`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764, Paper No. 25
`IPR2015-01768, Paper No. 23
`December 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`Held: October 4, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M.
`KOKOSKI, and KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`October 11, 2016, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORGAN CHU, ESQUIRE
`SAMUEL K. LU, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQUIRE
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`
`GEORGE C. SUMMERFIELD, ESQUIRE
`Stadheim & Grear
`400 North Michigan Avenue
`Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`and
`
`CHRISTOPHER FRERKING
`University of New Hampshire School of Law
`Two White Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Good afternoon, everyone. So
`today we have the oral hearing in three related inter partes review
`trials. IPR2015-1764, 1767 and 1768 between Lam Research
`Corporation as the petitioner and Daniel Flamm as the patent
`owner. I'm Judge Crumbley. To my right is Judge Kokoski and
`to my left is Judge McGraw. I will get the parties' appearances
`starting with the petitioner, please.
`MR. CHU: Good afternoon, Your Honors. On behalf
`of petitioner, Lam Research, Morgan Chu, Michael Fleming,
`Samuel Lu and also our colleague Talin Gordnia.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And who do we have from the
`patent owner?
`MR. FRERKING: From patent owner, Christopher
`Frerking and George Summerfield.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Welcome. So we set forward
`our procedure for today in our hearing order, but I want to go
`over it just to make sure we are all on the same page and we're
`operating on the same rules. So because the subject matter in the
`1764 and 1767 cases are so related, we are going to do those
`together today. Each side will have 45 minutes of total argument
`time. You can allocate the time between the two cases as you
`wish. We are not going to break up the transcript between the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`two cases. So we'll just the submit is same transcript in both
`cases and it will be part of the record of both. The petitioner, of
`course, has the burden of proving unpatentability, so will argue
`first. You may reserve however much time you wish for your
`rebuttal, followed by patent owner's argument. And then the
`petitioner's argument on the 1764 and 1767 cases. And then --
`did I say is it wrong? 1768. I think we know. I'm sorry if I
`screwed up. Sorry, 1764 and 1768 will be argued together.
`That's my fault. And then we'll take a short recess, let everybody
`stretch their legs, come back in and we'll undertake the 1767
`argument. We allocated 30 minutes to both sides in that case. So
`we'll follow the same procedure with petitioner arguing first
`followed by the patent owner.
`I note that the petitioner submitted demonstrative slides.
`I don't have anything for the patent owner; is that correct?
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: We'll be using theirs, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: That's fine. Just wanted to
`make sure we have everything we need up here. I also didn't
`receive any objections to the petitioner's demonstratives. So I
`assume there were none. Any questions before we begin? So we
`will get underway, starting with petitioners. Do you wish to
`reserve any time?
`MR. CHU: Yes. I'm going to try and reserve at least
`15 minutes. And with Your Honor's permission, may I distribute
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`to you and the court reporter a copy of the slides in case you want
`a hard copy?
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Please.
`MR. CHU: Good afternoon. Again, it's Morgan Chu
`on behalf of the petitioner, Lam Research. We are going to
`address the '264 patent. What is the invention? The invention is
`doing etching in a single chamber with two important
`qualifications that are directly at issue today. First, that it be done
`at two temperatures and second that the change between the two
`temperatures be at a preselected time. The key pieces of prior art
`are Tegal and Matsumura. Tegal discloses etching in a single
`chamber at two temperatures. No question about that.
`Matsumura is a patent directed to controlling the temperature in
`connection with semiconductor processes, and it teaches using a
`single chamber, having two temperatures and having a
`preselected time in changing from temperature 1 to temperature
`2.
`
`And here is the central question before us this afternoon
`that is hotly disputed: Is there, as a factual matter, a motivation to
`combine? It is a factual question. Not a legal question. The case
`law demonstrates that.
`And here is what the factual record is. Dean Joseph
`Cecchi, dean of the University of New Mexico School of
`Engineering submitted declarations. These declarations stated
`plainly that a person of skill in the art would combine and would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`predict success in combining those two references as well as
`others. What do we have on the other side for the record? There
`is no independent expert's declaration submitted by the patent
`owner, Flamm. None. Zero.
