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
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`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
` Petition 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................. 3
`
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................. 3
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................... 3
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................... 3
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................... 3
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(a)) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.............................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`Challenges Are Based ........................................................................ 4
`
`IV. THE '264 PATENT ...................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Representative Claim 13 .................................................................... 6
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure ................................................................. 8
`
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching ..................................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device ............................ 8
`
`Temperature Sensor ................................................................. 8
`
`Control System ......................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 9
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`Page
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`"selected thermal mass," and "the thermal mass of the
`substrate holder is selected" ............................................................. 10
`
`"portion of the film," "portion etching," and "portions of the
`film" .................................................................................................. 11
`
`"specific interval of time" and "specified time interval" ................. 13
`
`"etching at least one of the portions of the film comprises
`radiation" .......................................................................................... 14
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................. 15
`
`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) ................................................................................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 13 .................................... 16
`
`Chart for Claim 13 ................................................................. 24
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura Teaches All the
`Limitations of Dependent Claims 15, 16, 18-21, 64,
`and 65 ..................................................................................... 26
`
`Chart for Claims 15, 16, 18-21, 64, and 65 ........................... 33
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 13, 15, 16, 18-
`21, 64, and 65 ......................................................................... 35
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 14 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura and Thomas Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................... 37
`
`1.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Thomas Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 14 ................................. 38
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Chart for Claim 14 ................................................................. 38
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 14 ............................... 40
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 17 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura and Narita Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ....................... 41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 17 ................................. 42
`
`Chart for Claim 17 ................................................................. 42
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 17 ............................... 42
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious by Hwang in View
`of Tegal and Matsumura Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................ 43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Hwang in View of Tegal and Matsumura Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claim 22 ................................. 43
`
`Chart for Claim 22 ................................................................. 45
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 22 ............................... 47
`
`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) ........ 49
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Collins Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claims 23 and 24 ................... 50
`
`Chart for Claims 23 and 24 .................................................... 52
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 23 and 24 ................. 53
`
`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) ................................................................................................ 55
`
`4.
`
`Tegal in view of Matsumura and Mahawili Teaches
`All the Limitations of Dependent Claims 25 and 26 ............. 55
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Chart for Claims 25 and 26 .................................................... 56
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 25 and 26 ................. 57
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases 
`Agilent Techs. Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008 WL 7348188
`(N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. Patent Owner,
`IPR2012-00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) .......................................................................... 4
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 13
`
`Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`Case 1:15-cv-613-LY (W.D. Tex.) ........................................................... 3
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................. 2
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 2
`
`KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).............................................................................. 1, 2
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
` Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ................................................. 3, 4
`
`Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273 (1976)
`(reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976) .......................................................... 2
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................... 16, 37, 49, 55
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................. 4, 10, 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (the '264 patent)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`European Patent Application Number 90304724.9 (Tegal)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (Matsumura)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 (Narita)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 (Thomas)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (Hwang)
`
`European Patent Application Number 93309608.3 (Collins)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,059,770 (Mahawili)
`
`Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`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)
`
`J.W. Coburn and Harold F. Winters, Journal of Vacuum Science
`and Technology, 16, (1979)
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Petition 1
`
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner Lam Research Corporation ("Lam" or "Petitioner") respectfully requests
`
`that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 13-26, 64, and 65
`
`("challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E ("the '264 patent") (Ex.
`
`1001), which is owned by Daniel L. Flamm ("Flamm" or "Patent Owner"), and
`
`cancel those claims because they are unpatentable in view of prior art patents and
`
`printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The sixteen claims challenged in this Petition are all directed to a method for
`
`etching a substrate in the manufacture of a semiconductor device.1 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.
`
`As set forth below, the claims of the '264 patent are obvious because they
`
`are nothing more than the result of Flamm combining "familiar elements according
`
`to known methods" to "yield predictable results." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`1 Claims 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 are
`
`challenged in a second IPR, filed concurrently with this IPR. Claims 27, 31, 32,
`
`34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are challenged in a third IPR, filed concurrently
`
`with this IPR. Claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71 are challenged in a fourth IPR,
`
`filed concurrently with this IPR.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, "when a patent 'simply
`
`arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known
`
`to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement,
`
`the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc., 425
`
`U.S. 273, 282, reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976)). The key question is whether
`
`the alleged improvement "is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions." Id. As set forth below, the answer to this
`
`question is "no" for the '264 patent, because well before the purported invention,
`
`processing a substrate in a chamber at a first temperature and then at a second
`
`temperature was well known. Patents and printed publications predating the
`
`purported invention disclosed 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.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the teachings of these references to practice the method of the challenged claims.
`
`Notably, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . .
