UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: MULTI-TEMPERATURE PROCESSING
`___________
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 1
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: MULTI-TEMPERATURE PROCESSING
`___________
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 1
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ................... 1
`
`III.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................... 10
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 11
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘264 PATENT .................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`Representative Claim 56 .................................................................. 15
`
`VI. OPINIONS RELATING TO PETITIONER’S REPLY ............................. 16
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 2
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`I, Joseph L. Cecchi, declare as follows:
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my views regarding technical issues in
`
`connection with the above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 E (“the ‘264 patent”). I opine only with respect to certain issues that are
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in support of the petition for IPR
`
`2015-01764, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted. Ex. 1006. I now
`
`submit this declaration in support of the Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`4.
`I am currently Dean of the School of Engineering and Professor of
`
`Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of New Mexico (“UNM”).
`
`This is my second term as Dean, and the term began in February 2014. I have held
`
`my appointment as Professor since joining UNM in 1994.
`
`5.
`
`From 2011 to 2012, while on leave from UNM, I served as Provost
`
`and Professor of Engineering at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in
`
`Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 3
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`6. My first appointment as Dean of the School of Engineering extended
`
`from 2000 to 2009. From 2004 to 2011, I was Chair of the Board of Directors of
`
`the Science and Technology Corp. at UNM, the university’s technology transfer
`
`organization responsible for patenting and licensing UNM’s intellectual property.
`
`7.
`
`From 1994 until 2000, I was Chair of the Department of Chemical and
`
`Nuclear Engineering at UNM. Previously, I was a Lecturer with the rank of
`
`Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Princeton University,
`
`where I also directed the Graduate Program in Plasma Science and Technology. I
`
`was associated with the Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University for
`
`twenty-one years, as leader of the Plasma Processing Group (1987-1994); Principal
`
`Research Physicist (1984-1994); leader of the Materials Physics Group (1979-
`
`1987); Research Physicist (1978-1984); and Staff Physicist (1972-1978).
`
`8.
`
`From 1991 to 1994, I was Director of the New Jersey SEMATECH
`
`Center of Excellence for Plasma Etching. This organization, which involved four
`
`universities and one industrial laboratory, was engaged in state-of-the-art research
`
`in plasma processing for semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`9.
`
`From 1992 to 2001, I worked on three committees established by the
`
`Semiconductor Industry Association (“SIA”) to generate technology “roadmaps”
`
`for semiconductor manufacturing. Most recently, from 1998 to 2000, I was a
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 4
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`member of the Interconnect Technical Working Group (“TWG”) for the SIA
`
`International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (“ITRS”).
`
`10.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University in 1972.
`
`I also received a Master’s degree in physics from Harvard University in 1969, a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in physics from Knox College in 1968, and a Master’s of
`
`Business Administration (MBA) degree from the University of New Mexico in
`
`2011.
`
`11.
`
`I have had significant research experience in a number of areas
`
`pertaining to semiconductor devices and their manufacturing, including plasma
`
`physics, plasma chemistry, plasma etching, plasma enhanced chemical vapor
`
`deposition (PECVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), which is a form of chemical
`
`vapor deposition, plasma-assisted ALD, and chemical-mechanical-polishing
`
`(CMP), sometimes called “chemical-mechanical-planarization”.
`
`12.
`
`I have published over ninety papers in my fields of expertise. Among
`
`the eight United States patents on which I am an inventor, the following five
`
`patents are in the area of plasma technology for manufacturing semiconductors and
`
`other materials:
`
` “Method and Apparatus for Coupling a Microwave Source in an
`
`Electron Cyclotron Resonance System,” U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,111,111, issued May 5, 1992;
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 5
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
` “Apparatus and Method for Uniform Microwave Plasma
`
`Processing Using TE11 and TM01 Modes,” U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,302,803, issued April 12, 1994;
`
` “Apparatus and Process for Producing High Density Axially
`
`Extended Plasmas,” U.S. Patent No. 5,587,038, issued December
`
`24, 1996;
`
` “Method of Making Dense, Conformal, Ultra-Thin Cap layers for
`
`Nanoporous Low-k ILD by Plasma Assisted Atomic Layer
`
`Deposition,” U.S. Patent No. 7,947,579, issued May 24, 2011; and
`
` “Ultra-Thin Microporous/Hybrid Materials,” U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,187,678, issued May 29, 2012.
`
`13.
`
`I have been elected as a fellow in AVS, The Society for the Science
`
`and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing.
`
`14.
`
`I am aware of research and development activities ongoing in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing and devices since the 1980s time frame. As a result
`
`of my research experience in the plasma etching, deposition, and CMP areas, I am
`
`also familiar with other silicon semiconductor process technologies that directly
`
`impact these areas, including such things as lithography and cleaning techniques.