`You might think that Flamm himself, the named
`inventor, would submit a declaration to contest any of those facts.
`And he did not do so in connection with the '264 patent. So on
`the factual record, we have unrebutted testimony that a person of
`skill would combine these two references to render obvious the
`claimed invention.
`But let's suppose that wasn't the record. Let's look to
`the references themselves. Tegal, as I said, is etching single
`chamber, two temperatures, and expressly states that its
`temperature controls might be done electronically. So a person of
`skill reading that would say, Let me see if I can find any
`references using electronic controls. Up would pop Matsumura
`because Matsumura expressly uses electronic controls.
`Tegal is pointing to Matsumura. What about
`Matsumura? Matsumura's invention is not limited to a specific
`process. One sees that in the title, the abstract, the summary of
`the invention and the claims themselves. The patent is oriented to
`controlling temperatures, and Matsumura expressly states that
`this may be used in connection with etching. He does describe an
`embodiment that is not etching, but expressly states it may be
`used in connection with etching. A person of skill in the art
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`reading Matsumura would say, Suppose I want to use this for
`etching. Up would pop Tegal. Tegal points to Matsumura by its
`reference to electronic controls. Matsumura points to Tegal by its
`reference to etching.
`But it goes beyond that. These two prior art references
`have to do with processing of wafers. The Matsumura reference
`as an example is assigned to Tokyo Electron, one of the world's
`largest semiconductor equipment companies. And in addition,
`Tegal specifically talks about trying to get better throughput.
`That's why it's using a single chamber and processing at two
`temperatures, to increase throughput. So too is Matsumura trying
`to get better throughput and one-upping Tegal by saying we can
`get that by having a specific temperature recipe or heat curve
`using a preselected time.
`So the factual record is one side, Lam Research, has
`declarations supporting all the factual findings that we are
`requesting. And there is no declaration on the other side, whether
`it's an independent expert or Flamm itself. And the two key
`references themselves, by their express references, point to each
`other.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Let me ask you a question
`about your expert, since you raised your expert's testimony. I'm
`looking at his first declaration and he says that a person of
`ordinary skill had reasons to use the Matsumura control system
`and heating and cooling systems to control the temperature of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`substrate holder in the apparatus taught by Tegal because this
`would increase flexibility of the system by allowing the substrate
`to be set to more than two the temperatures. The claims don't
`require more than two temperatures. Tegal doesn't talk about
`more than two temperatures. So why does the flexibility of
`having more than two temperatures enter into it at all? Why is
`that a relevant reason to make a combination with Matsumura?
`MR. CHU: If there was no mention at all, it would not
`change the analysis. So Your Honor is absolutely correct. Our
`point is a modest point. It was that Matsumura is looking for a
`more complex system allowing for more than two temperatures.
`The claims of the '264 patent, of course, are comprising claims.
`They only refer to two temperatures. They don't exclude more
`than two temperatures. But you are right, it's a rather modest
`point in size.
`So that's what we have in terms of the overall record.
`And I want to point out that if one looks at the independent
`claims, and one can use claim 27 as an example, it's just one
`limitation in 27. It's the last wherein clause that is at issue. And
`every independent claim limitation and every dependent claim
`limitation is disclosed expressly in the prior art. There's no need
`to make on behalf of Lam Research an argument about a
`reference inherently disclosing something because everything is
`expressly disclosed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Indeed, the patent owner makes no arguments with
`respect to any of the dependent claims. And any of the arguments
`with respect to different independent claims revolve around the
`clause that I just mentioned.
`Now, let me look pretty quickly at some of the slides.
`The first two are the grounds on which the IPRs were instituted.
`Here is a description of the proposed invention involving an
`etching process, looking for better throughput. Here we see in
`Figure 10 of '264 a first temperature, a second temperature, a
`reference to changing those temperatures. In the spec it refers to
`a characteristic time period. And in here we see the preselected
`time period between BB time and B time.
