`
`
`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
`
`SECOND 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 2
`
`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)) ........................................................................................... 4
`
`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 37 .................................................................... 6
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure ................................................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Multi-Temperature Etching .................................................... 8
`
`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 2
`
`Page
`
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`"portion of the film," "film portion," and "film portions" ................ 10
`
`"preselected time interval" and "preselected time period" ............... 12
`
`"etching … the portions of the film comprises radiation" ............... 12
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................ 14
`
`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) .............. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita, Teaches All
`the Limitations of Independent Claim 27 ............................. 14
`
`Chart for Claim 27 ................................................................ 21
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claims 28, 30, 33, 35,
`36, and 66 .............................................................................. 24
`
`Chart for Claims 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, and 66 ......................... 27
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Independent Claim 37 ............................. 28
`
`Chart for Claim 37 ................................................................ 36
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claims 38, 39, 42, 43,
`45, 46, 49, and 67 .................................................................. 40
`
`Chart for Claims 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, and 67 ............. 46
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Independent Claim 51 ............................. 48
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 2
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Chart for Claim 51 ................................................................ 51
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita Teaches All
`the Limitations of Dependent Claims 52-54 and 69 ............. 52
`
`Chart for Claims 52-54 and 69 ............................................. 53
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 27, 28, 30, 33,
`36-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 ................... 54
`
`14.
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 35 .............................. 56
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 29 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......... 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Chart for Claim 29 ................................................................ 58
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 29 .............................. 59
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 2
`
`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) .............................................................. 11
`
`Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir.),
`cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984)........................................................... 21
`
`In re Alappat,
`33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Circ. 1994) .............................................................. 41
`
`In re Freeman,
`573 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1978) .................................................................. 41
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................. 3
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 3
`
`In re Noll,
`545 F.2d 141 (CCPA 1976) .................................................................... 41
`
`In re Prater,
`415 F.2d at 1403 (CCPA 1969) .............................................................. 41
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F. 2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 2
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).................................................................................. 2
`
`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 ................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311-319............................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................ 4, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 2
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`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 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45,
`
`46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 ("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 twenty-two claims challenged in this Petition are all directed to a
`
`method for processing 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 holder has a temperature sensor. Some claims also recite a substrate
`
`temperature sensor, a substrate holder temperature control circuit, and a substrate
`
`temperature control circuit. The substrate is processed at a first temperature and
`
`then at a second temperature.
`
`
`1 Claims 13-26, 64, and 65 are challenged in a first 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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`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.,
`
`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 temperature
`
`sensors for substrate holders and substrates and control systems for accurately
`
`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 . .
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`. ." 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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`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.
`
`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 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 of the
`
`'264 patent. Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review and cancellation of
`
`the challenged claims 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
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`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
`
`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; and U.S. Patent No. 4,645,218 to Ooshio et al. ("Ooshio," Ex. 1005)
`
`issued on Feb. 24, 1987.
`
`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 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42,
`
`43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 under the following statutory grounds:
`
`References(s)
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`1
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura
`and Narita
`
`2
`
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura,
`
`Claims
`27, 28, 30, 33, 35-39,
`42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-
`54, 66, 67, and 69
`29
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`Narita, and Ooshio
`
`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. 1006.
`
`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 37
`The crux of the alleged invention of the '264 patent is the straightforward
`
`and well-known method of placing a substrate on a substrate holder in a chamber
`
`and processing the substrate at different temperatures. Ex. 1006 ¶ 41. For
`
`example, claim 37 recites a method comprising the steps of (a) "placing a substrate
`
`having a film thereon on a substrate holder within a chamber of a plasma discharge
`
`apparatus;" (b) "performing a first film treatment of a first portion of the film at a
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`selected first substrate temperature;" (c) "with the substrate temperature control
`
`circuit, changing from the selected first substrate temperature to a selected second
`
`substrate temperature;" and (d) "performing a second film treatment of a second
`
`portion of the film at the selected second substrate temperature." Ex. 1001, 22:59-
`
`23:13. Notably, claim 37, unlike certain other claims of the '264 patent, does not
`
`recite etching; it instead recites "a first film treatment" and "a second film
`
`treatment." Id. at 23:6-7, 23:13-14.
`
`Claim 37 further defines "the substrate temperature control circuit" of step
`
`(c). The claim requires "the substrate temperature control circuit" to be "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." Ex. 1001, 23:17-21. The claim also requires that the plasma
`
`discharge apparatus comprises (1) "a substrate temperature control system
`
`comprising a substrate temperature sensor and a substrate temperature control
`
`circuit operable to adjust the substrate temperature to a predetermined substrate
`
`temperature value with a first heat transfer process" and (2) "a substrate holder
`
`temperature control system comprising a substrate holder temperature sensor and a
`
`substrate holder temperature control circuit operable to adjust the substrate holder
`
`temperature to a predetermined substrate holder temperature value with a second
`
`heat transfer process." Id. at 22:62-23:5. But the "substrate temperature control
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`circuit" is the only one of these elements that is used for any of the method steps of
`
`claim 37; it is used for step (c). The "substrate holder temperature control system"
`
`and its underlying components are not used in any of the method steps of claim 37;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 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. 1006 ¶ 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. 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 and can
`
`be cooled with a "heat exchanger." Id. at 16:33-36, 16:20-21; Ex. 1006 ¶ 44.