`
`15. As a professor, I have taught courses in silicon semiconductor devices
`
`and process technology at undergraduate and graduate levels. Many of the
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 6
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`students I have taught have gone on to work for companies engaged in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing. I have supervised the research of a number of
`
`students in semiconductor manufacturing as part of their work for their M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. degrees.
`
`16. My curriculum vitae (CV) (Ex. 1009) includes additional details about
`
`my experience and professional background.
`
`17. The ‘264 patent generally relates to “plasma processing” (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:18), with specific applications to plasma etching, plasma assisted chemical vapor
`
`deposition, and materials that include silicon, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride,
`
`polysilicon, and others. Id. at 1:23-31. The specification of the ‘264 patent also
`
`discloses that “[p]referably, the plasma discharge is derived from the inductively
`
`couple plasma source that is a de-coupled plasma source (‘DPS’) or a helical
`
`resonator, though other sources can be employed.” Id. at 4:4-7.
`
`18.
`
`In my research, I have designed, constructed, and used de-coupled
`
`plasma sources, including inductively coupled plasma sources, helicon plasma
`
`sources, and electron cyclotron plasma (ECR) sources. These sources are also
`
`high-density plasma sources. I have used these plasma sources for plasma etching
`
`and plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition. For example, publication 74 in my
`
`CV (Ex. 1009 at 15), describes a plasma processing apparatus, including an
`
`electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma source used for plasma etching of
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 7
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`polysilicon, silicon dioxide and silicon. The plasma processing apparatus, shown
`
`in Figure 1 of this publication, includes an ECR source chamber and a downstream
`
`processing chamber. The latter includes a water cooled wafer chuck (or substrate
`
`holder) that incorporated Helium at 1-2 Torr pressure between the wafer and the
`
`chuck to provide enhanced heat transfer.
`
`19. Publications 75 and 77 in my CV (Ex. 1009 at 15) describe improved
`
`operational characteristics of an ECR plasma etch reactor based on optimizing the
`
`coupling of the microwave power to the plasma. The optimized coupling reduces
`
`the reflected power to less than 5% of the incident power without external tuning,
`
`simplifying control of the plasma operation. This work underpins U.S. Patent,
`
`5,111,111, on which I am co-inventor.
`
`20. Publication 78 and 79 in my CV (Ex. 1009 at 15) describe a method
`
`for producing more uniform plasmas in ECR plasma etch reactors. This work
`
`includes results of etching a photoresist patterned, n-doped polysilicon layer
`
`deposited over an oxide layer on a silicon wafer, using an SF6/Ar gas mixture. An
`
`important result is that the polysilicon etch rate uniformity across the wafer was
`
`correlated with the plasma uniformity. When the plasma uniformity was
`
`maximized, the polysilicon etch rate across the wafer was uniform to within about
`
`2%.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 8
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`21. Publication 81 in my CV (Ex. 1009 at 16) describes a method for
`
`providing independent radio frequency (rf) wafer biasing on the wafer chuck in a
`
`manner that produces more uniform ion bombardment across substrates being
`
`processed. This work shows that using a lower rf frequency for wafer biasing
`
`results in a more uniform distribution of ion bombardment across the wafer.
`
`22. Publication 88 in my CV (Ex. 1009 at 16) addresses a critical issue of
`
`using an inductively couple plasma (ICP) source to etch silicon dioxide with high
`
`selectivity to silicon. Selectivity is achieved by introducing gas mixtures
`
`containing C, F, and H into the plasma source, which dissociates the feedstock
`
`gases to produce fluorocarbon radicals that deposit a polymer on the wafer surface.
`
`The polymer suppresses etch rates of silicon compared to the etch rates of silicon
`
`dioxide, thus promoting selectivity of oxide etching. The wafer chuck in this
`
`plasma apparatus was water cooled. Helium at 10 Torr was introduced between
`
`the water cooled chuck and wafer to promote heat transfer. The wafer temperature
`
`was measured using a Luxtron fluoroptic thermometer. Concentrations of the
`
`fluorocarbon radicals were measured by diode laser absorption spectroscopy and
`
`correlated to measurements of the thickness of the deposited polymer.
`
`23. As further examples, publications 92, 93, and 94 in my CV (Ex. 1009
`
`at 17) relate to a process of plasma-assisted atomic layer deposition, which is a
`
`form of plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition that provides layer-by-layer
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 9
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`control of thin film deposition. An inductively coupled plasma source was used in
`
`this work. Publications 92 and 93 describe how plasma-assisted atomic layer
`
`deposition of silicon dioxide can be applied to producing a material that can be
`
`used for interlevel dielectrics between conductors in integrated circuits. These
`
`plasma processes are also the subject matter in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,579 and
`
`8,187,678, on which I am an inventor.
`
`24.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard hourly rate of
`
`$450 in connection with this proceeding. My compensation is in no way
`
`contingent upon my performance or the outcome of this case.
