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
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-1764
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-1764
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2015-01764
` Patent RE40,264
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....................... 4
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 28, 30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49,
`51-54, 66, 67, and 69 are Rendered Obvious by Tegal in
`View of Matsumura and Narita under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition Shows that the Combination of Tegal,
`Matsumura and Narita Teaches All the Limitations of
`Independent Claim 27 ............................................................. 5
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Tegal and Matsumura Teaches Changing the
`Temperature Within a Preselected Time ....................... 5
`
`The Petition Did Not Impermissibly Split the
`Wherein Clause Limitation ............................................ 8
`
`The Combination Uses Matsumura’s Controller and
`Matsumura’s Control Recipes in the Tegal System ............. 11
`
`The Petition Shows a POSA Would Have Reasons to
`Combine Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita .............................. 15
`
`The Petition Shows Independent Claim 37 is Obvious
`Over Tegal in View of Matsumura, and Narita .................... 17
`
`The Petition Shows Independent Claim 51 Is Obvious
`Over Tegal in View of Matsumura, and Narita .................... 21
`
`The Petition Shows Dependent Claims 28, 30, 33, 35,
`36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 52-54, 66, 67, and 69
`Are Rendered Obvious by Tegal, Matsumura, and
`Narita .................................................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 29 Is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......... 21
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2015-01764
` Patent RE40,264
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`Slip Op. No. 15-1533 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2016) ................................................... 2
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Etter,
`756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 2
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U. S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A., 1981) ....................................................................... 2, 14
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`MCM PORTFOLIO LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`812 F. 3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 2, 14
`
`In re Ochiai,
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976) ................................................ 3
`
`In re Sneed,
`710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`
`
` Case IPR2015-01764
` Patent RE40,264
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... 1, 4, 21
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`
`
`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
`
`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. 4,645,218 (Ooshio)
`
`Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1993
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`‘264 Patent Prosecution History, 7/25/2005 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)
`
`Declaration of Morgan Chu In Support of LAM’s Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Declaration of Talin Gordnia In Support of LAM’s Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`1015
`
`Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D. in support of Reply
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`
`
`On February 24, 2016, the Board ordered an IPR 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 § 103(a) as having been obvious over the combined
`
`disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita; and
`
`(2) Whether claim 29 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as having been obvious
`
`over the combined disclosures of Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio.
`
`Flamm does not dispute that the petition shows that the combinations listed
`
`above teach all of the limitations of the claims. Nor does Flamm dispute the
`
`opinion of Dr. Cecchi that these combinations teach all of the limitations of the
`
`claims and a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have reason to make
`
`these combinations.
`
`Instead, for independent claims 27, 37 and 51, Flamm argues that neither
`
`Tegal nor Matsumura individually teaches changing from a first temperature to a
`
`second temperature within a preselected time period. But Flamm ignores what is
`
`taught by the Tegal and Matsumura references. And Flamm fails to address the
`
`evidence that these teachings would have led a POSA to use the teachings of these
`
`references to practice the methods of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`Moreover, Flamm argues that the petition fails to explain how one could
`
`incorporate Matsumura’s exemplar baking resist process (HMDS process) recipes
`
`into Tegal’s etch process. But the disclosure of Matsumura is not directed towards
`
`a specific chemical process. Instead, Matsumura “relates to [a] method and
`
`apparatus of controlling temperatures of these semiconductor wafers . . . when
`
`these are heated up and cooled down.” Ex. 1003, 1:10-13. Moreover, even if
`
`Matsumura were limited to the exemplar HMDS process (which it is not), contrary
`
`to Flamm’s argument, it is not necessary that Matsumura and Tegal be physically
`
`combinable to render obvious the Flamm ‘264 patent. Allied Erecting and
`
`Dismantling Co., v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, Slip Op. No. 15-1533 (Fed. Cir.
`
`June 13, 2016) (“[I]t is not necessary that [Caterpillar and Ogawa] be physically
`
`combinable to render obvious the [‘489 patent].”) (citing In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
`
`1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
`
`banc)). “The 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). And it is undisputed that
`
`Matsumura explicitly teaches that the apparatus and method of controlling
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`temperatures disclosed therein can be used with etch processes, such as the process
`
`disclosed in Tegal.
`
`As set forth in the petition, 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., 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, wherein the substrate temperature is
`
`changed within a preselected time interval, was well known.
