UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: MULTI-TEMPERATURE PROCESSING
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`DECLARATION FOR FIRST PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: MULTI-TEMPERATURE PROCESSING
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`DECLARATION FOR FIRST PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ................... 1
`
`III. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 9
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 11
`
`V.
`
`THE '264 PATENT .................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Representative Claim 13 .................................................................. 15
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure ............................................................... 16
`
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching ................................................... 16
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device .......................... 16
`
`Temperature Sensor ............................................................... 17
`
`Control System ....................................................................... 17
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................ 17
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`"selected thermal mass," and "the thermal mass of the
`substrate holder is selected" ............................................................. 20
`
`"portion of the film," "portion etching," and "portions of the
`film" .................................................................................................. 23
`
`"specific interval of time" and "specified time interval" ................. 24
`
`"etching at least one of the portions of the film comprises
`radiation" .......................................................................................... 24
`
`VIII. OPINIONS RELATING TO EACH OF THE GROUNDS ....................... 26
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`Page
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 64, and 65 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View of Matsumura Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 13 .................................... 26
`
`Chart for Claim 13 ................................................................. 34
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura Teaches All the
`Limitations of Dependent Claims 15, 16, 18-21, 64,
`and 65 ..................................................................................... 37
`
`Chart for Claims 15, 16, 18-21, 64, and 65 ........................... 44
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 13, 15, 16, 18-
`21, 64, and 65 ......................................................................... 47
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 14 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura and Thomas Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Thomas Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 14 ................................. 49
`
`Chart for Claim 14 ................................................................. 50
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 14 ............................... 51
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 17 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura and Narita Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ....................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 17 ................................. 53
`
`Chart for Claim 17 ................................................................. 53
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 17 ............................... 54
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious by Hwang in View
`of Tegal and Matsumura Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................ 55
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Hwang in View of Tegal and Matsumura Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 22 ................................. 55
`
`Chart for Claim 22 ................................................................. 57
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 22 ............................... 59
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 23 and 24 are Rendered Obvious by Tegal
`in View of Matsumura and Collins Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........ 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Collins Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claims 23 and 24 ................... 61
`
`Chart for Claims 23 and 24 .................................................... 64
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 23 and 24 ................. 65
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 25 and 26 are Rendered Obvious by Tegal
`in View of Matsumura and Mahawili Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) ................................................................................................ 67
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in view of Matsumura and Mahawili Teaches
`All the Limitations of Dependent Claims 25 and 26 ............. 67
`
`Chart for Claims 25 and 26 .................................................... 69
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 25 and 26 ................. 70
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`I, Joseph L. Cecchi, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my views regarding technical issues in
`
`connection with the above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 E ("the '264 patent"). I opine only with respect to certain issues that are
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`3.
`I am currently Dean of the School of Engineering and Professor of
`
`Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of New Mexico ("UNM").
`
`This is my second term as Dean, and the term began in February 2014. I have held
`
`my appointment as Professor since joining UNM in 1994.
`
`4.
`
`From 2011 to 2012, while on leave from UNM, I served as Provost
`
`and Professor of Engineering at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in
`
`Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
`
`5. My first appointment as Dean of the School of Engineering extended
`
`from 2000 to 2009. From 2004 to 2011, I was Chair of the Board of Directors of
`
`the Science and Technology Corp. at UNM, the university's technology transfer
`
`organization responsible for patenting and licensing UNM's intellectual property.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`From 1994 until 2000, I was Chair of the Department of Chemical and
`
`6.
`
`Nuclear Engineering at UNM. Previously, I was a Lecturer with the rank of
`
`Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Princeton University,
`
`where I also directed the Graduate Program in Plasma Science and Technology. I
`
`was associated with the Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University for
`
`twenty-one years, as leader of the Plasma Processing Group (1987-1994); Principal
`
`Research Physicist (1984-1994); leader of the Materials Physics Group (1979-
`
`1987); Research Physicist (1978-1984); and Staff Physicist (1972-1978).
`
`7.
