Opinion ID: 4534286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dependent Claims 6 and 16

Text: For claims 6 and 16, Lone Star also challenges the Board’s finding that these dependent claims would have been obvious in view of Tanaka and Ooka. Lone Star contends that the Board did not give appropriate consideration to its arguments that the two references are incompatible. We find that the Board reasonably considered and weighed Case: 19-1556 Document: 52 Page: 15 Filed: 05/14/2020 LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS v. IANCU 15 Lone Star’s arguments, and we agree with the Board’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness. The references themselves provide evidence supporting a finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the tungsten silicide layer onto the Tanaka gate structure. As the Board found, Tanaka discusses that resistance increases in semiconductors can result in slower operating speed. Tanaka col. 1 ll. 10–20, col. 3 l. 68–col. 4 l. 2; Ooka col. 1 ll. 18–33; see also Micron, IPR2017-01562, at 34–35. Ooka specifically addressed this challenge by providing a tungsten silicide layer onto the gate to lower resistance. Ooka col. 1 ll. 34–44. Further, Ooka states that its teachings are for “semiconductor integrated circuit devices including MOSFETs.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 18–25. Ooka also specifically stated that adding such a silicide layer was a recent trend in the art (i.e., was known at the time), and contemplated ways to fix certain complications created by these layers. Id. at col. 1 ll. 34–44, col. 1 l. 62–col. 2 l. 25. We agree with the Board that nothing in these teachings suggests that the two references would not be combined. Moreover, the Board relied on Micron’s expert, Dr. Fair, who explained that conventional methods could have been used to properly include a layer of tungsten silicide on the top of Tanaka’s gate electrode. Micron, IPR2017-01562, at 35 (citing J.A. 960). The Board found Lone Star’s incompatibility argument to be unpersuasive, amounting to “bare attorney argument.” Micron, IPR2017-01562, at 36. In its Patent Owner Response, which was lengthy and made several different arguments, Lone Star briefly asserted that placing a silicide on top of Tanaka’s gate electrode would introduce unwanted capacitance. J.A. 345. It also asserted that the silicide on the gate electrode “would likely short between the source and the drain.” J.A. 346. While the Board did not expressly address these specific bases for incompatibility in its Final Written Decision, “the Board is ‘not require[d] . . . to address every argument raised by a party or Case: 19-1556 Document: 52 Page: 16 Filed: 05/14/2020 16 LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS v. IANCU explain every possible reason supporting its conclusion.’” Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1296 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc)). Indeed, “[a]s we have said numerous times, failure to explicitly discuss every fleeting reference or minor argument does not alone establish that the Board did not consider it.” Id. (citing Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Even assuming that the Board had failed to consider these arguments, they would not change the result here. Each of Lone Star’s assertions included a pinpoint citation to the declaration of its expert, Dr. Bottoms. That declaration, however, fares no better than Lone Star’s brief argument, because it provides little more than the same assertion without any meaningful additional support. Under these circumstances, we see no error in the Board rejecting Lone Star’s skeletal arguments. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion of obviousness for claims 6 and 16.