`Petitioner
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2015‐01764 and 01768
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264E
`
`October 11, 2016
`Morgan Chu
`Samuel Lu
`
`1
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 1
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Grounds For Institution IPR2015‐01764
`
`On February 24, 2016, the Board instituted this IPR on the
`following grounds:
`
`(1) Whether claims 27, 28, 30, 33, 35–39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51–
`54, 66, 67, and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§103(a) as
`having been obvious over the combined disclosures of Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita; and
`
`(2) Whether claim 29 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§103(a) as
`having been obvious over the combined disclosures of Tegal,
`Matsumura, Narita, and Ooshio.
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 23‐24
`
`2
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 2
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Grounds For Institution IPR2015‐01768
`
`On February 24, 2016, the Board instituted this IPR on the
`following grounds:
`(1) Whether claims 56–58 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, and Wang ’485 under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(2) Whether claims 60, 62, 63, and 71 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura,
`Narita, Thomas, and Fischl under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(3) Whether claims 51, 55, and 68 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`and Thomas under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(4) Whether claims 56 and 59 are obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita,
`Wang ’391, Thomas, and Wang ’485 under 35 U.S.C.§103(a);
`(5) Whether claim 61 is obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Thomas,
`Fischl, and Ooshio under 35 U.S.C.§103(a); and
`(6) Whether claim 70 is obvious over Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Thomas,
`Fischl, and Hwang under 35 U.S.C.§103(a).
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01768 at 28‐29
`
`3
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 3
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`4
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 4
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Purported Invention
`
`The technology at issue relates
`to etching a substrate such as
`a semiconductor
`
`’264 Patent at 2:10‐12
`
`5
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 5
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Purported Problem Being Solved:
`Increase Throughput
`
`• But there are many ways
`to increase throughput
`
`• And increasing throughput
`was well known in the
`semiconductor industry
`
`’264 Patent at 2:12‐15
`
`6
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 6
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution: Etching At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`First
`temperature
`
`Second
`temperature
`
`’264 Patent at Fig. 10
`
`7
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 7
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution:
`A Preselected Time Period
`
`Changing from a first
`temperature to a second
`temperature within a
`preselected time period
`
`’264 Patent at 2:53‐56
`
`8
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 8
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Purported Solution:
`A Preselected Time Period
`
`Preselected Time
`Period
`
`Time = B‐BB seconds
`
`’264 Patent at Fig. 10
`
`9
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 9
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The ’264 Patent Also Discloses Etching Hardware
`
`Etching
`Chamber
`
`Temperature
`Control
`Hardware
`
`’264 Patent at Figs. 1 and 7
`
`10
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 10
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`11
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 11
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27
`
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device,
`the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder temperature
`with a heat transfer device, the substrate holder having at least one
`temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate holder in a
`chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second substrate
`temperature, the selected second substrate temperature being
`different from the selected first substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected first
`substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature,
`using a measured substrate temperature, within a preselected time
`interval for processing, and
`at least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room temperature.
`
`12
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 12
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27: Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute
`Prior Art Discloses All But One Limitation
`
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device,
`the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder temperature
`with a heat transfer device, the substrate holder having at least one
`temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate holder in a
`chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second substrate
`temperature, the selected second substrate temperature being
`different from the selected first substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected first
`substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature,
`using a measured substrate temperature, within a preselected time
`interval for processing, and
`at least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room temperature.
`
`13
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 13
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27:
`Dr. Flamm Contests A Single Limitation
`
`’264 Patent at Claim 27
`
`14
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 14
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 56: Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute
`Prior Art Discloses All But One Limitation
`
`56. A method for processing layers which are included in a stack of
`layers positioned on a substrate, the method comprising:
`placing the substrate on a substrate holder;
`sensing a substrate holder temperature,
`etching at least a portion of a first silicon‐containing layer in a
`chamber while the substrate is maintained at a selected first
`substrate temperature; and
`etching at least a portion of a second silicon‐containing layer in the
`chamber while the substrate is maintained at a selected second
`substrate temperature;
`wherein the substrate holder is heated to a temperature operable to
`maintain at least one of the selected first and the selected second
`substrate temperatures above 49° C., and
`the substrate temperature is changed from the first substrate
`temperature to the second substrate temperature with a control
`circuit operable to effectuate the changing within a preselected time
`period that is less than the overall process time associated with the
`etching the first silicon‐containing layer and the second silicon‐
`containing layer.