`
`From 1991 to 1994, I was Director of the New Jersey SEMATECH
`
`Center of Excellence for Plasma Etching. This organization, which involved four
`
`universities and one industrial laboratory, was engaged in state-of-the-art research
`
`in plasma processing for semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 2001, I worked on three committees established by the
`
`Semiconductor Industry Association ("SIA") to generate technology "roadmaps"
`
`for semiconductor manufacturing. Most recently, from 1998 to 2000, I was a
`
`member of the Interconnect Technical Working Group ("TWG") for the SIA
`
`International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors ("ITRS").
`
`9.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University in 1972. I
`
`also received a Master's degree in physics from Harvard University in 1969, a
`
`Bachelor's degree in physics from Knox College in 1968, and a Master's of
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`Business Administration (MBA) degree from the University of New Mexico in
`
`2011.
`
`10.
`
`I have had significant research experience in a number of areas
`
`pertaining to semiconductor devices and their manufacturing, including plasma
`
`physics, plasma chemistry, plasma etching, plasma enhanced chemical vapor
`
`deposition (PECVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), which is a form of chemical
`
`vapor deposition, plasma-assisted ALD, and chemical-mechanical-polishing
`
`(CMP), sometimes called "chemical-mechanical-planarization".
`
`11.
`
`I have published over ninety papers in my fields of expertise. Among
`
`the eight United States patents on which I am an inventor, the following five
`
`patents are in the area of plasma technology for manufacturing semiconductors and
`
`other materials:
`
`
`
`"Method and Apparatus for Coupling a Microwave Source in an
`
`Electron Cyclotron Resonance System," U.S. Patent No. 5,111,111,
`
`issued September 30, 1991;
`
`
`
`"Apparatus and Method for Uniform Microwave Plasma Processing
`
`Using TE11 and TM01 Modes," U.S. Patent No. 5,302,803, issued
`
`April 12, 1994;
`
`
`
`"Apparatus and Process for Producing High Density Axially Extended
`
`Plasmas," U.S. Patent No. 5,587,038, issued December 24, 1996;
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`"Method of Making Dense, Conformal, Ultra-Thin Cap layers for
`
`
`
`Nanoporous Low-k ILD by Plasma Assisted Atomic Layer
`
`Deposition," U.S. Patent No. 7,947,579, issued May 24, 2011; and
`
`
`
`"Ultra-Thin Microporous/Hybrid Materials," U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,187,678, issued May 29, 2012.
`
`12.
`
`I have been elected as a fellow in AVS, The Society for the Science
`
`and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing.
`
`13.
`
`I am aware of research and development activities ongoing in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing and devices since the 1980s time frame. As a result
`
`of my research experience in the plasma etching, deposition, and CMP areas, I am
`
`also familiar with other silicon semiconductor process technologies that directly
`
`impact these areas, including such things as lithography and cleaning techniques.
`
`14. As a professor, I have taught courses in silicon semiconductor devices
`
`and process technology at undergraduate and graduate levels. Many of the
`
`students I have taught have gone on to work for companies engaged in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing. I have supervised the research of a number of
`
`students in semiconductor manufacturing as part of their work for their M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. degrees.
`
`15. My curriculum vitae (CV) (Exhibit 1011) includes additional details
`
`about my experience and professional background.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`16. The '264 patent generally relates to "plasma processing" (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:18), with specific applications to plasma etching, plasma assisted chemical vapor
`
`deposition, and materials that include silicon, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride,
`
`polysilicon, and others. Id. at 1:23-31. The specification of the '264 patent also
`
`discloses that "[p]referably, the plasma discharge is derived from the inductively
`
`couple plasma source that is a de-coupled plasma source ('DPS') or a helical
`
`resonator, though other sources can be employed." Id. at 4:4-7.
`
`17.