`
`. ." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Rather, "obviousness focuses
`
`on what the combined teachings would have suggested." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
`
`1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-party in interest for this Petition is Lam Research Corporation.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The '264 patent is presently at issue in the declaratory judgment action Lam
`
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and in
`
`the infringement action Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case 1:15-cv-613-LY (W.D. Tex.).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel: Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`
`Backup Counsel: Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707)
`
`Address: Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Tel: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at LamFlammIPR@irell.com.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`fees required for this Petition, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a),
`
`referencing Docket No. 153405-0053 (264IPR), and for any other required fees.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
` Petition 1
`
`
`F. Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the '264 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the '264 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner has filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of the
`
`claims of the '264 patent, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-
`
`01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner has not filed a declaratory judgment action for
`
`invalidity of the claims of the '264 patent. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd. Patent Owner, IPR2012-00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162, at *5
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013). Flamm has not yet filed an answer asserting
`
`counterclaims for infringement of the '264 patent in the N.D. Cal. action.
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) and §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner
`
`challenges claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of the '264 patent. Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of the
`
`'264 patent based on the grounds detailed below.
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenges
`Are Based
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the '264 patent
`
`is requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the
`
`'264 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): European Patent Application Number
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`90304724.9 to Lachenbruch et al. ("Tegal," Ex. 1002) filed on May 1, 1990 by
`
`Tegal Corp. and published on Nov. 28, 1990 as Publication No. 0399676A1; U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,151,871 to Matsumura et al. ("Matsumura," Ex. 1003) issued on Sept.
`
`29, 1992; U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 to Narita et al. ("Narita," Ex. 1004) issued on
`
`April 3, 1990; U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 to Thomas et al. ("Thomas," Ex. 1005)
`
`issued on July 14, 1987; U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 to Hwang et al. ("Hwang," Ex.
`
`1006) issued on Dec. 29, 1992; European Patent Application Number 93309608.3
`
`to Collins et al. ("Collins," Ex. 1007) filed on Dec. 1, 1993 by Applied Materials,
`
`Inc. and published on Jun. 15, 1994 as Publication No. 0601788A2; and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,059,770 to Mahawili ("Mahawili," Ex. 1008) issued on Oct. 22, 1991.
`
`Each of the above references qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) because each was published or issued more than one year prior to the
`
`earliest priority date recited by the '264 patent, Dec. 4, 1995. The references in this
`
`Petition were not before the Examiner during the prosecution of the '264 patent or
`
`its parent applications. The Petition does not present the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously presented during the prosecution of the '264
`
`patent or its parent applications.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 13-26, 64, and 65 under
`
`the following statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`Ground
`
`
`
`
`
`References(s)
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 1
`
`Claims
`
`35
`U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`13, 15, 16,
`18-21, 64, 65
`14
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura and Thomas
`17
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura and Narita
`22
`§ 103(a) Hwang in view of Tegal and Matsumura
`23, 24
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura and Collins
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura and Mahawili 25, 26
`
`Section VII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
`
`declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D. Ex. 1009.
`
`IV. THE '264 PATENT
`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, 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. 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
`
`predate Dec. 4, 1995, the earliest possible priority date recited by the '264 patent.
`
`A. Representative Claim 13
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`and processing the substrate at different temperatures. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶ 41.
`
`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.
`
`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 requires 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 requires 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
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`comprises the time for changing from the selected first substrate holder
`
`temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature." Id. at 21:1-10;
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 42.
`
`B.
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching
`The '264 patent discloses, a "multi-stage etching processes . . . using
`
`differing temperatures." Ex. 1001, 2:10-12. Etching may take place at a "first
`
`temperature" and then at a "second temperature." Id. at 2:53-56; Ex. 1009 ¶ 43.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device
`
`2.
` The '264 patent discloses a temperature control system (Fig. 7), which "can
`
`be used to heat and/or cool the wafer chuck or substrate holder 701." Ex. 1001,
`
`16:3-5. The substrate holder is coupled to a fluid reservoir in the system. Id. 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; Ex. 1009 ¶ 44.
`
`Temperature Sensor
`
`3.
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`adapted to the upper surface of the substrate holder." Ex. 1001, 15:51-53; Ex.
`
`1009 ¶ 45.
`
`Control System
`
`4.
`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. Ex. 1001, 16:33-46; Ex. 1009 ¶ 46.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ("PHOSITA") 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. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 27-30.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, the challenged claims must be given their
`
`"broadest reasonable construction" in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because of this rule, for the purpose of
`
`this inter partes review, Petitioner has employed the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the challenged claims throughout this Petition. The broadest
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`reasonable construction of claim terms, of course, will often be quite different from
`
`the construction those terms would receive in district court claim construction
`
`proceedings. See Agilent Techs. Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008
`
`WL 7348188, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3), the following subsections explain the proper construction of
`
`particular claim terms at issue for purposes of this review. Ex. 1009 ¶ 51.
`
`A.
`
`"selected thermal mass," and "the thermal mass of the substrate
`holder is selected"
`
`Challenged claim 13 of the '264 patent recites "the substrate holder having a
`
`selected thermal mass . . . wherein the thermal mass of the substrate holder is
`
`selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time."
