Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Lam Research Corporation filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 27–30, 33, 35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54, 66, 67, and 69
`of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’264 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Daniel L. Flamm, the named inventor on the ’264 patent and the
`Patent Owner, filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the
`arguments presented in Flamm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that
`the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Lam will prevail in challenging claims 27–30, 33, 35–39, 42,
`43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54, 66, 67, and 69 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable.
`Accordingly, we institute trial on those claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’264 patent is the subject of concurrently filed inter partes review
`proceedings IPR2015-01759, IPR2015-01766, and IPR2015-01768.
`We are informed that the ’264 patent is presently at issue in a
`declaratory judgment action captioned Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and in an infringement action
`captioned Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case
`1:15-cv-613 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.
`.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`B. The ’264 Patent
`
`The ’264 patent, titled “Multi-Temperature Processing,” reissued
`April 29, 2008, from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/439,245, filed on May
`14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at (54), (45), (21), (22). The ’264 patent is a reissue of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776, which issued May 15, 2001 from U.S. Patent
`Application 09/151,163, filed September 10, 1998. Id. at (64). The patent is
`directed to a method “for etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device,”
`where the method “provide[s] different processing temperatures during an
`etching process or the like.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The apparatus used in the
`method is shown in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a substrate (product 28, such as a wafer to be etched) on a
`substrate holder (product support chuck or pedestal 18) in a chamber
`(chamber 12 of plasma etch apparatus 10). Id. at 3:24–25, 3:32–33, 3:40–
`41.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7, below, depict a temperature-controlled substrate
`holder and temperature control systems.
`
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7 depict temperature-controlled fluid flowing through
`substrate holder (600, 701), guided by baffles 605, where “[t]he fluid [is]
`used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder.” Id. at 14:28–
`63 and 16:5–67. Figure 6 also depicts heating elements 607 underneath the
`substrate holder, where “[t]he heating elements can selectively heat one or
`more zones in a desirable manner.” Id. at 15:10–26. Referring to Figure 7,
`the operation of the temperature control system is described as follows:
`The desired fluid temperature is determined by comparing the
`desired wafer or wafer chuck set point temperature to a measured
`wafer or wafer chuck temperature . . . . The heat exchanger, fluid
`flow rate, coolant–side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck,
`etc. should be designed using conventional means to permit the
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`heater to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the
`temperature of
`the chuck and wafer
`to predetermined
`temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified
`uniformity limits.
`Id. at 16:36–39 and 50–67.
`An example of a semiconductor substrate to be patterned is shown in
`Figure 9, below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts substrate 901 having a stack of layers including oxide layer
`903, polysilicon layer 905, tungsten silicide layer 907, and photoresist
`masking layer 909 with opening 911, from the treatment method shown in
`Fig. 10, below. Id. at 17:58–18:57.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts the tungsten silicide layer being etched between
`points B and D at a constant temperature; the polysilicon layer being
`exposed between Points D and E; the polysilicon layer being etched at a
`constant temperature beyond point E; and the resist being ashed beyond
`Point I. Id. at 18:58–19:64. The plasma’s optical emission at 530 nm is
`monitored to determine when there is breakthrough to the polysilicon layer
`(Point D) and a lower etch temperature is required to etch the polysilicon
`layer (Point E). Id. at 19:8–24 and 45–52.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 27, 37, and 51 are independent.
`
`Claim 27 is illustrative of the challenged independent claims, and is
`reproduced below:
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a
`device, the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder
`temperature with a heat transfer device, the substrate
`holder having at least one temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate
`holder in a chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second
`substrate temperature, the selected second substrate
`temperature being different from the selected first
`substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected
`first substrate temperature to the selected second
`substrate temperature, using a measured substrate
`temperature, within a preselected time interval for
`processing, and at least the first substrate temperature or
`the second substrate temperature, in single or in
`combination, is above room temperature.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:8–28.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Lam challenges claims 27–30, 33, 35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54,
`
`66, 67, and 69 of the ’264 patent on the asserted grounds of unpatentability
`set forth in the table below. Pet. 5–6.
