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
`
`THIRD 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 3
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`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) ............................................... 4
`
`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 ......................................................................... 5
`
`IV. THE '264 PATENT ...................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Representative Claim 37 .................................................................... 6
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure ................................................................. 8
`
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching ..................................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device ............................ 8
`
`Temperature Sensor ................................................................. 9
`
`Control System ......................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 9
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 3
`
`Page
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`"portion of the film" ......................................................................... 10
`
`"preselected time interval" and "preselected time period" ............... 12
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................. 12
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 31, and 32 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Hwang in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Hwang in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Teaches All the Limitations of Independent Claim 27 .......... 13
`
`Chart for Claim 27 ................................................................. 20
`
`Hwang in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Teaches All the Limitations of Dependent Claims 31
`and 32 ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Chart for Claims 31 and 32 .................................................... 24
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 27 and 32 ................. 25
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 31 ............................... 29
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 34 is Rendered Obvious by Nakamura in
`View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Nakamura in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 34 ............................. 30
`
`Chart for Claim 34 ................................................................. 31
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 34 ............................... 33
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are Rendered
`Obvious by Wang in View of Tegal, Matsumura and Narita
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 3
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Wang in View of Tegal, Matsumura and Narita
`Teaches All the Limitations of Independent Claim 37 .......... 36
`
`2.
`
`Chart for Claim 37 ................................................................. 46
`
`3. Wang in view of Tegal, Matsumura and Narita
`Teaches All the Limitations of Dependent Claims 40,
`41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 ............................................................. 50
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Chart for claims 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 ............................ 55
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 37, 40, 41, 44,
`47, and 48 ............................................................................... 56
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 50 ............................... 60
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 3
`
`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
`(PTAB 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)........................................................... 19
`
`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 Woodruff,
`919 F. 2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................. 19
`
`KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).................................................................................. 2
`
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273
`(reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976)) ......................................................... 2
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 13, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 1, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................. 4, 5, 10, 12
`
`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 3
`
`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
`
`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. 5,174,856 (Hwang)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,316,616 (Nakamura)
`
`European Patent Application Number 87311193.4 (Wang)
`
`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.
`
`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)
`
`Jasbir Singh, Heat Transfer Fluids and Systems for Process and
`Energy Applications, (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1985)
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`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, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44,
`
`47, 48, and 50 ("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, printed patent applications, and printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The eleven 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 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69
`
`are challenged in a second 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 3
`
`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, 417 (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 also disclosed chambers having elements such as temperature
`
`sensors for substrate holders and substrates as well as control systems for
`
`accurately and quickly 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
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`. . . ." 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 (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.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`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, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 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.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`Pat. No. 5,151,871 to Matsumura et al. ("Matsumura," Ex. 1003) issued on Sept.
`
`29, 1992; U.S. Pat. No. 4,913,790 to Narita et al. ("Narita," Ex. 1004) issued on
`
`April 3, 1990; U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,856 to Hwang et al. ("Hwang," Ex. 1005) issued
`
`on Dec. 29, 1992; U.S. Pat. No. 5,316,616 to Nakamura et al. ("Nakamura," Ex.
`
`1006) issued on May 31, 1994; and European Patent Application Number
`
`87311193.4 to Wang et al. ("Wang," Ex. 1007) filed on Dec. 18, 1987 by Applied
`
`Materials, Inc. and published on June 22, 1988 as Publication No. 0272140A2.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`patent or its parent applications. Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`claims of the '264 patent under the following statutory grounds:
`
`References(s)
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`1
`§ 103(a) Hwang in view of Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita
`§ 103(a) Nakamura in view of Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita
`§ 103(a) Wang in view of Tegal,
`Matsumura and Narita
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Claims
`27, 31, 32
`
`34
`
`37, 40, 41, 44, 47,
`48, 50
`
`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. 1008.
`
`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
`
`all predate 12/4/1995, 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
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`and well-known method of placing a substrate on a substrate holder in a chamber
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`and processing the substrate at different temperatures. Ex. 1008 ¶ 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
`
`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." Id. at 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
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`temperature value with a first heat transfer process; and" (2) "a substrate holder
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 steps. Ex. 1008 ¶ 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. 1008 ¶ 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 in the system. 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
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`holder to a desirable temperature." Id. at 16:11-16. The fluid is heated with an
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`electric heater but "can also be cooled using a heat exchanger." Id. at 16:33-36,
`
`16:20-21; Ex. 1008 ¶ 44.
`
`Temperature Sensor
`
`3.
