LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2015‐01764 and 01768
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264E
`
`October 11, 2016
`Morgan Chu
`Samuel Lu
`
`1
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 1
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2015‐01764 and 01768
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264E
`
`October 11, 2016
`Morgan Chu
`Samuel Lu
`
`1
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 1
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Grounds For Institution IPR2015‐01764
`
`On February 24, 2016, the Board instituted this IPR on the
`following grounds:
`
`(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, Narita, and Ooshio.
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 23‐24
`
`2
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 2
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Grounds For Institution IPR2015‐01768
`
`On February 24, 2016, the Board instituted this IPR on the
`following grounds:
`(1) Whether claims 56–58 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, and Wang ’485 under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(2) Whether claims 60, 62, 63, and 71 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura,
`Narita, Thomas, and Fischl under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(3) Whether claims 51, 55, and 68 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`and Thomas under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(4) Whether claims 56 and 59 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`Wang ’391, Thomas, and Wang ’485 under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(5) Whether claim 61 is obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Thomas,
`Fischl, and Ooshio under 35 U.S.C.§103(a); and
`(6) Whether claim 70 is obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Thomas,
`Fischl, and Hwang under 35 U.S.C.§103(a).
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01768 at 28‐29
`
`3
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 3
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`4
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 4
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Purported Invention
`
`The technology at issue relates
`to etching a substrate such as
`a semiconductor
`
`’264 Patent at 2:10‐12
`
`5
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 5
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Purported Problem Being Solved:
`Increase Throughput
`
`• But there are many ways
`to increase throughput
`
`• And increasing throughput
`was well known in the
`semiconductor industry
`
`’264 Patent at 2:12‐15
`
`6
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 6
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution: Etching At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`First
`temperature
`
`Second
`temperature
`
`’264 Patent at Fig. 10
`
`7
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 7
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution:
`A Preselected Time Period
`
`Changing from a first
`temperature to a second
`temperature within a
`preselected time period
`
`’264 Patent at 2:53‐56
`
`8
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 8
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution:
`A Preselected Time Period
`
`Preselected Time
`Period
`
`Time = B‐BB seconds
`
`’264 Patent at Fig. 10
`
`9
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 9
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The ’264 Patent Also Discloses Etching Hardware
`
`Etching
`Chamber
`
`Temperature
`Control
`Hardware
`
`’264 Patent at Figs. 1 and 7
`
`10
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 10
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`11
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 11
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27
`
`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.
`
`12
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 12
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27: Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute
`Prior Art Discloses All But One Limitation
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 13
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27:
`Dr. Flamm Contests A Single Limitation
`
`’264 Patent at Claim 27
`
`14
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 14
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 56: Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute
`Prior Art Discloses All But One Limitation
`
`56. A method for processing layers which are included in a stack of
`layers positioned on a substrate, the method comprising:
`placing the substrate on a substrate holder;
`sensing a substrate holder temperature,
`etching at least a portion of a first silicon‐containing layer in a
`chamber while the substrate is maintained at a selected first
`substrate temperature; and
`etching at least a portion of a second silicon‐containing layer in the
`chamber while the substrate is maintained at a selected second
`substrate temperature;
`wherein the substrate holder is heated to a temperature operable to
`maintain at least one of the selected first and the selected second
`substrate temperatures above 49° C., and
`the substrate temperature is changed from the first substrate
`temperature to the second substrate temperature with a control
`circuit operable to effectuate the changing within a preselected time
`period that is less than the overall process time associated with the
`etching the first silicon‐containing layer and the second silicon‐
`containing layer.