`References
`Tegal2, Matsumura3, Narita4
`
`Basis1 Challenged Claim(s)
`§ 103(a) 27, 28, 30, 33, 35–39,
`42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–
`54, 66, 67, 69
`§ 103(a) 29
`
`Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Ooshio5
`
`
`Lam asserts that all references are prior art to the ’264 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) (Pet. 5); Flamm does not, at this stage of the proceeding,
`challenge the prior art status of any reference.
`
`
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, took effect on March 16, 2013. Because the application
`from which the ’264 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to
`Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`2 EP 0 399 676 A1 (Nov. 28, 1990) (Ex. 1002).
`3 U.S. Patent 5,151,871 (Sept. 29, 1992) (Ex. 1003).
`4 U.S. Patent 4,913,790 (Apr. 3, 1990) (Ex. 1004).
`5 U.S. Patent 4,645,218 (Feb. 24, 1987) (Ex. 1005).
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`1. Claim Construction Standard
`Before proceeding with claim construction, we must determine the
`proper standard of construction to apply. Lam contends that the claims of
`the ’264 patent should be given their broadest reasonable construction. Pet.
`9–10. That standard, however, is applicable only to unexpired patents. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which it appears.”).
`The term of a patent grant begins on the date on which the patent
`issues and ends 20 years from the date on which the application for the
`patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a
`specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section
`120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such
`application was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2002). The earliest patent
`application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for
`the ’264 patent, was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term
`extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, thus, expired no later than
`December 4, 2015.
`Because, on this record, we conclude that the term of the ’264 patent
`expired subsequent to the filing of the Petition and the Preliminary
`Response, but prior to the end of the preliminary stage6 of an inter partes
`
`
`6 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (“Preliminary Proceeding begins with the filing of a
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`review, for purposes of this Decision we construe the claims of the ’264
`patent under the standard applicable to expired patents. For claims of an
`expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation is similar to that of a district
`court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “In
`determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
`principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language
`itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). There is, however, a
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002).
`
`2. Disputed Claim Terms
`Lam proffers constructions for several claim terms: portion of the
`film, preselected time interval, and etching . . . the portions of the film
`comprises radiation. Pet. 10–15. Flamm does not address the construction
`of any of the claim terms. After reviewing the parties’ arguments, based on
`the current record we are not persuaded that express construction of any
`term is necessary in order to resolve the disputes currently before us. Thus,
`we discern no need to provide any express constructions at this time. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`
`
`petition for instituting a trial and ends with a written decision as to whether a
`trial will be instituted.”)
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`B. Obviousness Over Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`
`Lam contends that claims 27, 28, 30, 33, 35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49,
`
`51–54, 66, 67, and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as they
`would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita. Pet. 16–37. Lam explains how the combined
`references teach the subject matter of each challenged claim and asserts that
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or
`modify the references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of
`Dr. Joseph L. Cecchi (Ex. 1006) to support its positions.
`
`1. Tegal
`Tegal “relates to plasma etch processes for the manufacture of
`semiconductor wafers . . . .” Ex. 1002, 1:4–5. Figure 1, below, is a
`schematic for etching a silicon oxide layer at two temperatures in the same
`chamber.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts plasma reactor 10 with a chamber having a substrate (wafer
`15) on a substrate holder (electrode 13 with plurality of tines 16). Id. at
`2:52–3:7. The plasma reactor “performs different types of etch, requiring
`different temperatures, in a single reactor” on the substrate. Id. at 1:43–48.
`For example, “a tapered etch can be performed in oxide through a patterned
`photoresist” by a first etching at 80°C for an isotropic etch, followed by a
`second etching at 10°C–40°C for an anisotropic etch. Id. at 5:5–45.
`Figure 1 also depicts two reservoirs of water maintained at 10°C and
`80°C to control the temperature of the substrate holder and substrate. The
`10°C and 80°C waters are mixed, using taps 47 and 44, and delivered to the
`substrate holder (electrode 13 with plurality of tines 16) at the desired
`temperature. The return water from the substrate holder is recirculated back
`to the reservoirs, remixed with hot or cold water to the desired temperature,
`and recirculated to the substrate holder. The valves that interconnect the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`reservoirs to the substrate holder “may be individually actuated
`electronically.” Id. at 3:36–4:32.
