Opinion ID: 2751498
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Net Etching

Text: We do not find, however, that the PTAB adequately addressed the extent to which the Chiang Application discloses “an etch to deposition ratio greater than 1 in the bottom of the plurality of vias,” a limitation which appears in the remaining claims at issue. First, the PTAB did not consider Rozbicki’s expert testimony regarding “net etching.” The only explanation the PTAB provided as to why it rejected the testimony of Rozbicki’s expert on this issue was that it did not agree with his definition of the term “etching.” See J.A. 15 (“Dr. ROZBICKI v. CHIANG 17 Ruzic’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it is based on an untenable interpretation of the contested claim language.”). As such, the PTAB simply ignored Dr. Ruzic’s testimony regarding what “net etching” is, and the existence of “etch to deposition ratio greater than 1 in the bottom of the plurality of vias” solely based on his “untenable interpretation” of “etching.” Although the PTAB stated in its decision on rehearing that it did not overlook Rozbicki’s expert testimony, which showed that Chiang’s examples could not result in “an etch to deposition rates greater than 1,” solely based on its disagreement with his claim construction position, that is, in fact, what the PTAB did in its initial decision. J.A. 15, 39. And it did not cure this problem in its order on reconsideration. Second, in addressing the “net etching” limitation, the PTAB failed to adequately explain how Chiang disclosed this limitation. The PTAB conceded that “Chiang’s disclosure does not describe an . . . etch-to-deposition (E/D) ratio.” J.A. 18. But it concluded that Chiang discloses the E/D ratio limitation, because the claim language is, in the PTAB’s opinion, so broad that Chiang’s general discussion of “etching at the via bottom while material is deposited elsewhere, including the field,” sufficiently describes the contested limitation. J.A. 18. This bare assertion alone, however, does not suffice as adequate support. Without any analysis as to how a brief discussion about “etching,” which can occur without an “etch to deposition ratio greater than 1 in the bottom of the plurality of vias,” also discloses this limitation, the PTAB’s conclusion is unfounded. Therefore, the PTAB’s explanation does not adequately support the finding that the Chiang Application meets the written description requirement for the limitation of an “etch to deposition ratio greater than 1 in the bottom of the plurality of vias.” Therefore, we vacate the PTAB’s decision regarding Chiang claims 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 76–82, 85, 87, 88, and 90 and remand for the PTAB to provide a more detailed 18 ROZBICKI v. CHIANG explanation of how the Chiang Application’s written description supports an “etch to deposition ratio greater than 1 in the bottom of the plurality of via,” including a discussion of the expert testimony from both parties.