trials@uspto.gov
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01764, IPR2015-01768
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 go to the next slide, this is
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