`Figure 1 further depicts controlling substrate (wafer) temperature
`using “an external source of helium gas to the underside of wafer 15 through
`one or more channels, not shown, in the upper surface of electrode 13. As
`known per se in the art, this provides better thermal coupling between wafer
`15 and electrode 13.” Id. at 3:4–26. The passageways in the substrate
`holder (electrode 13 with plurality of tines 16) for water “are separate from
`the passageways conveying helium from port 19.” Id. at 3:15–26.
`While Tegal provides the example of “etching an oxide layer on a
`semiconductor wafer,” Tegal envisions “enhance[d] throughput” by
`“performing two different types of etch in the same reactor” and performing
`“different types of etch, requiring different temperatures, in a single reactor.”
`Id. at 6:43–44, 1:43–48. Tegal also provides an example of “etching an
`oxide layer on a semiconductor wafer” at temperatures between 10°C and
`80°C, but envisions that “any two temperatures can be used.” Id. at 6:4–13,
`6:43–44.
`
`2. Matsumura
`Matsumura discloses a “method of heat-processing semiconductor
`devices whereby temperatures of the semiconductor devices can be
`controlled at devices-heating and -cooling times so as to accurately control
`their thermal history curve.” Ex. 1003, 2:60–65. Matsumura discloses
`applying the method to plasma etching when it states that “the present
`invention has been applied to the adhesion and baking processes for
`semiconductor wafers in the above-described embodiments . . . it can also be
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`applied to any of the ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing processes.”
`Id. at 10:3–7.
`Figure 5A, below, is a schematic of an embodiment for heat-
`processing a substrate (wafer W) on a substrate holder (wafer-stage 12,
`which includes upper plate 13 and conductive thin film 14) in chamber 11.
`
`
`Figure 5A depicts adhesion unit 42 with control system 20, which measures
`the temperature of thin film 14 deposited on the underside of upper plate 13
`with thermal sensor 25. Id. at 5:13–17, 5:32–47, 5:67–6:4, 6:45–50.
`Control system 20 sends signals (SM) to power supply circuit 19 to heat
`semiconductor wafer W on upper plate 13 by conductive thin film 14; and
`sends signals (SC) to cooling system 23 to control the amount of coolant
`supplied to jacket 22. Id. at 5:52–6:32, Figs. 5A and 5B.
`Inside the control system is a recipe, such as that shown in Figure 9
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts a “recipe” with a “thermal history curve” showing
`temperature as a function of time. Id. at 4:42–43. At a given time (or
`pulse), the control system measures the substrate holder temperature with
`thermal sensor 25, compares thermal sensor 25’s measurement to that of the
`recipe shown in Figure 9, and either (1) sends a signal (SM) to power supply
`circuit 19 to heat the substrate (wafer W), (2) sends a signal (SC) to cooling
`system 23 to cool the substrate (jacket 22 under stage 12 exchanges heat
`with thin film 14), or (3) sends no signal and waits for the next measurement
`time. Id. at 5:52–6:32, Figs. 5A and 5B.
`To further explain the temperature control, Matsumura discloses
`Figure 7, shown below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`“FIG. 7 is a chart intended to explain the temperature change (include ripple
`of temperature) of a heating plate at a time when its temperature is being
`raised, lowered and kept certain.” Id. at 4:36–39.
`
`3. Narita
`Narita discloses a method for treating “a surface of a workpiece while
`accurately controlling the temperature of the workpiece.” Ex. 1004, 2:7–10.
`Narita further discloses that the method can be applied to plasma etching and
`thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD), among other treatment methods.
`Id. at 3:3–5. The disclosed treating method “includes a temperature rise step
`in which first temperature control is performed and a treatment step in which
`second temperature control is performed.” Id. at Abstr. Figure 1, below, is a
`schematic of an embodiment for a CVD process where there is a substrate
`(semiconductor wafer 2) on a substrate holder (support member 5).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts control section 23 that controls the temperature using two
`temperature detecting mechanisms: thermocouple 6, which contacts
`substrate 2, and pyrometer 16, which does not contact the substrate. Id. at
`3:13–37, 3:65–4:13, 4:26–31. Narita discloses that two temperature sensors
`are used because the thermocouple has a thermal mass and
`rising
`reliability
`is decreased with
`respect
`to quickly
`temperatures because it takes a considerably long period of time
`to
`increase
`the
`temperature of
`the
`thermocouple
`itself.