`
`25.
`
`I have been asked for my technical opinions regarding the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates
`
`to the ‘264 patent and other reference documents.
`
`26.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my technical opinions on concepts
`
`discussed in the ‘264 patent and other reference documents, as well as my
`
`technical opinions on how these concepts relate to several claim limitations of the
`
`‘264 patent in the context of the specification.
`
`27.
`
`In reaching the opinions stated herein, I have considered the ‘264
`
`patent, its prosecution history, the references listed in the table below, the papers
`
`filed in IPR 2015-01764, including the patent owner’s responses dated Nov. 25,
`
`2015 and May 16, 2016 and related exhibits 2001 through 2006, the Board’s
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 10
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`decision granting institution for this IPR, and I have also drawn as appropriate
`
`upon my own education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and
`
`professional experience.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (the ‘264 patent)
`
`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. 4,680,086 (Thomas)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,219,485 (‘485 Wang)
`
`D. S. Fischl, G. W. Rodrigues, and D. W. Hess, Etching of
`Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide Films by Chlorine Atoms
`published in August 1998 by The Journal of Electrochemical
`Society in Vol. 135, No. 8 (Fischl)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,992,391 (‘391 Wang)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (Hwang)
`
`Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1993
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,645,218 (Ooshio)
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 11
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`III. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`28.
`I have approached my analysis of the ‘264 patent from the perspective
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a PHOSITA) at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the ‘264 patent, which I have been informed is December 4,
`
`1995, the earliest priority date recited by the ‘264 patent.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known all of the relevant
`
`art at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems encountered in
`
`the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field. I have been informed by counsel that it is from
`
`the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art that determined patentability.
`
`30. Based on these factors, in my opinion, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the ‘264 patent 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.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 12
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`31. Based on this understanding of a PHOSITA for the ‘264 patent, I
`
`believe that I am at least a person having ordinary skill in the art for purposes of
`
`the ‘264 patent. For example, my qualifications and experiences discussed in
`
`Section II above, and in my CV (Ex. 1009), demonstrate my familiarity with and
`
`knowledge of the art of the ‘264 patent. I therefore believe that I am qualified to
`
`offer this declaration as to how such a person would have interpreted the ‘264
`
`patent and the prior art on or about December 4, 1995. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`my statements below refer to the knowledge, beliefs and abilities of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘264 patent at the time of the purported
`
`invention of the ‘264 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`32. My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law. I
`
`understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in proceedings before the USPTO, the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that the ‘264 patent has not expired.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim if
`
`each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 13
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., if the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious.” I
`
`understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all
`
`elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim
`
`obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the
`
`claim and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time would have had
`
`reason to combine the prior art. I understand that this reason to combine need not
`
`be explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. I
`
`also understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton,
`
`but is a person having ordinary creativity. I further understand that one or more
`
`pieces of prior art that disclose fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may
`
`render a patent claim obvious if including the missing element would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (e.g., the missing element
`
`represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior art or a reconfiguration of
`
`a known system).
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 14
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made. I
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge available to
`
`one of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in order to avoid
`
`impermissible hindsight. I further understand that the obviousness inquiry assumes
`
`that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of all
`
`relevant references available at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary rationales
`
`that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered those
`
`rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
` Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
` Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
` Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
` Applying a known technique to a known device (methods or
`
`products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the effort was
`
`“obvious to try”;
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 15
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
` Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations
`
`on the work for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations
`
`are predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art;
`
` Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`38.
`
`I appreciate that secondary considerations may be considered, if
`
`present, as part of the overall obviousness analysis. Such considerations do not
`
`appear to be present here:
`
`
`
`I have never heard anyone offer praise for the ‘264 patent, nor am
`
`I aware of any commercial success attributable to the ‘264 patent.
`
`
`
`I am also unaware of any copying of the alleged invention of the
`
`‘264 patent.
`
`
`
`I am unaware of any use to which the owner of the ‘264 patent has
`
`put the patent except to assert it in litigation.
`
`V. THE ‘264 PATENT
`39.
`I understand Lam is challenging claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71
`
`(“challenged claims”) of the ‘264 patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 16
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, the challenged claims are all directed to a method for
`
`processing a substrate in the manufacture of a semiconductor device. In the
`
`method, a substrate is placed on a substrate holder in a chamber. The claims recite
`
`sensing the substrate holder temperature and recite control circuits including a
`
`substrate holder control circuit and a substrate control circuit. The substrate is
`
`processed at a first temperature and then at a second temperature.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that 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. I understand that 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 Dec. 4, 1995, the earliest possible
`
`priority date recited by the ‘264 patent.
