PTAB

IPR2016-00697

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 ’786 patent discloses electrolytic plating compositions and methods for depositing copper into microscopic features (e.g., trenches, vias) on semiconductor substrates. The compositions contain a specific type of polyether block copolymer additive, known as a "suppressor," which controls the copper deposition process to ensure complete, void-free filling of the features.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8, and 11-18 are obvious over Barstad in view of the BASF Catalog and Alling.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barstad (Patent 6,444,110), Alling (Application # 2002/0127847), and a 1989 BASF Performance Chemicals Catalog (“BASF Catalog”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Barstad disclosed the foundational electrolytic copper plating solution for filling high-aspect-ratio microvias in semiconductor fabrication. Barstad taught the use of "surfactant-type suppressor agents" to achieve bottom-up filling and prevent voids, expressly identifying that suitable surfactants were available from BASF under the "Tetronic" tradename. Alling further taught that Tetronic polymers are "particularly suitable" as suppressor agents in such compositions. The BASF Catalog, a publicly available product guide from 1989, provided detailed properties for 22 specific Tetronic polymers, including their general chemical structure, average molecular weights, and weight percentages of propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) blocks. Petitioner contended that the properties disclosed in the BASF Catalog for this finite set of polymers directly met the limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, the catalog showed that the polymers were bonded to a nitrogen-containing species (an ethylene diamine core), had molecular weights within the claimed range of 1,000-30,000 g/mol, and possessed PO:EO ratios that satisfied the ranges required by the claims. For example, claim 2's ratio of "between about 2:3 and 3:2" was met by approximately one-third of the listed Tetronic polymers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), starting with Barstad’s teaching to use a suppressor like those from BASF, would be directly motivated by Alling’s explicit teaching that Tetronic polymers are "particularly suitable" for this exact purpose. The POSITA would then naturally consult the BASF Catalog, a standard industry resource, to identify and select a specific Tetronic polymer from the small, well-defined list of 22 available options to use in Barstad’s plating composition.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Alling provided the express suggestion, and the BASF Catalog presented a small genus of only 22 compounds with a shared chemical backbone and predictable properties. Selecting a suitable suppressor that met the claimed physical and chemical properties would have been a matter of routine experimentation with predictable outcomes.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 8, and 11-18 are obvious over Morrissey in view of the BASF Catalog and Alling.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morrissey (Application # 2002/0043467), Alling (Application # 2002/0127847), and the BASF Catalog.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, substituting Morrissey for Barstad as the primary reference. Petitioner asserted that Morrissey also disclosed a base copper electroplating composition for filling submicron, high-aspect-ratio features on semiconductor substrates. Morrissey taught that its compositions could contain suppressors and that Tetronic polymers could be added. The teachings of Alling (identifying Tetronic polymers as "particularly suitable" suppressors) and the BASF Catalog (providing the specific properties of available Tetronic polymers) were then applied to Morrissey’s composition in the same manner as they were to Barstad's. The mapping of the Tetronic polymer properties from the BASF Catalog to the specific limitations of the challenged claims was identical to the analysis provided in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to the first ground. A POSITA implementing Morrissey’s electroplating solution would be motivated by Alling's teaching to use "particularly suitable" Tetronic polymers as the suppressor. This would lead the POSITA to consult the BASF Catalog to select an appropriate polymer for use in Morrissey’s system to optimize the suppression function.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was based on the same reasoning as in Ground 1: an express teaching of suitability from Alling combined with a small, predictable genus of compounds disclosed in the BASF Catalog made the successful implementation of a Tetronic suppressor in Morrissey's solution a matter of routine optimization.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate. It acknowledged prior IPRs had been filed against the ’786 patent by a different party (MLI) but contended that this petition was substantially different. Petitioner asserted that the prior art combinations relied upon here (Barstad/Morrissey + Alling + BASF Catalog) were not used in the MLI petitions and that this new art plainly disclosed the claim elements that the Board had previously found to be absent in the prior art cited by MLI.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, and 11-18 of the ’786 patent as unpatentable.