`Therefore, when
`the substrate
`is quickly heated,
`the
`thermocouple cannot follow the temperature rise. As a result, the
`difference between a temperature detected by the thermocouple
`and an actual temperature becomes large, and a set value to be
`kept constant after quick rise is greatly overshot. . . .
`In contrast to this, if a pyrometer is used for temperature
`control of a substrate, the pyrometer can properly respond to
`quick heating because it has good response characteristics.
`Id. at 1:42–64.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`Figure 2, below, depicts temperature as a function of time when a
`wafer is quickly heated.
`
`
`Figure 2 shows (1) overshooting the temperature set value (dashed
`line) when the control circuit only uses thermocouple 6 measurements to
`control the process; and (2) not overshooting the temperature set value (solid
`line) when the control circuit switches from thermocouple 6 to pyrometer 16
`measurements to control the process, during the time when the temperature
`is quickly increasing. Id. at 6:18–49.
`
`4. Analysis
`Based on the foregoing disclosures, Lam contends that the elements of
`the challenged claims are taught by the combination of Tegal, Matsumura,
`and Narita. For example, with respect to claim 27, Lam argues that Tegal
`discloses heating a substrate holder to a first temperature (80°C) with a heat
`transfer device (the fluid flowing through the apparatus of Figure 1). Pet.
`15–16. Tegal also is said to disclose placing a substrate with a film thereon
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`into a chamber, and etching a first portion of the film at the first temperature.
`Id. at 16–17. Tegal then discloses a “reactive ion etch (RIE) of the oxide . . .
`obtained by switching to a fluid temperature of 10°C–40°C,” which Lam
`contends satisfies claim 27’s requirement of etching a second portion of the
`film at a selected second temperature. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1002, 5:39–41).
`Lam relies on Matsumura’s disclosure of a temperature sensor
`attached to its conductive thin film to meet claim 27’s requirement that the
`substrate holder has a temperature sensing unit. Id. at 16. Matsumura is also
`said to teach changing the substrate temperature within a preselected time
`interval through its disclosure of a temperature control system that uses
`“predetermined recipes” to heat or cool an object over a predetermined
`period of time. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:1–7). For example, Lam
`notes that Figure 8 of Matsumura shows a recipe with a temperature change
`from 20°C to 120°C over 60 seconds. Id.
`Finally, Lam posits that either Matsumura or Narita discloses
`changing from the selected first substrate temperature to the second using a
`measured substrate temperature. Id. at 20. Lam contends that Matsumura’s
`disclosure that its heating and cooling signals are responsive to the
`“temperature detecting signal” meets this limitation, as well as Narita’s
`disclosure of directly measuring the temperature of a substrate during a
`temperature change using a pyrometer. Id.
`Lam argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would have had reason to use the Matsumura temperature control
`system in the Tegal system, because Matsumura teaches the benefits of
`sensing the substrate temperature and Tegal suggests electronically
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`controlling the temperature of the substrate holder. Id. at 54. Lam also
`argues that incorporating the Matsumura control system into Tegal would
`have improved the flexibility of the Tegal system. Id. at 54–55. The person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have also modified Tegal to incorporate a
`temperature sensor as disclosed in Matsumura or Narita, Lam argues, to
`make more accurate temperature measurements during the temperature
`change disclosed by Tegal. Id. at 55–56. Lam cites the Declaration of
`Dr. Cecchi as supporting the reason to combine the references. Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 133–37.
`Our analysis focuses on the parties’ arguments regarding selected
`thermal mass, as we find them dispositive to Lam’s Petition. Lam argues
`that Tegal discloses selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder, in
`particular selecting the mass of the substrate holder to “reduce the time for
`temperature change” as described above. Pet. 16–17. According to Lam,
`this is “for a predetermined temperature change,” as Tegal discloses
`changing the temperature from 80°C to 40°C. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1002,
`5:32–41).