`
`15
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 15
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 56:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitation
`
`’264 Patent at Claim 56
`
`16
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 16
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claims 37 And 51:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 9,12
`
`17
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 17
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Independent Claims 51 And 60:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Fourth Petition (IPR2015‐01768) at 11‐12
`
`18
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 18
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute Prior Art Teaches
`All Of The Dependent Claim Limitations
`
`Claim 28
`Claim 29
`Claim 30
`Claim 33
`Claim 35
`Claim 36
`Claim 38
`
`Claim 39
`Claim 42
`Claim 43
`Claim 45
`Claim 46
`Claim 49
`Claim 52
`
`Claim 53
`Claim 54
`Claim 55
`Claim 57
`Claim 58
`Claim 59
`Claim 61
`
`Claim 62
`Claim 63
`Claim 66
`Claim 67
`Claim 68
`Claim 69
`Claim 70
`Claim 71
`
`19
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 19
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`20
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 20
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Grounds For Unpatentability
`
`Primary Invalidity References
`
`Tegal
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1002)
`EU Publication
`No. 0 399 676
`
`Matsumura
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1003)
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,151,871
`
`Narita
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1004)
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,913,790
`
`21
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 21
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Tegal Teaches Etching A Substrate At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12 (quoting Tegal at 1:43‐48, 5:5‐45); Tegal at Fig. 1
`
`22
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 22
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Tegal Teaches Electronically Controlling
`The Temperature Of The Substrate
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12‐13 (quoting Tegal at 3:36‐4:32); Tegal at Fig. 1
`
`23
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 23
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Processing A Substrate At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`Second
`temperature
`= 140°C
`
`First
`temperature
`= 90°C
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9, 4:42‐43
`
`24
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 24
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Changing Temperature
`Within A Preselected Time Period
`
`Change from a first
`temperature to a
`second temperature
`
`Matsumura
`
`Preselected time period = 20 seconds
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`25
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 25
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches
`Using The Disclosed Process For Etching
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 10:3‐7
`
`26
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 26
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Electronically Controlling
`The Temperature Of The Substrate
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 5:64‐68
`
`27
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 27
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Narita Teaches The Use Of
`Two Temperature Sensors
`
`Narita
`
`Narita at Fig. 1; Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 17
`
`28
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 28
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Teaches Each And Every Element
`Of Exemplar Claim 27
`
`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.
`
`29
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 29
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Argues That
`One Claim Limitation Is Not Met
`
`But, the Board has already
`rejected Flamm’s arguments
`regarding that claim limitation:
`
`* * *
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 14‐15 (quoting Matsumura at 4:42‐43)
`
`30
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 30
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Admits Processing At A First Temperature
`And Then At A Second Temperature Is Well Known
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 8
`
`31
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 31
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Tegal Discloses Changing From A First Temperature
`To A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12 (quoting Tegal at 5:5‐45)
`
`32
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 32
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Tegal Discloses Changing From A First Temperature
`To A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Tegal
`
`* * *
`
`Tegal at 5:32‐34, 5:39‐41
`
`33
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 33
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses Changing From A First
`Temperature To A Second Temperature
`
`Matsumura teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`Second
`substrate
`temperature
`First
`substrate
`temperature
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`34
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 34
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses Changing Temperatures
`Within A Preselected Time Period
`
`Matsumura teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Matsumura
`
`Preselected
`time interval
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`(TIME=20 seconds)
`
`35
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 35
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`36
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 36
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Makes An Unsupported
`Obviousness Argument
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`37
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 37
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Board Rejected Dr. Flamm’s Argument
`
`Board combined Tegal with
`Matsumura for the disputed
`claim limitation
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 21‐22
`
`38
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 38
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches
`The Entirety Of The Disputed Limitation
`
`“[W]herein 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”
`
`Second Temperature = 140° C
`
`First Temperature = 90° C
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`39
`
`Preselected time period = 20 Seconds
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 39
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Specifies A “Predetermined Period
`Of Time” For The Temperature Change
`
`Matsumura at 3:1‐7
`
`40
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 40
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Both The ’264 Patent And Matsumura Disclose Changing
`Temperature Over A Preselected Time Interval
`
`Second
`temperature
`
`First
`temperature
`
`Changing
`temperature
