696 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed claims 11–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Ding and Zhang; proposed claim 13 is patentable and allowed by amendment.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“essentially of” for “being composed of.” PO Resp. 11 (citing AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In AFG, the Court noted that, “[i]n 1942, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [had] stated that ‘“composed of” should be regarded as synonymous with “consisting of.”’” AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245 (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019 (CCPA 1942)). However, as further explained in AFG, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had “qualified this statement . . . by remarking that ‘the words “composed of” may under certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a broader meaning than “consisting of.”’” Id. (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d at 1020). The Court in AFG ultimately construed “composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of.” Id. (“[W]e do agree based on the specification and other evidence before us that the term ‘composed of’ in this case is not completely closed. Rather, we think that ‘composed of’ in this case should be interpreted in the same manner as ‘consisting essentially of.’”). Thus, “composed of” means either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” Id. The term “consisting of” prohibits any 4 <111> and <002> are indices that pertain to an orientation or direction of crystals. Ex. 1003 ¶51. unspecified components. Id. (citing PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The term “consisting essentially of” prohibits only unspecified components that materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a claimed invention. Id. (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). By arguing that “being composed of” means “consisting essentially of” as opposed to “consisting of,” Patent Owner argues for broader claim scope. For purposes of this Decision, we construe “being composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of,” as Patent Owner argues.5 In conclusion, we construe “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, to mean “first film consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.”6” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding for three independent reasons. First, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”), which removal by polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity, which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). Patent Owner counters that none of these purportedly predictable results are realistic. PO Resp. 46–52. With respect to the first reason offered by Petitioner (to make the first film more susceptible to CMP), Patent Owner argues that: (A) adding only “[a] small amount of nitrogen” to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would not change its CMP characteristics; and (B) “[a]dding significant amounts of nitrogen” would result in Ding’s previously crystalline layer becoming amorphous. Id. at 48. Patent Owner does not disclose what it considers “small” and “significant” amounts of nitrogen. Id. As a result, we cannot apply Patent Owner’s argument (even if it were persuasive) to the facts before us. Also, Patent Owner’s argument is based exclusively on declaration testimony that does not cite to any underlying evidence, let alone documentary evidence. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶190–98). In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaration testimony, which, in turn, is based on underlying evidence, including documentary evidence. See Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34– 37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63); see also Ex. 1003 ¶139. With respect to the second reason offered by Petitioner (to inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion), Patent Owner argues that, in Petitioner’s asserted combination, “there would be no nitrogen to provide any copper diffusion benefit.” PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum. Id. But, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may have a nitrogen content of, for example, 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%. See Ex. 1004, 3:59–62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”). With respect to the third reason offered by Petitioner (to reduce resistivity), Patent Owner argues that adding nitrogen would actually increase resistivity. As pointed out by Petitioner, however, Patent Owner’s declarant, Harlan R. Harris, Ph.D., conceded that adding nitrogen does lower resistivity. Reply 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1036, 125:3–20). Dr. Harris testified as follows: Q. When the nitrogen flow ratio is zero in the ’324 patent, and the power is kept constant, wouldn’t that result in a film that could be pure tantalum? A. All three of those data points are at the exact same position on the graph. The N2 concentration, which is the numerator of the ratio, is set at zero. And in this particular position, the nitrogen concentration would be assumed to be zero in the film. Q. So is it within the scope of what’s taught in the ’324 patent to have a film that would have no nitrogen at all? A. It’s also apparent to anyone who is examining this of skill in the art that you can decrease from that number, which is favorable in terms of the value of resistivity by adding flow rate in the data points for all of the positions greater than zero. So you decrease resistivity by the addition of any amount of nitrogen, therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to not have nitrogen, based on this data. Q. You’re referring to the decrease in resistivity as nitrogen is added? A. Yes. Q. Which is desirable? A. You want the resistivity to go down. Ex. 1036, 124:15–125:20. We are satisfied by each of Petitioner’s proffered reasons for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer, as taught by Zhang. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)—that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57– 62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1–6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Amend Opp. 6–7 (“The instituted obviousness ground[] based on Zhang and Ding already include[s] the newly-added limitations Patent Owner seeks to add in its Substitute Claims 11–13. Thus, the Substitute Claims 11–13 remain unpatentable over each of the instituted grounds.”).14 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied with respect to claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,538,324 - Tokyo Electron Limited v. Daniel L. FlammInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01072 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 13–26, 64, and 65 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 13–26, 64, and 65. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on those claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Thus, the ordinary meaning of the claim language itself requires predetermining the temperature change (i.e., the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature) within a specific interval of time (i.e., the time for changing from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature), and based on that predetermination, selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder. A construction that does not require selecting a thermal mass for a particular temperature change and a specified interval of time, as opposed to selecting a thermal mass that can facilitate or allow a temperature change, is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim. We recognize that the thermal mass of a substrate holder is not the only factor that controls the rate of temperature change of the substrate holder. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:60–67 (stating that the “heat exchanger, fluid flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck, etc. should be designed to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the temperature of the chuck and wafer to predetermined temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified uniformity limits”). The plain language of the claim, however, still requires that the thermal mass of the substrate holder be selected for a predetermined temperature change within the specific interval of time.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not construe these limitations as requiring the involvement of a heat transfer fluid. “Heat transfer fluid” is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). As such, we are not persuaded that that the phrases “substrate holder,” “heat transfer device,” and “selected thermal mass,” as recited in claim 13, should be construed as requiring the involvement of “heat transfer fluid.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“3. Remaining Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of the remaining claim terms require an explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.