`Lam provides similar analyses of how the limitations of claims 37 and
`51, as well as the challenged dependent claims, are taught by the combined
`disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. Upon review, Lam
`sufficiently sets forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to
`support its proposed combination of references, and sufficiently details—on
`this record—how this combination teaches all elements of the challenged
`claims. Flamm’s arguments to the contrary, discussed below, do not
`persuade us otherwise.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`Flamm’s response focuses primarily on whether the asserted prior art
`discloses a preselected time interval or preselected time period between the
`first and second substrate temperatures, as required by the challenged
`claims. Flamm first argues that Tegal discloses changing the temperature in
`a continuum between 80°C and 10°C, unlike claim 27, which allegedly
`requires “terminating the etch employing the first temperature and then, after
`a preselected time interval, initiating the etch with a second temperature.”
`Prelim. Resp. 6. We disagree that claim 27, or any of the challenged claims,
`requires terminating the etch while the temperature is being changed. To the
`contrary, the ’264 patent states that “it is highly desirable and advantageous
`to reduce the etching temperature during the polysilicon etch.” Ex. 1001,
`19:34–36 (emphasis added). Indeed, claim 28, which depends from claim
`27, further requires “a continuous etching process [which] comprises etching
`the first portion of the film and etching the second portion of the film.” Id.
`at 22:29–31. Because the scope of claim 27 must necessarily encompass
`that of claim 28, claim 27 cannot require a non-continuous etching process
`in which the etch is terminated between the two substrate temperatures.
`Flamm also addresses Matsumura, and argues that the reference does
`not teach a time interval between a first etch temperature and a second etch
`temperature, because it does not address etching using two different
`temperatures at all. Prelim. Resp. 7. Lam’s proposed ground of
`unpatentability, however, does not rely on Matsumura for this disclosure.
`Rather, we understand Lam to argue that using the control “recipes” of
`Matsumura in the system of Tegal—which does disclose etching at different
`temperatures—would result in a system in which the temperature is changed
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`over a preselected time period. As discussed above, on this record we find
`Lam’s reasoning persuasive.
`Flamm repeats its arguments regarding preselected time period for
`independent claims 37 and 51 (Prelim. Resp. 8–9), and we find them
`similarly unpersuasive for these claims. Flamm does not independently
`argue the patentability of the dependent claims at this time. Id. at 9–10.
`For these reasons, we conclude that the record at this stage of the
`proceeding establishes a reasonable likelihood that claims 27, 28, 30, 33,
`35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54, 66, 67, and 69 would have been obvious to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and institute
`trial of these claims over the combined disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, and
`Narita.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio
`
`We similarly conclude that Lam has established sufficiently that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood claim 29 would have been obvious over Tegal,
`Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio. Pet. 57–60. Claim 29 depends from claim
`27, and further requires that “the substrate temperature change is by at least
`heat transfer with the substrate using at least an electrostatic chuck.” Ex.
`1001, 22:32–34. Ooshio discloses that in the past “a variety of means for
`securing a wafer have been used. In recent years electrostatic chucks are
`used for securing a specimen wafer by electrostatic forces.” Ex. 1005, 1:10–
`14. Lam argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`reason to use Ooshio’s electrostatic chuck in place of the substrate holder of
`Tegal, for better thermal coupling between the holder and the substrate. Pet.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`59 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:9–14). Flamm does not separately address this ground
`of unpatentability. Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`
`We conclude that the record at this stage of the proceeding establishes
`a reasonable likelihood that claim 29 would have been obvious to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and institute trial of
`these claims over the combined disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`and Ooshio.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented
`in the Petition and Preliminary Response establishes that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Lam will prevail in challenging claims 27–30, 33,
`35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54, 66, 67, and 69 of the ’264 patent as
`unpatentable under § 103(a). At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has
`not made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged
`claim.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with respect to the
`following grounds of unpatentability:
`(1) Whether claims 27, 28, 30, 33, 35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–54,
`66, 67, and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been
`obvious over the combined disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita;
`and
`
`(2) Whether claim 29 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`having been obvious over the combined disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura,
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`Narita, and Ooshio;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than those specifically
`instituted above is authorized for the inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’264 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel K. Lu
`Irell & Manella LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`slu@irell.com
`LamFlammIPR@irell.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`George C. Summerfield
`summerfield@stadheimgrear.com
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