`
`A. Representative Claim 56
`42. 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. Claim
`
`56 recites a method comprising the steps of (a) ”placing the substrate on a substrate
`
`holder;” (b) “sensing a substrate holder temperature;” (c) ”etching at least a portion
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 17
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`of a first silicon-containing layer in a chamber while the substrate is maintained at
`
`a selected first substrate temperature;” and (d) “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.” Ex. 1001, 24:43-51. The claim recites
`
`“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.” Id. at 24:55-58.
`
`VI. OPINIONS RELATING TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`43. As I explain in detail below, it is my opinion that claims 51, 55-63,
`
`68, 70, and 71 of the ‘264 patent are unpatentable on the following grounds.
`
`44.
`
` Matsumura teaches a process of determining the recipe using the
`
`thermal history curve in two examples. Ex. 1003, 8:6-12, Fig. 8, 8:56-68, Fig. 9.
`
`Matsumura further teaches a process that involves “storing, as a predetermined
`
`recipe, information showing a time-temperature relationship and applicable for
`
`either heating the object to a predetermined temperature for a predetermined period
`
`of time or cooling the object from a predetermined temperature over a
`
`predetermined period of time, or for both.” Ex. 1003, 3:1-7. In one embodiment,
`
`Matsumura discloses that the “object” can be a semiconductor wafer that is
`
`mounted on a wafer stage. “The semiconductor wafer W which has a size of 8
`
`inches is mounted on stage 12.” Ex. 1003, 5:32-33, Fig. 5A.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 18
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`45. Matsumura further discloses that “[t]he stage 12 on which the
`
`semiconductor wafer W is to be mounted is arranged in a chamber of the adhesion
`
`unit 42.” Ex. 1003, 5:18-20, Fig. 5A. A POSA would recognize that the chamber
`
`is a vacuum chamber. “A discharge pipe 35 extends from the bottom of the
`
`chamber 11 to a vacuum pump (not shown).” Ex. 1003, 5:30-31, Fig. 5A.
`
`46. Matsumura also discloses that process gases, HMDS and nitrogen, are
`
`introduced into the vacuum chamber through a diffusion plate “opposing to the
`
`wafer.” Ex. 1003, 5:20-23. A POSA would recognize that the elements and their
`
`arrangement disclosed by Matsumura, including exposing a semiconductor wafer
`
`to process gases in a vacuum chamber, are common to a number of semiconductor
`
`processes, such as chemical vapor deposition and etching.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, based on this recognition and the explicit teaching of
`
`Matsumura, see, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10:5-7, a POSA would understand that
`
`Matsumura’s invention of a method and apparatus for controlling the temperature
`
`of the wafer stage and the wafer when the semiconductor wafer is heated or cooled
`
`would not be limited to an HMDS process, but could also be applied to an etching
`
`process in an etching reactor. In particular, it is well within the skill of a POSA
`
`using Matsumura’s teachings to determine the recipe using the thermal history
`
`curve for a substrate in an etching process.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 19
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`48. Although Matsumura’s two examples relate to an HDMS process,
`
`Matsumura’s invention is not specific to an HDMS process.
`
`49. Matsumura’s invention relates to the method and apparatus for
`
`controlling temperatures of a semiconductor substrate when the semiconductor
`
`substrate is heated up and cooled down. Ex. 1003, 1:7-13.
`
`50. Matsumura teaches a POSA that a key to controlling change of
`
`temperatures for the substrate is the thermal history curve of the substrate. Ex.
`
`1003, 2:9-21, Fig. 2, 3:22-33, Fig. 3.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that Matsumura teaches an
`
`accurate and flexible method of controlling the temperature of a substrate while
`
`heating and cooling a substrate that could be implemented for etching in a plasma
`
`etching reactor, using the time-temperature relationship taught by Matsumura. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1003, 8:56-69, Fig. 9.
`
`52. Matsumura teaches that the method is dependent on the information
`
`showing the time-temperature relationship of the substrate, not the particular
`
`semiconductor manufacturing process. Ex. 1003, 3:1-2.
`
`53.
`
`In particular, Matsumura teaches that the method may be used for
`
`controlling the temperature of a substrate for not only adhesion and baking
`
`processes, but for many other processes such as ion implantation, CVD, etching
`
`and ashing processes. Ex. 1003, 10:3-7.
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 20
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Declaration for Reply
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, in view of above and my previous opinion, Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ 75-77 and 133-136, it is well within the skill of a POSA using Matsumura’s
`
`teachings to determine a time-temperature recipe for Tegal’s substrate and then to
`
`advantageously use this recipe with Matsumura’s control system, and heating and
`
`cooling systems in the Tegal apparatus to control the temperature change in the
`
`Tegal process.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`55.
`In signing this declaration I realize that this declaration will be filed as
`
`evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`USPTO.
`
`56.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true.
`
`Executed on the 28th day of July, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Joseph L. Cecchi
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`LAM Ex 1018-p. 21
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
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