`
`Other than arguing that there is no individual reference that teaches the
`
`entirety of the claim limitation, changing from a first temperature to a second
`
`temperature within a preselected time period, Flamm does not dispute that the
`
`petition has established that the combination of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`teaches all the other claim limitations for claims 27, 37 and 51. As a result, Flamm
`
`has waived these arguments for these other limitations recited in independent
`
`claims 27, 37 and 51. Nor does Flamm dispute that claims 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38,
`
`39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 52-54, 66, 67, and 69 are rendered obvious by Tegal in view
`
`of Matsumura and Narita under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and that claim 29 is rendered
`
`obvious by Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). As a result, Flamm has waived all arguments for dependent claims 28-
`
`30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 52-54, 66, 67, and 69.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 28, 30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54,
`66, 67, and 69 are Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View of
`Matsumura and Narita under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Tegal teaches the process of etching a first portion of a film (oxide) at a
`
`selected first temperature (80°C) and etching a second portion of a film (oxide) at a
`
`selected second temperature (40°C). Matsumura teaches a process of changing
`
`from a first temperature to a second temperature within a preselected time interval
`
`for processing. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. at 19 (“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.”). Furthermore, Matsumura teaches a POSA that the Matsumura
`
`invention can be applied to etching processes. Ex. 1003, 10:5-7. (The present
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`invention “can also be applied to any of the ion implantation, CVD, etching and
`
`ashing processes.”)
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Shows that the Combination of Tegal,
`Matsumura and Narita Teaches All the Limitations of
`Independent Claim 27
`
`The petition shows that the combination of Tegal, Matsumura and Narita
`
`teaches all of the limitations of claim 27. See Pet. at 14-24. Flamm does not
`
`dispute this. Flamm also does not dispute the opinion of Dr. Cecchi that this
`
`combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 27.
`
`a)
`
`Tegal and Matsumura Teaches Changing the
`Temperature Within a Preselected Time
`
`Instead, Flamm argues that the petition has cited no single prior art reference
`
`that teaches the entirety of the following limitations in claim 27:
`
`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 . . . .
`
`POR at 2. But Flamm ignores that the combination of Tegal, Matsumura and
`
`Narita teaches the entirety of these limitations. See Pet. at 14-24. Indeed,
`
`Matsumura, standing on its own, teaches the entirety of these limitations. See Pet.
`
`at 19-20 and 24.
`
`Matsumura teaches “a first substrate temperature” as recited by claim 27.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`For example, Figure 8 shows a first substrate temperature of 20°C and Figure 9
`
`shows a first substrate temperature of 90°C. Ex. 1003, Figs. 8 and 9. Matsumura
`
`teaches the “substrate temperature is changed from the selected first substrate
`
`temperature to the selected second substrate temperature” as recited by claim 27.
`
`Figure 8 shows a second substrate temperature of 120°C and Figure 9 shows a
`
`second substrate temperature of 140°C, both of which are different than the
`
`respective first substrate temperatures. Id. And Matsumura teaches that the
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the selected first substrate temperature to
`
`the selected second substrate temperature . . . within a preselected time interval for
`
`processing” as recited by claim 27 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Inst. Dec. at 19
`
`(“For example, Lam notes that Figure 8 of Matsumura shows a recipe with a
`
`temperature change from 20°C to 120°C over the preselected time interval of 60
`
`seconds.”); see also Ex. 1003, 8:64-65 (“[T]he heating speed at a second step is
`
`150° C per minute . . .”) and Fig. 9 (Figure 9 showing the second step where the
`
`temperature change from 90°C to 140°C over the preselected time interval of 20
`
`seconds).
`
`Matsumura may also be combined with Tegal, which expressly discloses
`
`etching at a selected first temperature and then etching at a selected second
`
`temperature. Specifically, Tegal teaches “a first substrate temperature” as recited
`
`by claim 27. Tegal teaches that “[f]or an isotropic etch of oxide, a fluid
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`temperature of 80°C was applied to the lower electrode . . . .” Ex. 1002, 5:32-34;
`
`see also id. at 5:12-14 (“At some predetermined time, valves 23-26 are actuated,
`
`reducing the temperature of the wafer to the temperature of the fluid in reservoir 21
`
`. . . .”). Ex. 1006 ¶ 71. Tegal teaches the “substrate temperature is changed from
`
`the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`
`temperature” as recited by claim 27. Tegal teaches that “[a] reactive ion etch (RIE)
`
`of the oxide was obtained by switching [from a fluid temperature of 80°C ] to a
`
`fluid temperature of 10°C-40°C.” Ex. 1002, 5:39-41; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73-74. In sum,
`
`Tegal teaches the process of first etching at a selected first temperature (80°C) and
`
`then etching at a selected second temperature (40°C). Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 80-81. As
`
`described above, Matsumura supplies what is arguably missing from Tegal:
`
`making a temperature change “within a preselected time interval for processing.”