`Here are the claims. This is just to illustrate all the
`other limitations are not being contested. Here is that wherein
`clause with the emphasis on the preselected time for our
`purposes. Here it appears in claim 56 as another example. And
`Dr. Flamm does not dispute that the prior art teaches all of the
`dependent claim limitations.
`Here are the three key references, the first two more
`important than Narita. Here is how Tegal teaches etching at a
`first and second temperature. Here is Tegal teaching
`electronically or referring to electronically controlling the
`temperature of the substrate. Most of the discussion is about a
`manual control.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Now, Matsumura teaches a first and second
`temperature, and it's Figure 9. One can also look at Figure 8, by
`the way. And here we see that there is a change from the first
`temperature to the second temperature at an exact preselected
`time period of 20 seconds. Figure 8 has a preselected time period
`of 60 seconds.
`Here we see that Matsumura teaches using the disclosed
`process for etching. It teaches electronically controlling the
`temperature of the substrate.
`And let me just spend a moment on Narita because
`Narita does a one-upsmanship with respect to sensors. And it
`discusses having a sophisticated system in light of the prior art of
`two sensors. One is in direct contact with the substrate and it
`uses a thermal couple device. And the second is a noncontact
`heat or temperature sensor sensing the temperature of the
`substrate, and it uses a pyrometer. And it discusses the fact that if
`the processing step is a steady state temperature, then the contact
`sensor may be more appropriate. But if there is a rapid rise in
`temperature, say from the first to a second temperature, in order
`to capture that rapid rise, the noncontact pyrometer would also be
`used. So the prior art teaches each and every element of
`claim 27.
`Now, I'm going to -- let's skip to slide 41 because I just
`want to emphasize this one key portion. Here we have on the
`left-hand side the '264 patent, Figure 10, and the Matsumura
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`patent Figure 9, keeping in mind that the key parts that we are
`contesting -- that are being contested are first temperature. We
`see this in '264 and the prior art. Second temperature, we see it in
`both. We see changing the temperature over a preselected time
`interval.
`It's an open-and-shut case. If there are no further
`questions, I'll reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Do you want to address the
`patent owner's argument regarding the single claim limitation,
`whether it needs to be present? I know you are probably waiting
`for rebuttal. You have the time.
`MR. CHU: Yes, I would be absolutely delighted. First
`of all, the patent owner cites no case law in support -- there are
`cases cited. None of the cases stand for the proposition that they
`want. Second, it's directly at odds with the Supreme Court KSR
`decision using a flexible approach. We found no cases
`whatsoever that would support their, with due respect, made-up
`legal argument. And after all, a clever drafter could draft what is
`or isn't a limitation rendering 103 either useless or making it very
`difficult to use.
`We did find a case that actually stands for our
`proposition that the entirety argument advanced by Flamm
`doesn't hold. It's the case In Re Chevalier. It's 500 Fed.
`Appx. 932, and the jump cite is 934. Briefly, there is a claim
`limitation. It's denominated as limitation C. And the Court says
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`in this instance, one piece of prior art covers everything except
`for one part of it. And then it looks to a second piece of prior art
`that covers that one piece but all in limitation C.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So I understand that aspect of
`the argument. I also understood patent owner, again, maybe they
`can clarify this when they stand up, but to point to your claims
`charts in your petition and say, well, for example, within a
`preselected time interval and the substrate temperature, first
`substrate temperature, second substrate temperature, you cited to
`Matsumura only for that. And therefore, you put aside the
`entirety argument. You are bound by what your petition says and
`you only relied on Matsumura for those claim elements. What is
`your response to that?
`MR. CHU: Well, there really is a two-part argument.
`With all the papers, we are relying on Matsumura but we are also
`expressly relying on the combination of Tegal and Matsumura.
