- Blackberry Corporation v. NXP B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 19, 2014 · IPR2013-00232 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable: anticipated by Ueno and obvious over Chesebro and Rostoker for claims 1–2, and over Chesebro, Rostoker, and Nowak for claims 3–4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. “pattern density for the surface of the semiconductor wafer” “[A] claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The ’697 patent uses lexicography to define the portion of the claim limitation that recites a “pattern density for the surface of the semiconductor wafer” as: “The pattern density of topography is defined as the ratio of the overall surface area of raised areas on a wafer surface to the total surface area of the wafer.” Ex. 1001, 4:60–63. This definition is consistent with the repeated references in the ’697 patent to wafer surface topography as having raised areas, the combined surface area of which is a ratio or percentage of the total surface area of the wafer. Id. at Abstract, 3:34–38, 57–61, 4:54–63, 6:26–40. Therefore, we adopt the definition recited above for the portion of the claim limitation reciting a “pattern density for the surface of the semiconductor wafer.” See PO Resp. 16.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“(Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard (last visited September 4, 2014)). The ’697 patent does not describe how to determine a “standardized” pattern density (Tr. 20), but it does describe “commonizing” pattern density to reduce variation in pattern density across the surface of a single wafer layer, from layer to layer within a wafer, or from IC product to IC product on different wafers, to improve CMP removal rate consistency. E.g., Ex. 1001, 3:13–18 (“[D]ummy raised areas . . . commonize the pattern density of topography from layer to layer of an integrated circuit, as well as from product to product.”) (emphasis added), 3:23–29 (“The overall surface area of the raised areas . . . typically varies from layer to layer. In order to commonize the pattern density of topography from layer to layer of an integrated circuit and from product to product, dummy raised areas are added to the same layers on which active conductive traces are situated.”) (emphasis added), 7:39–42 (“It should be clear that dummy raised lines may be added to a single layer of a wafer in order to achieve a desired pattern density of topography on that layer alone.”). In the context of the entire ’697 patent disclosure, “commonizing” pattern density refers to reducing variation in pattern density (see Ex. 1010 (Decl. of Ron Maltiel) ¶ 17), or, similarly, increasing the commonality of pattern density (see Ex. 2006 (Decl. of Dr. Bruce Smith) ¶ 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:1721)), on one or more surface layers of one or more semiconductor wafers to be polished. The claimed method step permits flexibility in how to reduce pattern density variation in order to accommodate different concentrations of raised surface areas (Ex. 1001, 2:4–9, 3:23–25, 5:26–29), different fabrication processing requirements (id. at 2:51–61, 5:1–5, 6:61–7:18), and various device requirements and operating conditions. A person skilled in the art would understand, in particular, that the claim phrase in question “does not refer to a single specific pattern density value that is used for all workpieces undergoing CMP.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 85. For example, the ’697 patent discloses a standard that is flexible enough to determine different pattern densities for different surface layers of a wafer. Ex. 1001, 5:34–39; PO Resp. 17; Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1021, 7; Ex. 1022, 6–7 (¶¶ 56–57); Tr. 29. It is also flexible enough to determine a pattern density for a single surface layer of a wafer (Ex. 1001, 7:39–42; Pet. Reply 2–4; Ex. 1021, 7; Ex. 1022, 5 (¶ 55)), which reduces pattern density variation across the wafer surface in comparison to the wafer surface without any dummy raised areas in the gaps between active conductive traces. See Ex. 1001, 7:39–42, Figs. 3A–C, 4a–e; PO Resp. 4; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39, 98, 101, 115; Tr. 6, 8. We conclude that the claimed method step incorporates a flexible standard for reducing variation in pattern density when determining the surface area ratio of active conductive traces and dummy raised areas for one or more surface layers on one or more wafers to be polished.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Maltiel, that by combining an original IC design with a dummy fill pattern at each layer, particularly a fill pattern having the same pattern density as that of the densest part of the original IC design, Chesebro teaches a reduction in the variation in that layer’s pattern density. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 61. We also credit Mr. Maltiel’s opinion that a person of skill in the art would have recognized that Chesebro’s process steps “describe a simultaneous filling of this multi-level structure, which would be most easily and beneficially executed by using the same fill pattern for every level in the entire structure” as a matter of prudent cost and process efficiency. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 28. Thus, we are persuaded that Chesebro teaches a process for using the same fill pattern on each layer of a multi-layer wafer, thereby reducing pattern density variation between multiple layers. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 61. Chesebro teaches one of skill in the art to determine pattern density “as a ratio of the overall surface area of raised areas on the wafer surface to the total surface area of the wafer,” by describing a percentage, e.g., 25%, for the raised areas-not-to-fill and the raised areas-to-fill on each wafer surface layer of the IC to be fabricated. Ex. 1004, 1:52–56, 5:27–40. The raised areas of the selected pattern density in Chesebro are determined so as to reduce variation across the wafer surface, with the effect of improving CMP polishing. Id. at 1:62–2:6, 2:29–33; Ex. 1010 ¶ 65. To the extent one of ordinary skill in the art might have required more detail regarding the CMP process, Rostoker describes CMP in detail. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:43–50, 1:56–59, 5:32–52, Fig. 1. We also credit Mr. Maltiel’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to use Chesebro’s addition of dummy structures to reduce variation and improve wafer planarization of deposited layers using the CMP process described in Rostoker.