`
`In my research, I have designed, constructed, and used de-coupled
`
`plasma sources, including inductively coupled plasma sources, helicon plasma
`
`sources, and electron cyclotron plasma (ECR) sources. These sources are also
`
`high-density plasma sources. I have used these plasma sources for plasma etching
`
`and plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition. For example, publication 74 in my
`
`CV (Ex. 1011 at 15), describes a plasma processing apparatus, including an
`
`electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma source used for plasma etching of
`
`polysilicon, silicon dioxide and silicon. The plasma processing apparatus, shown
`
`in Figure 1 of this publication, includes an ECR source chamber and a downstream
`
`processing chamber. The latter includes a water cooled wafer chuck (or substrate
`
`holder) that incorporated Helium at 1-2 Torr pressure between the wafer and the
`
`chuck to provide enhanced heat transfer.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`18. Publications 75 and 77 in my CV (Ex. 1011 at 15) describe improved
`
`operational characteristics of an ECR plasma etch reactor based on optimizing the
`
`coupling of the microwave power to the plasma. The optimized coupling reduces
`
`the reflected power to less than 5% of the incident power without external tuning,
`
`simplifying control of the plasma operation. This work underpins U.S. Patent,
`
`5,111,111, on which I am co-inventor.
`
`19. Publication 78 and 79 in my CV (Ex. 1011 at 15) describe a method
`
`for producing more uniform plasmas in ECR plasma etch reactors. This work
`
`includes results of etching a photoresist patterned, n-doped polysilicon layer
`
`deposited over an oxide layer on a silicon wafer, using an SF6/Ar gas mixture. An
`
`important result is that the polysilicon etch rate uniformity across the wafer was
`
`correlated with the plasma uniformity. When the plasma uniformity was
`
`maximized, the polysilicon etch rate across the wafer was uniform to within about
`
`2%.
`
`20. Publication 81 in my CV (Ex. 1011 at 16) describes a method for
`
`providing independent radio frequency (rf) wafer biasing on the wafer chuck in a
`
`manner that produces more uniform ion bombardment across substrates being
`
`processed. This work shows that using a lower rf frequency for wafer biasing
`
`results in a more uniform distribution of ion bombardment across the wafer.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`21. Publication 88 in my CV (Ex. 1011 at 16) addresses a critical issue of
`
`using an inductively couple plasma (ICP) source to etch silicon dioxide with high
`
`selectivity to silicon. Selectivity is achieved by introducing gas mixtures
`
`containing C, F, and H into the plasma source, which dissociates the feedstock
`
`gases to produce fluorocarbon radicals that deposit a polymer on the wafer surface.
`
`The polymer suppresses etch rates of silicon compared to the etch rates of silicon
`
`dioxide, thus promoting selectivity of oxide etching. The wafer chuck in this
`
`plasma apparatus was water cooled. Helium at 10 Torr was introduced between
`
`the water cooled chuck and wafer to promote heat transfer. The wafer temperature
`
`was measured using a Luxtron fluoroptic thermometer. Concentrations of the
`
`fluorocarbon radicals were measured by diode laser absorption spectroscopy and
`
`correlated to measurements of the thickness of the deposited polymer.
`
`22. As further examples, publications 92, 93, and 94 in my CV (Ex. 1011
`
`at 17) relate to a process of plasma-assisted atomic layer deposition, which is a
`
`form of plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition that provides layer-by-layer
`
`control of thin film deposition. An inductively coupled plasma source was used in
`
`this work. Publications 92 and 93 describe how plasma-assisted atomic layer
`
`deposition of silicon dioxide can be applied to producing a material that can be
`
`used for interlevel dielectrics between conductors in integrated circuits. These
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`plasma processes are also the subject matter in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,579 and
`
`8,187,678, on which I am an inventor.
`
`23.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard hourly rate of
`
`$450 in connection with this proceeding. My compensation is in no way
`
`contingent upon my performance or the outcome of this case.
`
`24.
`
`I have been asked my technical opinions regarding the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates to the '264
`
`patent and other reference documents.
`
`25.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my technical opinions on concepts
`
`discussed in the '264 patent and other reference documents, as well as my technical
`
`opinions on how these concepts relate to several claim limitations of the '264
`
`patent in the context of the specification.
`
`26.