`
`The teachings described above are all confirmed by the testimony of Dr.
`
`Cecchi. Dr. Cecchi opines that the combination of Tegal and Matsumura teach
`
`changing the substrate temperature from the selected first substrate temperature to
`
`the selected second substrate temperature, using a measured substrate temperature,
`
`within a preselected time. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 71-77. Moreover, Dr. Cecchi opines that
`
`the combination of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita teaches all of the claimed
`
`method steps as recited in the ‘264 patent claim 27. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 63-82.
`
`Flamm does not dispute Dr. Cecchi’s opinion, or provide a declaration from
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`
`an expert to contradict Dr. Cecchi’s opinion.
`
`b)
`
`The Petition Did Not Impermissibly Split the Wherein
`Clause Limitation
`
`Flamm argues that the petition impermissibly splits the limitations into two
`
`phrases [27.i] (wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected first
`
`substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature) and [27.k]
`
`(within a preselected time interval for processing). POR at 2-3. In particular,
`
`Flamm argues that the petition fails to “specify where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art,” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) because the
`
`petition is relying on the combination of Tegal and Matsumura to teach these
`
`limitations. POR at 3.
`
`Flamm’s arguments should be rejected because it is contrary to the facts and
`
`contrary to the law. First, even if the [27.i] and [27.k] must be found in a single
`
`prior art reference (which, for the reasons explained below, is not the rule),
`
`Matsumura standing alone discloses both “wherein substrate temperature is
`
`changed from the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second
`
`substrate temperature” and “within a preselected time interval for processing”
`
`(notably, etching is not mentioned in either [27.i] or [27.k]).
`
`Second, as shown above, the petition establishes that the combination of
`
`Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 27
`
`(Matsumura supplies what is arguably missing from Tegal: making a temperature
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`change “within a preselected time interval for processing”) as required by the rule.
`
`Flamm’s argument impermissibly treats the teachings of Tegal, Matsumura, and
`
`Narita individually and fails to address the combined general teachings and
`
`inferences of the references that would have been drawn by a POSA. The Board
`
`correctly rejected Flamm’s argument that Matsumura does not teach a time interval
`
`between a first etch temperature and a second etch temperature, because
`
`Matsumura does not address etching using two different temperatures. Inst. Dec. at
`
`21-22. The Board correctly found that the petition “does not rely on Matsumura
`
`for this disclosure.” Id. Rather, the combination of Matsumura and Tegal “us[es]
`
`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 over a preselected time.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`Third, Flamm now argues that the Board has promulgated a new legal rule
`
`that prohibits splitting the claim limitations. The new Flamm rule would narrowly
`
`require that either Tegal or Matsumura, standing alone, teach claim limitations
`
`[27.i] and [27.k]. Such a rule would result in a failure to consider the collective
`
`teachings of Tegal and Matsumura from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and would be contrary to case law.
`
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully points out that the Board did not promulgate any such
`
`a rule. Rather the Board follows Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent in
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`determining obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle.”) (emphasis added); MCM PORTFOLIO LLC v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., 812 F. 3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he test is what the
`
`combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.”) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`Flamm argues that the petition fails to meet its burden of proof because it
`
`purportedly violates the “all elements rule.” Flamm’s interpretation of this rule
`
`would seem to require that that a single prior art reference either disclose or
`
`suggest all the limitations in a claim. Specifically, Flamm argues that the “fact is
`
`that neither Matsumura (on which Lam relies for element [27.k]) nor Tegal (on
`
`which Lam relies for element [27.i]) teaches the entirety of the limitation . . . .”
`
`See POR at 4. Flamm further argues that Tegal has no preselected time for
`
`changing the temperature between the two etches and Matsumura does not have
`
`two etches.
`
`
`
`Flamm cites a number of cases that purportedly support his reading of the
`
`“all elements rule”: In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995), CFMT, Inc.
`
`v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`418. Id. But none of the cases cited by Flamm stand for the proposition that all
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`the claim limitations recited in a wherein clause are to be found in a single
`
`reference. To the contrary, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[t]he analysis is
`
`objective: ‘Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
`
`determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
`
`ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.’” KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 406 (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966)). The Court further pointed out “Graham provided an expansive and
`
`flexible approach to the obviousness question . . . .” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.
`
`Flamm’s proposed rigid rule flies in the face of the KSR ruling and is unsupported
`
`by the case law.