`
`15
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 15
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 56:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitation
`
`’264 Patent at Claim 56
`
`16
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 16
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claims 37 And 51:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 9,12
`
`17
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 17
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Independent Claims 51 And 60:
`Dr. Flamm Contests Similar Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Fourth Petition (IPR2015‐01768) at 11‐12
`
`18
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 18
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Dispute Prior Art Teaches
`All Of The Dependent Claim Limitations
`
`Claim 28
`Claim 29
`Claim 30
`Claim 33
`Claim 35
`Claim 36
`Claim 38
`
`Claim 39
`Claim 42
`Claim 43
`Claim 45
`Claim 46
`Claim 49
`Claim 52
`
`Claim 53
`Claim 54
`Claim 55
`Claim 57
`Claim 58
`Claim 59
`Claim 61
`
`Claim 62
`Claim 63
`Claim 66
`Claim 67
`Claim 68
`Claim 69
`Claim 70
`Claim 71
`
`19
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 19
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`20
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 20
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Grounds For Unpatentability
`
`Primary Invalidity References
`
`Tegal
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1002)
`EU Publication
`No. 0 399 676
`
`Matsumura
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1003)
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,151,871
`
`Narita
`(IPR2015‐01764, Ex. 1004)
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,913,790
`
`21
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 21
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Tegal Teaches Etching A Substrate At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12 (quoting Tegal at 1:43‐48, 5:5‐45); Tegal at Fig. 1
`
`22
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 22
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Tegal Teaches Electronically Controlling
`The Temperature Of The Substrate
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12‐13 (quoting Tegal at 3:36‐4:32); Tegal at Fig. 1
`
`23
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 23
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Processing A Substrate At A First
`Temperature And Then At A Second Temperature
`
`Second
`temperature
`= 140°C
`
`First
`temperature
`= 90°C
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9, 4:42‐43
`
`24
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 24
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Changing Temperature
`Within A Preselected Time Period
`
`Change from a first
`temperature to a
`second temperature
`
`Matsumura
`
`Preselected time period = 20 seconds
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`25
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 25
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches
`Using The Disclosed Process For Etching
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 10:3‐7
`
`26
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 26
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches Electronically Controlling
`The Temperature Of The Substrate
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 5:64‐68
`
`27
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 27
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Narita Teaches The Use Of
`Two Temperature Sensors
`
`Narita
`
`Narita at Fig. 1; Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 17
`
`28
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 28
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Teaches Each And Every Element
`Of Exemplar Claim 27
`
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device,
`the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder temperature
`with a heat transfer device, the substrate holder having at least one
`temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate holder in a
`chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second substrate
`temperature, the selected second substrate temperature being
`different from the selected first substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected first
`substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature,
`using a measured substrate temperature, within a preselected time
`interval for processing, and
`at least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room temperature.
`
`29
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 29
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Argues That
`One Claim Limitation Is Not Met
`
`But, the Board has already
`rejected Flamm’s arguments
`regarding that claim limitation:
`
`* * *
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 14‐15 (quoting Matsumura at 4:42‐43)
`
`30
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 30
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Admits Processing At A First Temperature
`And Then At A Second Temperature Is Well Known
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 8
`
`31
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 31
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Tegal Discloses Changing From A First Temperature
`To A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Tegal
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12 (quoting Tegal at 5:5‐45)
`
`32
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 32
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Tegal Discloses Changing From A First Temperature
`To A Second Temperature
`
`Tegal teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Tegal
`
`* * *
`
`Tegal at 5:32‐34, 5:39‐41
`
`33
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 33
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses Changing From A First
`Temperature To A Second Temperature
`
`Matsumura teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`Second
`substrate
`temperature
`First
`substrate
`temperature
`
`Matsumura
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`34
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 34
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses Changing Temperatures
`Within A Preselected Time Period
`
`Matsumura teaches that a …
`
`“substrate temperature is changed from the
`selected first substrate temperature to the selected
`second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Matsumura
`
`Preselected
`time interval
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`(TIME=20 seconds)
`
`35
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 35
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`36
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 36
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Makes An Unsupported
`Obviousness Argument
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`37
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 37
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Board Rejected Dr. Flamm’s Argument
`
`Board combined Tegal with
`Matsumura for the disputed
`claim limitation
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 21‐22
`
`38
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 38
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Teaches
`The Entirety Of The Disputed Limitation
`
`“[W]herein substrate temperature is changed from
`the selected first substrate temperature to the
`selected second substrate temperature, using a
`measured substrate temperature, within a
`preselected time interval for processing”
`
`Second Temperature = 140° C
`
`First Temperature = 90° C
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 9
`
`39
`
`Preselected time period = 20 Seconds
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 39
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Specifies A “Predetermined Period
`Of Time” For The Temperature Change
`
`Matsumura at 3:1‐7
`
`40
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 40
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Both The ’264 Patent And Matsumura Disclose Changing
`Temperature Over A Preselected Time Interval
`
`Second
`temperature
`
`First
`temperature
`
`Changing
`temperature
`over a
`preselected
`time interval
`
`(Time = B‐BB seconds)
`
`’264 Patent
`Fig. 10
`
`(Time=20 seconds)
`
`Matsumura Patent
`Fig. 9
`
`41
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 41
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Is Directed To Etching Processes
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`42
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 42
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`It Is Well Within Skill Of A POSITA To Use
`Matsumura’s Teachings For An Etch Process
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 55
`
`43
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 43
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`In Addition, Matsumura And Tegal Combined
`Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Tegal teaches a first etch
`temperature (80 °C)
`followed by a second etch
`temperature (10 °C – 40 °C)
`
`Matsumura teaches
`changing from a first temperature
`to a second temperature “within
`a preselected time interval”
`
`+
`
`Tegal
`
`Matsumura
`
`44
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 44
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm’s Unsupported Obviousness Argument
`Would Preclude Combining References
`
`Dr. Flamm argues a single
`prior art reference must
`disclose the entirety of a
`claim limitation
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 4
`
`45
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 45
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm’s Unsupported Rule Is Contrary To
`The Law on Obviousness
`
`“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art
`are to be determined; differences between the prior
`art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`resolved.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc., 550 U.S. 498, 406 (2007)
`(quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17‐18 (1966))
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 11
`
`46
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 46
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Teachings Of Multiple Patents Can Be
`Fit Together Like Pieces Of A Puzzle
`
`“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (emphasis added)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 10
`
`47
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 47
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Combination
`Need Not Be Physically Combinable
`
`"[I]t is not necessary that [Caterpillar and
`Ogawa] be physically combinable to
`render obvious the [‘489 patent].”