`And I'll step through it very quickly. We can use the slide
`number 41 which is on the screen. There are the three elements,
`the first temperature, second temperature, a preselected time. The
`text specification of Matsumura is replete with it. Figure 8 also
`has it. They do, that is Flamm's lawyers do make an argument
`that says, well, that isn't expressly in connection with etching or
`plasma etching. But that's not the wherein clause. The wherein
`clause doesn't even have that plasma etching. If there is a need to
`combine, obviously the combination with Tegal would be natural,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`easy and for a person of skill in the art, that's what he or she
`would do.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Thank you. Your colleague is
`handing you a note.
`MR. CHU: Thank you. I'll save it for rebuttal.
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: May it please the Board,
`George Summerfield on behalf of the patent owner. Hopefully
`I'll make everyone's life a little bit easier today by limiting the
`bulk of my comments to the motivation to combine issue. And
`really, Judge Crumbley, this goes to the question that you asked
`Mr. Chu about why one would bother to modify Tegal with
`anything, let alone the sophisticated systems taught in a
`Matsumura or a Narita. And the answer is you wouldn't. I'll get
`into Tegal in more detail a little later on, but basically Tegal talks
`about doing a couple different etches, isotropic and anisotropic
`which requires heating water to above ambient and then
`maintaining another water supply below ambient. That's it.
`There's no suggestion in Tegal that any more specificity is
`required.
`So if we start with Lam's slide 22, and perhaps I can ask
`Mr. Chu or one of his colleagues to put that up there. So here we
`have Figure 1 replicated from the patent-in-suit and some
`associated text describing what's in that figure. What we see are a
`couple of different water reservoirs, reservoir number 21 which
`has water 10 degrees centigrade, obviously below ambient, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`then reservoir number 22 that maintains the water temperature
`above ambient of 80 degrees centigrade. And these are the water
`temperatures that are associated with an anisotropic and isotropic
`etching respectively.
`Now if we can go to slide 23, so here we have the same
`figure but with the valves, the actuating valves highlighted that
`basically control which reservoir is supplying water to the
`substrate holder, the lower electrode number 13 that's shown on
`the left-hand side of the panel.
`And I want to address something the Board said in its
`institution decision. The Board indicated that there are valves in
`this drawing that allow for the water in those two reservoirs to be
`mixed. That's not really true. And this really does go to the issue
`of how much flexibility Tegal actually requires. If we look at
`Tegal at column 4, line 45, elements 47 and 44 are conduits --
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Can you give me the cite one
`more time.
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: It's Exhibit 1002, column 4
`beginning at line 45. It describes the elements 47 and 44 as
`conduits. They are associated with valves 23 and 25 which are
`the second and fourth valves highlighted in Lam's slide there
`showing Figure 1. Tegal teaches at column 4, lines 1 and 2, that
`valves 23 and 24 connected through bypass 41, also shown on
`this figure, and valves 25 and 26 are connected by bypass 42.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`There is nothing, however, that connects valves -- either
`conduits 47 and 44 or the associated valves, 23 and 25. In other
`words, there's no mixing of water going on in Tegal. Water goes
`to the substrate at either 10 degrees centigrade or 80 degrees
`centigrade. There isn't some effort in the middle somewhere to
`come up with a water supply at 45 degrees centigrade, again,
`because basically Tegal doesn't care. As long as you have
`temperature below ambient in one instance and above ambient in
`the other, that's all you need. You don't need a variety of
`temperatures that are being fed to the substrate holder in Tegal.
`Tegal also teaches, just to emphasize this point, that
`valves 23 and 24 are actuated together and valves 25 and 26 are
`actuated together. In other words, there's never an instance where
`valves 23 and 25 are actuated together which would be required
`nominally if water was going to be mixed from the two
`reservoirs.
`If we look at Figure 2 of Tegal, and I don't know that
`that's in the slides that Lam has provided --
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I
`want to make sure that we are not straying beyond the scope of
`the briefing here. Can you point to where in your patent owner
`response you discuss Tegal and whether there was mixing or
`there wasn't mixing of the temperature of the tanks?