`
`2.
`
`The Combination Uses Matsumura’s Controller and
`Matsumura’s Control Recipes in the Tegal System
`
`Flamm next criticizes the Board’s decision to institute because the decision
`
`relies on the teaching of Matsumura. See POR. at 5-8. Flamm argues that
`
`Matsumura is directed towards a process other than etching. See POR at 5.
`
`However, Flamm ignores that the petition is relying on Matsumura’s explicit
`
`suggestion to use the temperature control method and system disclosed therein
`
`with etching processes, which would include the Tegal etching system. Thus, the
`
`Board correctly found that the combination uses Matsumura’s controller and
`
`Matsumura’s teaching of determining the control “recipes” for an etching process
`
`to control the Tegal etching at different temperatures. See Inst. Dec. at 21-22.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`Dr. Cecchi’s testimony confirms these findings. In particular, Dr. Cecchi opines
`
`that a POSA would use Matsumura’s controller to control the change from the
`
`Tegal first temperature of 80°C to a Tegal second temperature of 10°C to 40°C
`
`within a preselected time interval. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 75-77, 133-136. Dr. Cecchi
`
`opines that it is well within the skill of a POSA using Matsumura’s teachings to
`
`determine a “predetermined recipe” that has a “time-temperature relationship” for
`
`the etch process. Ex. 1015 ¶ 55. There is no expert testimony (as opposed to
`
`attorney argument) submitted by Flamm to the contrary.
`
`In response, Flamm argues that the petition has not provided any explanation
`
`of how one could use the Matsumura recipes in an etching process. POR at 7.
`
`Flamm thus attempts to limit Matsumura solely to the exemplar HMDS process
`
`recipe. But the disclosure of Matsumura is much broader than this exemplar
`
`process. Neither the title of the invention, nor the abstract, nor the field of the
`
`invention, nor the summary of the invention, nor the claims mention the exemplar
`
`HMDS process or baking. See Ex. 1003, cls. 54, 57, 2:58-4:9, 10:41-12:25.
`
`Instead, Matsumura discloses and claims broadly “storing, as a predetermined
`
`recipe, information showing a time-temperature relationship and applicable for
`
`either heating the object to a predetermined temperature for a predetermined period
`
`of time or cooling the object from a predetermined temperature over a
`
`predetermined period of time, or for both . . . .” Ex. 1003, 3:1-7. This would
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`include both a first substrate temperature, a second substrate temperature, and a
`
`change between the first substrate temperature and the second substrate
`
`temperature within a preselected time interval.
`
`More particularly, Matsumura’s invention relates to the method and
`
`apparatus for controlling temperatures of a semiconductor substrate when the
`
`semiconductor substrate is heated up and cooled down. Ex. 1003, 1:7-13; Ex. 1015
`
`¶¶ 49-50. Matsumura teaches a POSA that the key to controlling change of
`
`temperatures for the substrate is the thermal history curve of the substrate.
`
`Ex. 1003, 2:9-21, Fig. 2, 3:22-33, Fig. 3; Ex. 1015 ¶ 51. Matsumura teaches an
`
`accurate and flexible method of controlling the temperature of a substrate while
`
`heating and cooling a substrate. Ex. 1003, 2:60-3:16; Ex. 1015, ¶ 52. Matsumura
`
`teaches that the method is dependent on the information showing the time-
`
`temperature relationship of the substrate, not the particular semiconductor
`
`manufacturing process. Ex. 1003, 3:1-2; Ex. 1015 ¶ 53. In particular, Matsumura
`
`teaches that the method may be used for controlling the temperature of a substrate
`
`for not only adhesion and baking processes, but for many other processes such as
`
`ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing processes. Ex. 1003, 10:3-7; Ex. 1015
`
`¶ 54. In sum, a POSA would have recognized that the Matsumura teachings can be
`
`applied to controlling the temperature of a substrate not only for adhesion and
`
`baking processes, but etching processes as well as many other semiconductor
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`manufacturing processes. Ex. 1015 ¶ 55. It is well within the skill of a POSA
`
`using Matsumura’s teachings to determine a time-temperature recipe for Tegal’s
`
`substrate and then to advantageously use this recipe with Matsumura’s control
`
`system as well as the heating and cooling systems in the Tegal apparatus to control
`
`the temperature change in the Tegal process. Id. Flamm submits no expert
`
`evidence to the contrary.
`
`Finally, Flamm argues the HDMS process cannot be incorporated into the
`
`Tegal etching process. POR at 7. However, “[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 at 425. Rather,
`
`“obviousness focuses on what the combined teachings would have suggested.”