`
`Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`Slip Op. No. 15‐1533 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2016)
`(citing In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and
`In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc))
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`48
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 48
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Prior Art Combination
`Need Not Be Physically Combinable
`
`“The test for obviousness is not whether the
`features of a secondary reference may be
`bodily incorporated into the structure of the
`primary reference . . . .”
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A., 1981)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2015‐01764) at 2
`
`49
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 49
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`1. The Purported Invention
`
`2. The Claims
`
`3. The Prior Art Teaches All Of The Claim Limitations
`
`4. Dr. Flamm’s Obviousness Argument Is Contrary
`To The Case Law
`
`5. There Is Motivation To Combine
`
`50
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 50
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Argues That There Is No Motivation
`To Combine Tegal With Matsumura
`
`Tegal
`
`Matsumura
`
`Dr. Flamm: Etching Only
`
`Dr. Flamm: Electronic Control
`System For Processes Other
`Than Etching
`
`51
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 51
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Explicitly Teaches Using
`Its Electronic Control System With Etching
`
`The Matsumura invention can
`be used for etching processes
`such as Tegal:
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`52
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 52
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Board Agrees That Matsumura
`Can Be Used With Etching
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 13‐14 (quoting Matsumura at 10:3‐7)
`
`53
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 53
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Tegal Also Provides A Motivation To Combine Its
`Invention With Matsumura’s Electronic Control System
`
`The Board agrees:
`
`Decision to Institute IPR2015‐01764 at 12‐13 (quoting Tegal at 3:36‐4:32)
`
`54
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 54
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi Agrees That There Is Motivation
`To Combine Tegal and Matsumura
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 133
`
`55
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 55
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Matsumura Also Teaches Benefits
`Of Electronic Temperature Control
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 134
`
`56
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 56
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`The Combination Provides For
`More Flexible Temperature Control
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 135
`
`57
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 57
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi Agrees That Tegal And Matsumura
`Can Be Combined
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 55
`
`58
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 58
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Cecchi: Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Dr. Flamm Does Not Provide Any
`Evidence to Dispute This
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1006) at ¶ 137
`
`59
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 59
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Incorrectly Limits Matsumura’s Teachings
`To The Preferred Embodiments
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Second Petition (IPR2015‐01764) at 4
`
`60
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 60
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Explicitly Teaches Using
`Its Electronic Control System With Etching
`
`The Matsumura invention can
`be used for etching processes
`such as Tegal:
`
`Matsumura at 10:5‐7
`
`61
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 61
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`But Matsumura Is Not Limited
`To The Preferred Embodiments
`
`No mention of the HMDS
`process or baking process:
`• In the title
`of the invention
`• In the abstract
`• In the field of the
`invention
`• In the summary of
`the invention, or
`• In the claims
`
`Matsumura
`
`62
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 62
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Expert Testimony That Matsumura
`Is Not Limited To The Preferred Embodiment
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Cecchi:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi (IPR2015‐1764, Ex. 1015) at ¶ 48
`
`63
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 63
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`Dr. Flamm Provides No Expert Testimony
`To Respond To Lam’s Expert
`
`Defendant Flamm
`
`Dr. Joseph Cecchi
`University of New Mexico
`
`64
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 64
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2015‐01764 and 01768
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264E
`
`October 11, 2016
`Morgan Chu
`Samuel Lu
`
`65
`
`LAM Ex 1019-p. 65
`LAM v FLAMM
`IPR2015-01768