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: Actually, the entirety of our
`response on the issue of motivation to combine is the fact that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`Tegal has this binary system. There's no motivation to combine
`Tegal with Matsumura or anything else to come up with a more
`flexible system. In fact, there would be no way to actually do it.
`We say that throughout our brief. And the reason is because,
`again, when you have a system like this where you are basically
`talking about a binary etching process, you are either going to be
`above or below ambient, there isn't a way to come up with a third
`alternative. There is no such thing as a semi-isotropic etch, for
`example. So that was the gist of our entire argument, as Mr. Chu
`mentioned during his remarks. That's the hotly contested issue in
`this case: Is there a motivation to combine. And all of this does,
`in fact, go to that motivation.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: I understand that. And I don't
`want to tie you down in your argument here, but I also want to
`make sure we aren't straying beyond what's in the briefing. And
`for example, I don't see any discussion of the valves in your brief.
`I'm willing to allow it to a certain extent, but just so you know, I
`don't want to go too far beyond what you have already argued
`because that is new argument that we will not consider and
`cannot consider.
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: I understand, Your Honor.
`Certainly all of these arguments go to the motivation to combine.
`We are not saying that Tegal somehow lacks a teaching of
`etching at multiple temperatures. It clearly shows that. It shows
`two. But we really did want to address the Board's comment
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`from the institution decision where there was this misimpression
`that Tegal somehow teaches mixing water which implies the
`ability to have a gamut of temperatures that are fed to the
`electrode. That just isn't the case. And we wanted to point out
`these valve configurations to show, in fact, that there is no
`mechanism in Tegal for mixing water, if the Board is still
`inclined to read Tegal that way. We don't even understand Lam's
`position as being that.
`So as long as we are all in agreement that, in fact, Tegal
`really does teach this system where water is either fed at 10
`degrees centigrade or 80 degrees centigrade or any other two
`temperatures that you might choose as long as one is below
`ambient and one is above ambient, we needn't spend any more
`time talking about valve configurations.
`But this does bring me to the heart of Tegal's invention.
`And if we look at column 3 beginning at line 28, he describes
`what he believed the gap in the prior art to be. And there I quote,
`It is not known in the art to provide isotropic and anisotropic
`etching of thin films, e.g., oxide, in the same chamber.
`Tegal then goes on in the same column beginning
`line 40, in the case of oxide etch, maintaining the wafer
`temperature either above or below ambient enhances isotropic
`and anisotropic etches respectively. Tegal defines the ambient
`temperature in the specification as being 20 degrees centigrade.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`So in Tegal, other than this distinction between
`temperatures above and below ambient, he talks not at all about
`any temperature criticality. He doesn't say there's a specific range
`above ambient or below ambient at which etch should occur. He
`simply says it should be above or below. That's it.
`And even when we talk about Figure 1, in the
`specification, the associated text, he talks about these
`temperatures as exemplary. He uses e.g. for 10 degrees and
`80 degrees centigrade. So again, these aren't critical. The
`temperatures themselves that are shown in Figure 1 aren't critical
`to Tegal's invention.
`And Tegal's claims don't actually say anything about
`temperature except that there should be two of them. So nowhere
`even in the dependent claims does he say that the invention
`wherein temperature is maintained at this for below ambient and
`that for above. So it's pretty clear reading Tegal that the only
`thing that matters is you have a system in which you can do a
`below ambient etch and an above ambient to get anisotropic and
`isotropic etching respectively.
`So why does this matter? Well, if we look at slide 55
`from Lam's presentation, Dr. Cecchi, who Mr. Chu referenced as
`their expert, provided three bases for combining Tegal and
`Matsumura. The first that Mr. Chu highlighted was that Tegal
`suggests electronically controlling the temperature of the
`substrate holder. But the passage that Dr. Cecchi actually refers
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`to here, Exhibit 1002, column 4, lines 28 to 31, actually talks
`about the electronic control of the actuating valves. In other
`words, the valves can be mechanically opened and closed or they
`can be electronically opened and closed. That's the extent of
`Tegal's purported teaching of electronic temperature control.