`over a
`preselected
`time interval
`
`(Time = B‐BB seconds)
`
`’264 Patent
`Fig. 10
`
`(Time=20 seconds)
`
`Matsumura Patent
`Fig. 9
`
`41
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 41
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Is Directed To Etching Processes
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`42
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 42
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`It Is Well Within Skill Of A POSITA To Use
`Matsumura’s Teachings For An Etch Process
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 55
`
`43
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 43
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`In Addition, Matsumura And Tegal Combined
`Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Tegal teaches a first etch
`temperature (80 °C)
`followed by a second etch
`temperature (10 °C – 40 °C)
`
`Matsumura teaches
`changing from a first temperature
`to a second temperature “within
`a preselected time interval”
`
`+
`
`Tegal
`
`Matsumura
`
`44
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 44
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm’s Unsupported Obviousness Argument
`Would Preclude Combining References
`
`Dr. Flamm argues a single
`prior art reference must
`disclose the entirety of a
`claim limitation
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 4
`
`45
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 45
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm’s Unsupported Rule Is Contrary To
`The Law on Obviousness
`
`“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 Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc., 550 U.S. 498, 406 (2007)
`(quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17‐18 (1966))
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 11
`
`46
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 46
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Teachings Of Multiple Patents Can Be
`Fit Together Like Pieces Of A Puzzle
`
`“[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.”
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (emphasis added)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 10
`
`47
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 47
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Combination
`Need Not Be Physically Combinable
`
`"[I]t is not necessary that [Caterpillar and
`Ogawa] be physically combinable to
`render obvious the [‘489 patent].”
`
`Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`Slip Op. No. 15‐1533 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2016)
`(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))
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`48
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 48
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Combination
`Need Not Be Physically Combinable
`
`“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)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`49
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 49
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`50
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 50
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Argues That There Is No Motivation
`To Combine Tegal With Matsumura
`
`Tegal
`
`Matsumura
`
`Dr. Flamm: Etching Only
`
`Dr. Flamm: Electronic Control
`System For Processes Other
`Than Etching
`
`51
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 51
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Explicitly Teaches Using
`Its Electronic Control System With Etching
`
`The Matsumura invention can
`be used for etching processes
`such as Tegal:
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`52
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 52
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Board Agrees That Matsumura
`Can Be Used With Etching
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 13‐14 (quoting Matsumura at 10:3‐7)
`
`53
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 53
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Tegal Also Provides A Motivation To Combine Its
`Invention With Matsumura’s Electronic Control System
`
`The Board agrees:
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12‐13 (quoting Tegal at 3:36‐4:32)
`
`54
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 54
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi Agrees That There Is Motivation
`To Combine Tegal and Matsumura
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 133
`
`55
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 55
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Matsumura Also Teaches Benefits
`Of Electronic Temperature Control
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 134
`
`56
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 56
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`The Combination Provides For
`More Flexible Temperature Control
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 135
`
`57
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 57
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi Agrees That Tegal And Matsumura
`Can Be Combined
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 55
`
`58
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 58
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi: Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 137
`
`59
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 59
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Incorrectly Limits Matsumura’s Teachings
`To The Preferred Embodiments
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 4
`
`60
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 60
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Explicitly Teaches Using
`Its Electronic Control System With Etching
`
`The Matsumura invention can
`be used for etching processes
`such as Tegal:
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`61
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 61
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Is Not Limited
`To The Preferred Embodiments
`
`No mention of the HMDS
`process or baking process:
`• In the title
`of the invention
`• In the abstract
`• In the field of the
`invention
`• In the summary of
`the invention, or
`• In the claims
`
`Matsumura
`
`62
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 62
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony That Matsumura
`Is Not Limited To The Preferred Embodiment
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 48
`
`63
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 63
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Provides No Expert Testimony
`To Respond To Lam’s Expert
`
`Defendant Flamm
`
`Dr. Joseph Cecchi
`University of New Mexico
`
`64
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 64
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2015‐01764 and 01768
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264E
`
`October 11, 2016
`Morgan Chu
`Samuel Lu
`
`65
`
`LAM Ex 1016-p. 65
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01764
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
