PTAB

IPR2016-00696

BASF Corp v. Enthone Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Copper Electrodeposition in Microelectronics
  • Brief Description: The ’992 patent discloses methods for depositing copper into microscopic trenches and vias on microelectronic circuits. The methods use an electroplating solution containing a specific class of additives, known as suppressors, which are polyether block copolymers that control the deposition process to ensure complete, void-free filling of the features.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15, 17-22, and 26-28 are obvious over Barstad in view of the BASF Catalog and Alling.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barstad (Patent 6,444,110), the BASF Catalog (a 1989 commercial catalog), and Alling (Application # 2002/0127847).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Barstad disclosed the foundational method for copper electroplating to fill high-aspect-ratio microvias in semiconductor manufacturing, including the use of a "surfactant-type suppressor agent" to achieve "bottom-fill" deposition and prevent voids. Barstad explicitly mentioned that suitable surfactants were available from BASF under the "Tetronic" tradename. Alling taught that Tetronic® polymers are "[p]articularly suitable" suppressor agents for such plating compositions. The BASF Catalog, a publicly available document from 1989, provided detailed chemical and physical properties for 22 different Tetronic® products. Petitioner asserted that these catalogued products, when applied to Barstad’s method as suggested by Alling, inherently met the limitations of the challenged claims, including molecular weight ranges (claims 4, 18), propylene oxide to ethylene oxide (PO:EO) ratios (claims 1, 3, 5, 18, 20), and the specific nitrogen-containing chemical structure (claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 15, 28).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to improve the electroplating process taught by Barstad would have been motivated to use suppressors identified as "particularly suitable" for that exact purpose. Alling provided this direct suggestion to use Tetronic® polymers. A POSITA would then naturally consult a commercial reference like the BASF Catalog to select a specific, commercially available Tetronic® product. The combination involved using known suppressors in a known process to achieve a predictable and desired result—improved void-free filling.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Barstad, Alling, and the BASF Catalog all operated in the same technical field of copper electroplating for microelectronics. Combining a "particularly suitable" suppressor (Alling) with a standard process (Barstad) using a commercially available product with known properties (BASF Catalog) presented a straightforward path with predictable outcomes.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15, 17-22, and 26-28 are obvious over Morrissey in view of the BASF Catalog and Alling.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morrissey (Application # 2002/0043467), the BASF Catalog (a 1989 commercial catalog), and Alling (Application # 2002/0127847).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, but substituted Morrissey for Barstad as the primary reference. Petitioner contended that Morrissey, like Barstad, taught a process for electroplating copper onto high-aspect-ratio features on a semiconductor substrate and disclosed that its compositions contained suppressor compounds, including Tetronic® polymers. The arguments for how Alling and the BASF Catalog provided the remaining claim limitations were identical to those in Ground 1. Alling’s teaching that Tetronic® polymers were "particularly suitable" suppressors and the BASF Catalog’s disclosure of specific Tetronic® products with properties meeting the claim limitations were again central to the obviousness assertion.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA starting with Morrissey’s electroplating process, which already contemplated using Tetronic® polymers, would have been motivated by Alling’s explicit teaching of their suitability to select a specific product. The BASF Catalog was the logical source for identifying an appropriate, commercially available Tetronic® polymer and its relevant properties, leading directly to the claimed subject matter.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was similarly high, as the combination involved applying a known, suitable class of suppressors (taught by Alling and Morrissey itself) to Morrissey's process, with the specific properties of those suppressors being readily available from the BASF Catalog.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner did not propose any new claim constructions. Instead, it noted that the Board had previously construed key terms from the ’992 patent in a prior inter partes review (IPR), IPR2014-00243. Petitioner stated it "does not oppose these constructions for purposes of this inter partes review."
  • The accepted construction for "suppressor" was central: "a compound comprising a combination of propylene oxide (PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units present in a PO:EO ratio between about 1:9 and 9:1 and bonded to a nitrogen-containing species, wherein the molecular weight of the suppressor compound is between about 1,000 and 30,000." This construction directly mapped onto the properties of the Tetronic® polymers disclosed in the BASF Catalog.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that institution should not be denied based on prior IPR petitions filed against the ’992 patent by a different party (Moses Lake Industries, Inc. or "MLI").
  • Petitioner asserted that the "prior art and arguments presented in this petition are substantially different from those presented in the MLI petitions." The prior MLI petitions relied primarily on the Hagiwara and Wang patents, which the Board found did not disclose key elements of the claims. This petition, in contrast, relied on different combinations of art (Barstad/Morrissey with Alling and the BASF Catalog) that Petitioner argued plainly disclosed the elements the Board previously found missing.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-15, 17-22, and 26-28 of the ’992 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.