`The '264 patent discloses sensing the substrate holder temperature and states
`
`that "[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.
`
`1008 ¶ 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. 1008 ¶ 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
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`fields. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 27-30.
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`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
`
`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. 1008 ¶ 52.
`
`"portion of the film"
`
`A.
`Claims 27, 34, 37, and 41 recite the term "portion of the film." 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
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`of the claimed term, "portion" means part of the film. Ex. 1008 ¶ 53.
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`This understanding is consistent with dictionaries of the time. For example,
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary defines "portion" as "[a] section or quantity
`
`within a larger thing; a part of a whole." Ex. 1009-3; Ex. 1008 ¶ 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 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,
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`"portion of the film" means part of the film. Ex. 1008 ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`"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 claim 37. 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. The
`
`dictionaries of the time define "preselect" as "to choose in advance usually on the
`
`basis of a particular criterion." Ex. 1010-3; Ex. 1008 ¶ 56.
`
`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. 1008 ¶ 57.
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 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
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art specifying where each element of the
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`
`
`
`challenged claims is found in the prior art.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 31, and 32 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Hwang in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)
`
`Hwang teaches the process of etching a first portion of a film (photoresist) at
`
`a selected first temperature (40°C - 100°C) and etching a second portion of a film
`
`(remaining photoresist) at a selected second temperature (100°C - 400°C). Tegal,
`
`Matsumura, and Narita also 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 Hwang can be performed in this
`
`chamber. Ex. 1008 ¶ 59.
`
`1. Hwang in View of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita Teaches
`All the Limitations of Independent Claim 27
`
`Hwang teaches "[a] method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a
`
`device" as recited by claim 27. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 1:11-17 ("This invention
`
`relates to a process for removing photoresist remaining over a metal layer after
`
`etching of the metal layer . . . ."); Ex. 1008 ¶ 60.
`
`a)
`
`Heating a Substrate Holder with a Heat Transfer Device
`
`Tegal and Matsumura teach "heating a substrate holder . . . with a heat
`
`transfer device" as recited by claim 27. Tegal teaches "a substrate holder" (lower
`
`electrode 13 in Figure 1). Ex. 1002, 3:4-5 ("Wafer 15 is held against lower
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`electrode 13 . . ."); Ex. 1008 ¶ 61.
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`Tegal teaches heating the substrate holder "with a heat transfer device." Ex.
`
`1002, 1:55-2:2 ("The electrode on which the wafer rests is temperature controlled
`
`by fluid flowing therein."). Specifically, Tegal explains that the apparatus depicted
`
`in Figure 1 is used to control the temperature of the substrate holder (lower
`
`electrode 13), and that "[t]he temperature is varied by valves (23-26) which switch
`
`temperature controlled fluids through the electrode (13) upon which wafer (15)
`
`rests." Id. at ¶ 57, Fig. 1. Tegal suggests electronically controlling the temperature
`
`of the substrate holder. See, e.g., id. at 4:29-31 ("[I]t is understood by those of skill
`
`in the art that these valves may be individually actuated electronically, but operate
`
`in pairs."); Ex. 1008 ¶ 62.
`
`Moreover, Matsumura teaches "heating a substrate holder . . . with a heat
`
`transfer device" as recited by claim 27. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 5:58-63 ("A control
`
`system 20 includes a CPU 201 and a PID controller 203. The control system 20
`
`serves to apply signals SM and SC to the SSR l8 and a cooling system 23
`
`responsive to inputted recipes and temperature detecting signal."), 6:28-32
`
`("cooling system 23"), 6:51-57 ("PWM signal SM is applied from the PID
`
`controller 203 to the SSR 18. A predetermined amount of current is thus added . . .
`
`to heat the conductive thin film 14. The semiconductor wafer W on the upper plate
`
`13 is heated by the conductive thin film 14."); Ex. 1008 ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` Petition 3
`
`b)
`
`First Substrate Holder Temperature
`
`Hwang teaches "a first substrate holder temperature" as recited by claim 27.
`
`Hwang teaches that a "wafer is maintained at from about 40° C to about 100° C"
`
`during a photoresist etch step. Ex. 1005, cls. 1, 14; Ex. 1008 ¶ 64.
`
`c)
`
`Substrate Holder Has a Temperature Sensing Unit
`
`Matsumura teaches "the substrate holder having at least one temperature
`
`sensing unit" as recited by claim 27. As depicted in Figure 5A of Matsumura,
`
`conductive thin film (14) is part of the substrate holder upon whic