`
`In reaching the opinions stated herein, I have considered the '264
`
`patent, its prosecution history, and the references listed in the table below, and
`
`have also drawn as appropriate upon my own education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (the '264 patent)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`
`
`
`European Patent Application Number 90304724.9 (Tegal)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (Matsumura)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 (Narita)
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 (Thomas)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1010
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (Hwang)
`
`European Patent Application Number 93309608.3 (Collins)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,059,770 (Mahawili)
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993
`
`George Shortley and Dudley Willimas, Elements of Physics for
`Students of Science and Engineering, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., New
`Jersey, 1961)
`
`'264 Patent Prosecution History, 7/25/05 Applicant's Response
`
`Daniel L. Flamm and G. Kenneth Herb, "Plasma Etching
`Technology – An Overview" in Plasma Etching, An
`Introduction, Dennis M. Manos and Daniel L. Flamm, eds.
`(Academic Press, San Diego, 1988)
`
`1015
`
`J.W. Coburn and Harold F. Winters, Journal of Vacuum Science
`and Technology, 16, (1979)
`
`III. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`27.
`I have approached my analysis of the '264 patent from the perspective
`
`of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a PHOSITA) at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the '264 patent, which I have been informed is December 4,
`
`1995, the earliest priority date recited by the '264 patent.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known all of the relevant
`
`art at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems encountered in
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field. I have been informed by counsel that it is from
`
`the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art that determined patentability.
`
`29. Based on these factors, in my opinion, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the '264 patent would generally have had either (i) a Bachelor's degree
`
`in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three
`
`or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields,
`
`or (ii) a Master's degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a
`
`similar field and two or three years of work experience in semiconductor
`
`manufacturing or related fields.
`
`30. Based on this understanding of a PHOSITA for the '264 patent, I
`
`believe that I am at least a person having ordinary skill in the art for purposes of
`
`the '264 patent. For example, my qualifications and experiences discussed in
`
`Section II above, and in my CV (Ex. 1011), demonstrate my familiarity with and
`
`knowledge of the art of the '264 patent. I therefore believe that I am qualified to
`
`offer this declaration as to how such a person would have interpreted the '264
`
`patent and the prior art on or about December 4, 1995. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`my statements below refer to the knowledge, beliefs and abilities of a person
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art of the '264 patent at the time of the purported
`
`invention of the '264 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`31. My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law. I
`
`understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that in proceedings before the USPTO, the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that the '264 patent has not expired.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a single piece of prior art "anticipates" a claim if
`
`each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., if the missing element is "inherent."
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim "obvious." I
`
`understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all
`
`elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim
`
`obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the
`
`claim and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time would have had
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`reason to combine the prior art. I understand that this reason to combine need not
`
`be explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. I
`
`also understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton,
`
`but is a person having ordinary creativity. I further understand that one or more
`
`pieces of prior art that disclose fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may
`
`render a patent claim obvious if including the missing element would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (e.g., the missing element
`
`represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior art or a reconfiguration of
`
`a known system).
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made. I
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge available to
`
`one of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in order to avoid
`
`impermissible hindsight. I further understand that the obviousness inquiry assumes
`
`that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of all
`
`relevant references available at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary rationales
`
`36.
`
`that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered those
`
`rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (methods or products)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the effort was
`
`"obvious to try";
`
`
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations on
`
`the work for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art;
`
`
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`37.
`
`I appreciate that secondary considerations may be considered, if
`
`present, as part of the overall obviousness analysis. Such considerations do not
`
`appear to be present here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have never heard anyone offer praise for the '264 patent, nor am I
`
`aware of any commercial success attributable to the '264 patent.
`
`I am also unaware of any copying of the alleged invention of the '264
`
`patent.
`
`I am unaware of any use to which the owner of the '264 patent has put
`
`the patent except to assert it in litigation.
`
`V. THE '264 PATENT
`38.
`I understand Lam is challenging claims 13-26, 64, and 65
`
`("challenged claims") of the '264 patent.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, the challenged claims are all directed to a method for
`
`etching a substrate in the manufacture of a semiconductor device. In the method, a
`
`substrate is placed on a substrate holder in a chamber. The substrate is etched at a
`
`first temperature and then at a second temperature.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the '264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,231,776 ("the '776 patent"), which issued from an application filed on Sept. 10,
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`1998, which itself is a continuation-in-part of another application filed on Dec. 4,
`
`1995 and claims priority to a provisional application filed Sept. 11, 1997. Ex.