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1330 (citations omitted). Matsumura’s invention is not
`
`specific to an HDMS process. Ex. 1015 ¶ 47.
`
`When Flamm does consider what would be taught to a POSA by the
`
`Matsumura teachings, Flamm dismisses the teaching by stating that “there must be
`
`millions of such prior art references, including cookbooks,” that suggest changing
`
`from one temperature to another temperature for a specific amount of time. POR
`
`at 8. However, Flamm fails to appreciate that Tegal and Matsumura not only teach
`
`performing a process at a selected first temperature for a specific amount time and
`
`then performing another process at a selected second temperature for a different
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`specific amount time, but Matsumura explicitly suggests to a POSA to use the
`
`Matsumura’s controller in the Tegal system to change from the first selected
`
`temperature to the second selected temperature within a preselected time interval.
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:1-7, Figs. 8, 9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76-77.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition Shows a POSA Would Have Reasons to
`Combine Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`
`Flamm argues that a POSA would not have looked to Matsumura for
`
`guidance in improving Tegal. POR at 8-9. The Board correctly found that the
`
`petition articulates sufficient reasons to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness. See Inst. Dec. at 22-23. The Petition articulates sufficient reasoning
`
`underpinned by the testimony of Dr. Cecchi to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 133–137. Flamm has not disputed Dr. Cecchi’s
`
`testimony, nor has Flamm provided an expert declaration to provide any evidence
`
`to show otherwise.
`
`Flamm quotes a paragraph found in the Board’s decision in the Third
`
`Petition, Case No. IPR2015-01766. See POR at 9. The paragraph cites KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 418 (2007) (A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the prior
`
`art teachings.). But Flamm does not dispute the showing that ‘264 claimed
`
`invention is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
`
`to their established functions. See Pet. at 54; Ex. 1006 ¶ 133. And Flamm does not
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`dispute that a POSA, at the time of the purported invention of the ‘264 patent,
`
`would have had reasons to use the Matsumura control system, as well as the
`
`heating and cooling systems, to control the temperature of the substrate holder in
`
`the apparatus taught by Tegal because this would more accurately control the
`
`substrate’s thermal history curve. See Pet. at 54; Ex. 1006 ¶ 134. The only
`
`(attorney) argument that Flamm asserts is that Matsumura’s non-etching “recipes”
`
`would be useless in Tegal’s double etching environment. Id. But in the petition, it
`
`was shown that Matsumura would have taught a POSA that the Matsumura
`
`invention would have applied to etching processes as well. See Pet. at 55 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 10:3-7). And, as discussed above, the disclosure of Matsumura is much
`
`broader than the exemplar process. Moreover, Dr. Cecchi underpins this showing
`
`by providing testimony that the Matsumura invention can be applied to plasma
`
`etching. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 135 and 137.
`
`The Supreme Court has cautioned tribunals to not place blinders on the
`
`POSA to the general teachings and the inferences that the references may teach a
`
`POSA. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would employ.”).
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`The Petition Shows Independent Claim 37 is Obvious
`Over Tegal in View of Matsumura, and Narita
`
`4.
`
`The petition shows that the combination of Tegal, Matsumura and Narita
`
`teaches all of the limitations of claim 37. See Pet. at 28-39. Flamm does not
`
`dispute that the petition shows that the combination teaches all of the limitations of
`
`claim 37. Nor does Flamm dispute the opinion of Dr. Cecchi that the combination
`
`teaches all of the limitations.
`
`Instead, just as Flamm argued for claim 27, Flamm argues here that the
`
`petition has cited no individual prior art that teaches the entirety of the following
`
`limitations in claim 37:
`
`and the substrate temperature control circuit is operable to change the
`substrate temperature from the selected first substrate temperature to
`the selected second substrate temperature within a preselected time.
`
`POR at 9-10.
`
`But just as for claim 27, Flamm is ignoring that the combination of Tegal,
`
`Matsumura and Narita teaches the entirety of these limitations. See Pet. at 28-39;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90-110 . Indeed, Matsumura, standing on its own, teaches the entirety
`
`of these limitations. In particular, Matsumura teaches “the substrate temperature
`
`control circuit is operable to change the substrate temperature from the selected
`
`first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature within a
`
`preselected time period to process the film” as recited by claim 37 (emphasis
`
`added). Ex. 1003, 3:1-7, 5:58-63, 6:36-37, Figs. 8, 9; Ex. 1006 ¶ 108. The
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE40,264
`discussion above for claim
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