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 66 (referring to ¶¶ 36–39). With regard to Patent Owner’s argument that Rostoker’s use of a “stop” structure would have led one of skill in the art away from the process claimed in the ’697 patent (PO Resp. 28–29), we determine, as we did above with the challenge based on Ueno, that the use of a stop structure and raised dummy areas in the gaps between active wiring are not mutually exclusive or inconsistent. See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:58–6:42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 4). Therefore, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“construction, shows an “arrangement of active conductive traces [212, 214, and 216] and dummy raised areas [218] on a surface of a semiconductor wafer.” Ueno Figure 1(c) (above right) also shows an “arrangement of active conductive traces [13A] and dummy raised areas [13B] on a surface of a semiconductor wafer.” Both figures show a “uniform” arrangement of raised areas on the semiconductor surface. Figure 2 of Ueno shows a uniform pattern of rectangular dummy raised areas regularly spaced apart to fill gaps between active wiring lines. Ex. 1003, Fig. 2; see also Ex. 1024 ¶ 21. Ueno’s method also teaches one of skill in the art “to reduce variation in pattern density with respect to one or more surface layers on one or more wafers to be polished,” in much the same way as taught by the ’697 patent. As explained above, Ueno adds dummy raised areas between active conductive lines according to a set of gap width, spacing, and line width dimensions to increase the pattern density of the raised surface area, thereby reducing variation of pattern density and the potential for “dishing” across the surface of the wafer. Ex.1003 ¶¶ 6, 8–10, 12, 17, Figs. 1c, 3c, 4c, 5; Pet. 17; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 44–45; Pet. Reply 6–7; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 17, 20–21. Ueno’s method and rationale for increasing pattern density on a wafer surface is comparable to the ’697 patent’s “commonized” pattern density that reduces variation across a wafer surface. Ex. 1001, 7:39–42, Figs. 3A–C, 4a–e; Pet. 17; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 44–45; PO Resp. 4; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39, 98, 101, 115; Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner argues that Ueno does not disclose determining a “standardized” pattern density because Ueno uses a plasma nitride “stopper” layer to control CMP planarization, rather than a method where the same depth of material is removed from every layer of every product during CMP, using a fixed set of CMP process parameters. PO Resp. 18–24 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 92–97). Patent Owner’s argument rests squarely on its proposed claim construction, which we have declined to adopt. The claim phrase at issue does not require a fixed set of CMP process parameters to remove the same depth of material from every wafer surface layer to be polished, as argued by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 94, 96). 6” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 5,639,697 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,639,697 - Blackberry Corporation v. NXP B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 19, 2014 · IPR2013-00233 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious over each of four combinations: Koss with O’Neill, Koss with Sheynblat, Jessup with O’Neill, and Jessup with Sheynblat.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For the reasons stated above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over Koss and O’Neill.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim 3 term “power up,” is that the power supplied to something is increased. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 46). During the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that “selectively increasing or adding power to the component is the broadest reasonable interpretation” of “power up.” Tr. 7:3–11. We determine that both proposed constructions are substantially equivalent. 4 US 7,330,883 B1 (Ex. 1007) (“Jessup”) Furthermore, the Specification uses the term “power up” to describe providing power to the GPS receiver. Ex. 1001, Abstr. (“a GPS receiver (105, 106) arranged to power up in response to direct interaction between a user and the mobile phone (100) after the telephone has been switched on.”). Accordingly, in light the Specification and in the context of the claims, we construe “power up” to mean increasing the power supplied.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“as proposed by Petitioner. Specifically, Petitioner relies upon Koss, not O’Neill, for teaching that a GPS location is acquired from the GPS receiver in response to a user selecting a particular web site. For this teaching, Petitioner cites to the following disclosure in Koss: Step 302 comprises allowing a user to select a hyperlink from the rendered hyperlinked content. Step 304 comprises obtaining current geographical coordinates of the mobile computer from the computer’s GPS receiver. Pet. 19–20 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1004, col. 5, ll. 34–48). Petitioner further proposes in its challenge that O’Neill’s teaching of power conservation in activation of the GPS receiver be combined with this disclosure from Koss regarding acquiring GPS location information when the user selects a particular web site. Pet. 23–24. Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has established sufficiently that the combination of Koss and O’Neill teaches a GPS receiver “arranged to power up in response to a user selecting a particular web site,” as recited in claim 3. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over Koss and O’Neill.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“subject to GPS receiver power conservation concerns that arise in mobile cellular telephones, because it is a large mobile computer with substantial battery capacity. PO Resp. 13. Thus, Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to conserve energy in an “internet enabled, mobile cellular telephone” would not look to Koss. Id. Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Koss with O’Neill, because power consumption would have been a concern only for the wireless phone with GPS receiver described in O’Neill, not for Koss’s large mobile computer with substantial battery capacity. PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner’s argument that Koss discloses only large mobile computers with substantial battery capacity is contrary to the express disclosure in Koss that its mobile computer may be a “hand-held device[].” Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 1–24. Furthermore, as Patent Owner’s counsel conceded during the oral hearing, all mobile devices under certain circumstances have power conservation concerns, including laptop mobile computers. Tr. 24:6– 8 (“Would you agree that all mobile devices have some sort of concern with power conservation? Mr. Schaeffer: Under certain circumstance[s], yes.”). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Koss would realize that power consumption is a concern for the mobile computer device. Furthermore, O’Neill expressly discloses, “it is common practice to operate a GPS receiver in a stand-by mode of readiness” in an “effort to preserve battery energy.” Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 7–11. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that one of skill in the art would not have had a reason to combine Koss and O’Neill.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 6,501,420 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,501,420 - Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00106 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a reason to combine the references to create the claimed inert environment.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, however, does not cite precedent to support its position, and, during the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it was unaware of any supporting case law. Id. at 28:14-17. Moreover, we note that Dr. Checkel has “worked on automotive research projects with all of the ‘Big Three’ North American manufacturers as well as various suppliers to the industry.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 3. We are not persuaded on this record and with respect to this art that Petitioner has shown that a relevant distinction may be drawn between persons of ordinary skill in the United States and in Canada.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the present record, including Dr. Checkel’s unrebutted testimony, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute the air used in Gilliam with inert gas alone from the mixture disclosed in Stoyle to achieve the invention recited in claim 9. Specifically, Dr. Checkel opines that: 136. The Stoyle apparatus heater relies on a high pressure process to heat oil to a temperature so as to enable flash evaporation and thus generate a large output of smoke. The Stoyle apparatus heats and forces a foam of oil and inert carbon dioxide gas under pressure through narrow annular passages in a heated metal assembly. This construction allows the oil to be pressurized and superheated above its atmospheric boiling temperature without significant degradation because of the uniform heating temperature and lack of oxygen. At the end of Stoyle’s heater tube, the superheated liquid oil is released to ambient conditions to form a mist. 137. A smoke generator relying on high pressure and flash evaporation to generate large volumes of smoke would be inappropriate and dangerous to use with the closed volume of an EVAP system, which is typically restricted to pressure of 1 psi (7kPa) or less. Even if the smoke generator had some modifications, the use of high pressure in generating the smoke and the production of large volumes of smoke at a rapid rate would risk damaging EVAP and fuel system components, possibly to the point of rupture. A person of skill would not consider Stoyle to be an analogous reference to add features missing from Gilliam. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 136-137 (emphasis added; citations omitted). Dr. Checkel’s analysis of the differences between Stoyle and claim 9 of the ’808 patent is specific, well-supported, and persuasive. Therefore, we do not find sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s argument for relying on Stoyle’s ventilation testing apparatus, in combination with Gilliam’s vacuum system leak-testing apparatus, to make the asserted substitution. We determine that the evidence of record is not sufficient to conclude that Gilliam and Stoyle provide a reason for one skilled in the relevant art to create an inert environment within a closed smoke-producing chamber and, subsequently, within a closed EVAP system during leak testing. In view of the differences between Stoyle’s and Gilliam’s apparatus, as detailed by Dr. Checkel, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not have reason to choose only the inert gas from Stoyle’s air/inert gas mixture and substitute inert gas alone for Gilliam’s use of air to achieve the invention recited in claim 9.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“iii. Combination of Gilliam and Stoyle For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner, and we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence or Petitioner’s reasoning that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to substitute Stoyle’s use of inert gas, forced into the narrow compressed space between a bore and a plug, in place of the air used in Gilliam’s temperature-regulated, spark arrestor-governed system to generate smoke in a closed smoke-producing chamber. See Pet. 41-42. It is not sufficient for prior art references to teach or suggest the recited limitations of a claim. There must be some reasoning supported by rational underpinnings to combine the references to achieve the invention recited in the challenged claims. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 36 (warning against a “temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue” and instructing courts to “guard against slipping into use of hindsight”).” slip op. at 22
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Exhibits 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036: Referenced in Dr. Checkel’s Declaration, and Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, and 2017: Referenced in Mr. Saffie’s Declaration Petitioner seeks to exclude Exhibits 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036, referenced in Dr. Checkel’s Declaration, and Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, and 2017, referenced in Mr. Saffie’s Declaration, as allegedly irrelevant under FRE 403 and hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Pet. Mot. Excl. 15. Petitioner, however, fails to identify any allegedly improper portions of any of these exhibits with any particularity. Id.; see Pet. Reply Mot. Excl. 5 (“For the reasons set forth in [Petitioner’s] motion, the remainder of [Patent Owner’s] evidence should be excluded.”). Such a general objection to these exhibits does not provide us with the information necessary to assess Petitioner’s reasons for seeking exclusion of these exhibits. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036 is denied. V. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 6,526,808 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,526,808
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.