`
`1001-1. I understand that no matter which of these dates Flamm may rely on as the
`
`priority date of the '264 patent, the references relied upon in this Petition are prior
`
`art to the '264 patent because they all predate Dec. 4, 1995, the earliest possible
`
`priority date recited by the '264 patent.
`
`A. Representative Claim 13
`41. The crux of the alleged invention of the '264 patent is the
`
`straightforward and well-known method of placing a substrate on a substrate
`
`holder in a chamber and processing the substrate at different temperatures. For
`
`example, claim 13 recites a method comprising the steps of (a) "placing a substrate
`
`having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a chamber, the substrate holder
`
`having a selected thermal mass;" (b) "setting the substrate holder to a selected first
`
`substrate holder temperature with a heat transfer device;" (c) "etching a first
`
`portion of the film while the substrate holder is at the selected first substrate holder
`
`temperature;" (d) "with the heat transfer device, changing the substrate holder
`
`temperature from the selected first substrate holder temperature to a selected
`
`second substrate holder temperature;" and (e) "etching a second portion of the film
`
`while the substrate holder is at the selected second substrate holder temperature."
`
`Ex. 1001, 20:53-67.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`42. From reading the plain language of the claim, I understand that claim
`
`13 further defines the "heat transfer device" of steps (b) and (d) and the "thermal
`
`mass of the substrate holder" of step (a). The claim further recites that the "heat
`
`transfer device, chang[e] the substrate holder temperature from the selected first
`
`substrate holder temperature to a selected second substrate holder temperature."
`
`Id. at 20:61-64. The claim also recites that "the thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder" be "selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific
`
`interval of time during processing," where "the predetermined temperature change
`
`comprises the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the
`
`selected second substrate holder temperature," and "the specified time interval
`
`comprises the time for changing from the selected first substrate holder
`
`temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature." Id. at 21:1-10.
`
`B.
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching
`43. The '264 patent discloses, a "multi-stage etching processes . . . using
`
`differing temperatures." Id. at 2:10-12. Etching may take place at a "first
`
`temperature" and then at a "second temperature." Id. at 2:53-56.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device
`
`2.
` The '264 patent discloses a temperature control system (Fig. 7),
`
`44.
`
`which "can be used to heat and/or cool the wafer chuck or substrate holder 701."
`
`Id. at 16:3-5. The substrate holder is coupled to a fluid reservoir in the system. Id.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`
`at 16:5-8. "[F]luid can be used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate
`
`holder." Id. at 14:62-63. The fluid "traverses through the substrate holder" and
`
`"[t]he fluid temperature selectively transfers energy in the form of heat to the wafer
`
`holder to a desirable temperature." Id. at 16:11-16. The fluid is heated with an
`
`electric heater but "can also be cooled using a heat exchanger." Id. at 16:33-36,
`
`16:20-21.
`
`3.
`Temperature Sensor
`45. The '264 patent discloses sensing the substrate holder temperature and
`
`states that "[t]he temperature sensing unit can be any suitable unit that is capable of
`
`being adapted to the upper surface of the substrate holder." Id. at 15:51-53.
`
`4.
`Control System
`46. The '264 patent discloses controlling the temperature of the fluid by
`
`using both the measured substrate (or substrate holder) temperature and the desired
`
`temperature to determine the amount of power that should be supplied to the heater
`
`to heat the fluid. Id. at 16:33-46.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`47.
`In my opinion, patents and printed publications predating the
`
`purported invention of the '264 patent disclosed the limitations of the challenged
`
`claims. For example, the references discussed herein disclose chambers having
`
`elements such as substrate holders and control systems for accurately and quickly
`
`controlling the temperature of a substrate holder or a substrate during processing.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Declaration for Petition 1
`
`
`48. The Tegal references, EP0399676, (Ex. 1002) was published Nov. 28,
`
`1990. Tegal discloses a plasma reactor (10) including a substrate holder, a low
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