`
`Temperature Sensor
`
`3.
`The '264 patent discloses sensing the substrate holder temperature, and
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`recites "[t]he temperature sensing unit can be any suitable unit that is capable of
`
`being adapted to the upper surface of the substrate holder." Ex. 1001, 15:51-53;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 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. 1006 ¶ 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. 1006 ¶¶ 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
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`this inter partes review, Petitioner has employed the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the challenged claims throughout this Petition. The broadest
`
`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. 1006 ¶ 52.
`
`"portion of the film," "film portion," and "film portions"
`
`A.
`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
`
`the film" as recited by claims 27, 28, 35-37, and 51, "film portion" as recited by
`
`claim 33, and "film portions" as recited by claims 51-54. In all of these claims,
`
`"portion" is used according to its plain and ordinary meaning. For example, claim
`
`27 recites "a substrate having a film thereon," "etching a first portion of the film,"
`
`and "etching a second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 22:13-21. 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. 1006 ¶ 53.
`
`This understanding is consistent with dictionaries of the time. For example,
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary defines "portion" as "[a] section or quantity
`
`within a larger thing; a part of a whole." Ex. 1007-3; Ex. 1006 ¶ 54. 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 27 recites "etching a first
`
`portion of the film" and "etching a second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 22:16-
`
`18. Dependent claim 34 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 22:49-51. Consequently, where
`
`the claims simply recite a first portion and a second portion (as in independent
`
`claim 27), these portions can have the same material composition. This is because
`
`dependent claim 34 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 term,
`
`"portion of the film" means part of the film, "film portion" means part of the film,
`
`and "film portions" means parts of the film. Ex. 1006 ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`"preselected time interval" and "preselected time period"
`
`B.
`The challenged claims of the '264 patent include limitations that recite
`
`making a temperature change within a preselected time period, or variants thereof.
`
`The claim terms are "preselected time interval" as recited by claim 27 and
`
`"preselected time period" as recited by claims 37 and 51. The claims use these
`
`terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meanings. Nothing in the claims
`
`suggests otherwise and none of these terms appear in the '264 patent specification.
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 56. The dictionaries of the time define "preselect" as "to choose in
`
`advance usu(ally) on the basis of a particular criterion." Id.; Ex. 1008-3.
`
`In sum, a PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of the purported
`
`invention of the '264 patent, that the broadest reasonable construction of these
`
`claimed terms are the following: "preselected time interval" means a time interval
`
`that has been selected in advance and "preselected time period" means a time
`
`period that has been selected in advance. Ex. 1006 ¶ 57.
`
`"etching … the portions of the film comprises radiation"
`
`C.
`Claim 35 recites "etching at least one of the portions of the film comprises
`
`radiation." Ex.1001, 22:52-53. The only mention of "radiation" in the '264 patent
`
`specification is: "The heating elements can be any suitable device for supplying
`
`heat energy to the fluid. The heat can be supplied by single or in combination using
`
`radiation, conduction, and convention." Id. at 15:19-22; Ex. 1006 ¶ 58.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`Moreover, during the prosecution of the '264 patent, the Applicant wrote the
`
`following regarding then pending new claims 60 and 78, which recited the
`
`limitation "wherein etching at least one portion of the film comprises radiation":
`
`Applicant respectfully wishes to point out that original claims 7 and 8
`(also in provisional application No. 60/058,650) disclose first and
`second etchings which comprise radiation. Additionally, Col. 15,
`lines 16-19 teaches that "heat can be supplied by single or in
`combination using radiation, conduction and convection." Further, the
`specification of the Ser. No. 08/567,224 priority document teaches
`plasma processing and etching in which "there are proportionately
`greater amounts of heating and cooling by radiation at higher
`temperatures, since radiative energy
`transfer depends on
`the
`temperatures of surfaces which 'view' each other raised to the fourth
`power, whereas conductive and convective heat transfer often depend
`linearly on localized temperature differences." The use of an infrared
`heating unit (e.g. infrared radiation) is also mentioned in lines 19-20
`of Col. 15 of the instant specification. Accordingly, Applicant
`respectfully believes this antecedent language supports radiation.
`
`Ex. 1010-18, see also Ex. 1010-7. The Applicant admitted that "etching at least
`
`one of the portions of the film comprises radiation" means etching that comprises
`
`heating and/or cooling by radiation. Ex. 1006 ¶ 59.
`
`In sum, under the broadest reasonable construction of the claimed term,
`
`"etching at least one of the portions of the film comprises radiation" means etching
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 2
`
`at least one of the portions of the film comprises heating and/or cooling with
`
`radiation. Ex. 1006 ¶ 60.
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69 of the '264
`
`patent are unpatentable on the following grounds. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4), Petitioner provides in the following claim charts a detailed
`
`comparison of the claimed subject matter and the prior art specifying where each
`
`element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art.
`
`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). Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita teach a
`
`chamber, a substrate holder, and a heat transfer device that is electronically
`
`controlled and sets the substrate holder to first and second temperatures. The etch
`
`process taught by Tegal can be performed in this chamber. Ex. 1006 ¶ 62.
`
`1.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura and Narita, Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 27
`
`Tegal teaches "[a] method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a
`
`device" as recited by claim 27. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:43-44 ("[M]ethod for etching
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petiti
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