`
`Ex. 1001, 20:54-55, 21:1-3 (emphasis added). Regarding the "thermal mass"
`
`limitation, the specification simply states in the "Summary of the Invention" that
`
`the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected to "facilitate changing the
`
`temperature of the substrate to be etched" and that the thermal mass "allows for a
`
`change from a first temperature to a second temperature within a characteristic
`
`time period to process a film." Id. at 2:51-56; Ex. 1009 ¶ 52. The specification
`
`does not explain what the thermal mass is or how it is selected, other than a passing
`
`reference to the workpiece support having a "low" thermal mass. Ex. 1001, 15:43-
`
`48; Ex. 1009 ¶ 52. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of "thermal
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`mass" is the technical definition of the term as it would be understood by a
`
`PHOSITA at the time of the purported invention of the '264 patent.
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of the purported invention
`
`of the '264 patent, that the "thermal mass" of an object is a measure of the amount
`
`of heat required to produce a particular temperature change in that object. Ex.
`
`1009 ¶¶ 53-57. The lower the thermal mass of an object, the less heat energy it
`
`takes to heat the object to make a temperature change. Id. Said another way, if
`
`heat is added to or removed from an object at a constant rate, it takes less time to
`
`change the temperature of an object that has a lower thermal mass. Id.
`
`Because thermal mass is proportional to specific heat and the object's mass,
`
`reducing either one of these values will lower the thermal mass for an object. Ex.
`
`1009 ¶¶ 58-59. For example, lowering the mass of an object will reduce its
`
`thermal mass. Id. Selecting a different material with a lower specific heat also
`
`will reduce the thermal mass. Id. In sum, under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the claimed terms, "selected thermal mass" and "the thermal mass
`
`of the substrate holder is selected" mean selecting the mass of the substrate holder
`
`or the material of the substrate holder, or both. Id.
`
`B.
`
`"portion of the film," "portion etching," and "portions of the
`film"
`
`The challenged claims of the '264 patent include limitations that recite
`
`etching a "portion" of a film, or variants thereof. The claim terms are "portion of
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`the film" as recited by claims 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, "portion etching" as recited by
`
`claim 15, and "portions of the film" as recited by claims 17 and 18. In all of these
`
`claims, "portion" is used according to its plain and ordinary meaning. For
`
`example, claim 13 recites "a substrate having a film thereon," "etching a first
`
`portion of the film," and "etching a second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 20:53-
`
`67. Consistent with this usage, a PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of
`
`the purported invention of the '264 patent, that the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of the claimed term, "portion" means part of the film. Ex. 1009 ¶ 60.
`
`This understanding is consistent with dictionaries of the time. For example,
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary defines "portion" as "[a] section or quantity
`
`within a larger thing; a part of a whole." Ex. 1010-3; Ex. 1009 ¶ 61. Additionally,
`
`the '264 patent specification does not use the term "portion" with respect to a film,
`
`and does not express any intent to redefine the term. Id.
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation further supports construing "portion" to
`
`mean a part of the film. For example, independent claim 13 recites "etching a first
`
`portion of the film" and "etching a second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 20:58,
`
`20:65. Dependent claim 14 adds the limitation "wherein the second portion of the
`
`film comprises a material composition that is different from the material
`
`composition of the first portion of the film." Id. at 21:11-13. Consequently, where
`
`the claims simply recite a first portion and a second portion (as in independent
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`claim 13), these portions can have the same material composition. This is because
`
`dependent claim 14 explicitly provides that the first and second portions must have
`
`different material compositions. See, e.g., Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v.
`
`Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("'[C]laim differentiation' refers
`
`to the presumption that an independent claim should not be construed as requiring
`
`a limitation added by a dependent claim.").
`
`In sum, under the broadest reasonable construction of the claimed terms,
`
`"portion of the film" means part of the film, "portion etching" means etching part
`
`of the film, and "portions of the film" means parts of the film. Ex. 1009 ¶ 62.
`
`"specific interval of time" and "specified time interval"
`
`C.
`Challenged claim 13 recites "the thermal mass of the substrate holder is
`
`selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`
`. . . the specified time interval comprises the time for changing from the selected
`
`first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`
`temperature." Ex. 1001, 21:1-10 (emphasis added). Based on the claim 13 usage,
`
`a PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of the purported invention of the
`
`'264 patent, that the patent uses the terms "specific interval of time" and "specified
`
`time interval" according to their plain and ordinary meanings. Ex. 1009 ¶ 63.
`
`The '264 patent specification does not express any intent to redefine these
`
`terms in the only three instances in which the patent uses the term "interval" in the
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Petition 1
`
`
`
`specification. Ex. 1001, 16:60-67, 19:48-52, 19:59-61. In all instances, the patent
`
`uses the terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings. Ex. 1009 ¶ 64.
`
`In sum, the broadest reasonable construction of the claimed terms, "specific
`
`interval of time" and "specified time interval" is based on their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. Ex. 1009 ¶ 65.
`
`D.
`
`"etching at least one of the portions of the film compri