`But looking on the face of it, Dr. Cecchi's opinion talks
`about actually maintaining the temperature electronically, which
`is not what Tegal teaches at all. And again, if we think about it,
`the reason he says you can either use a mechanical actuation or an
`electronic actuation is because he really doesn't care what the
`actual temperatures are as long as they meet that binary dividing
`line between above and below ambient. In other words, if we
`look at Figure 1 again, he doesn't say that the temperature can't be
`75 degrees centigrade or 85 degrees centigrade. Therefore, there
`isn't the requirement for precise temperature control in that
`reservoir requiring, for example, some precise electronic
`maintenance of the temperature there.
`So again, the only thing Tegal teaches about electronic
`control is the actuation of the valves. That, according to Mr. Chu,
`is the thing that would have pointed to Matsumura. We don't
`agree and we think that is not what Tegal points to at all.
`And now, it's true we didn't put in a declaration. But
`when we talk about unrebutted expert testimony, when an expert
`says something that clearly on its face is wrong, if it
`mischaracterizes the prior art which is in the record, after all, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`we can just read that and understand it and understand that what
`he says is demonstrably wrong, there needn't be an expert that's
`paid to come in and say, yes, he is wrong. He clearly is.
`That passage, on its face, is very clearly pertaining to
`the actuation of the valves and only that. And how we get there
`from pointing to a complex system like Matsumura is anyone's
`guess. Dr. Cecchi certainly doesn't explain it in those terms. He
`simply makes the conclusory statement that both talk about
`electronic control. That's all we need. And from all the
`references out there in the entire world that might mention
`electronic control, someone would have picked Matsumura out of
`that white noise.
`Okay. Now, if we can go to -- I'm sorry. Staying with
`this first basis that Dr. Cecchi urges for combining, if we look at
`column 3 of Tegal beginning at line 44, he actually talks about
`the need to how you actually get to effecting wafer temperature.
`It's more than just changing the temperature of the water,
`according to Tegal. You actually also have to change the
`temperature of the substrate holder on which the wafer sits.
`So how does he do that? Well, beginning at line 44, he
`describes moving the valves as close as possible to the lower
`electrode. That's the temperature regulation device that Tegal
`actually teaches. Just move everything closer. There's less
`energy loss the shorter the distance, again, because he really
`doesn't care about maintaining a temperature to a degree of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`precision that Matsumura might. As long as it's around
`80 degrees or at least above ambient, that's all he cares about. So
`for him, simply arranging the components of the system such that
`the valves are closer to the substrate holder is all that is required.
`So again, when we look at what Tegal actually teaches
`and the relative unimportance about the specific temperature
`that's used suggesting, as Dr. Cecchi does, that anyone would
`think to look to Matsumura or Narita or any other complex
`system to modify Tegal really just is unfounded.
`Now we can go to slide 56. This is the second basis for
`combining Tegal and Matsumura urged by Dr. Cecchi. And here
`he opines that Matsumura teaches the benefits of sensing the
`substrate temperature. Again, Judge Crumbley, back to your
`question, nothing in Tegal suggests that there is a need to do that.
`As long as you are sending heated water or water below ambient
`to the substrate holder, it doesn't really matter what the actual
`temperature of the substrate is as long as it's below or above
`ambient. So the notion that we have to figure out whether the
`substrate is heated up to 80 degrees versus 75 degrees versus
`65 degrees, as long as it's above 20 degrees, that's all we care
`about. If water starts at below ambient, it's not going to rise to
`above ambient unless you heat it. And nothing in Tegal suggests
`heating water along the way from the below ambient reservoir to
`the substrate holder.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`So again, the notion that there is some need to sense the
`substrate holder in Tegal -- and again, that's the reference that
`Lam starts with for every single challenged ground. It's always
`Tegal in light of this other stuff. So the person of ordinary skill in
`the art in this hypothetical world would start with Tegal and start
`finding ways to modify it if they were motivated to do so. What
`is the motivation in Tegal's system? The answer is absolutely
`nothing.
`Now, if we