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. 5,711,849
`
`Issued: January 27, 1998
`
`Named Inventors: Daniel L. Flamm & John P. Verboncoeur
`
`Title: PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
`IN GAS PHASE DRY ETCHING
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849 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
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg1
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Issued: January 27, 1998
`
`Named Inventors: Daniel L. Flamm & John P. Verboncoeur
`
`Title: PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
`IN GAS PHASE DRY ETCHING
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L. CECCHI IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849 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
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg1
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`I, Joseph L. Cecchi, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
` Declaration for Petition
`
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Declaration.
`
`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.
`
`5,711,849 (“the ‘849 patent”). I opine only with respect to certain issues that are
`
`3.
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`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. I also serve
`
`concurrently as Associate Provost for National Laboratory Relations.
`
`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
`
`4.
`5. My first appointment as Dean of the School of Engineering extended
`
`Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
`
`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
`
`6458854
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg2
`
`
`
`6.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`organization responsible for patenting and licensing UNM’s intellectual property.
`
`I currently serve as Vice Chair of the Science and Technology Corp. at UNM.
`
`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).
`
`From 1991 to 1994, I was Director of the New Jersey SEMATECH
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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
`
`member of the Interconnect Technical Working Group (“TWG”) for the SIA
`
`International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (“ITRS”).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg3
`
`
`
`9.
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`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. 10.
`
`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”.
`
`I have published over ninety papers in my fields of expertise. Among
`
`the eight United States patents on which I am an inventor and an additional patent
`
`application for which the claims have been allowed, the following six 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 September 30, 1991.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`11.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg4
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`“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.
`
`“Ultra-Thin Microporous/Hybrid Materials,” U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,187,678, Issued May 29, 2012.
`
`“Enzymatically Active High-Flux Selectively Gas-Permeable
`
`Membranes,” U.S. Patent Application No.: 14/215,962, Claims
`
`Allowed, September 29, 2015.
`
`I have been elected as a fellow in AVS, The Society for the Science
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`13.
`
`and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing.
`
`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.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg5
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`14. As a professor, I have taught courses in silicon semiconductor devices
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
` Declaration for Petition
`
`and process technology at undergraduate and graduate levels. Many of the
`
`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.
`
`15. My curriculum vitae (CV) (Exhibit 1006) includes additional details
`16. The ‘849 patent generally relates to optimizing a semiconductor
`
`about my experience and professional background.
`
`device fabrication process and/or a plasma etching apparatus to reduce etch non-
`
`uniformities. In the embodiment discussed, a film (e.g., photoresist) covering a
`
`semiconductor wafer is etched and measured to extract etch rate data, which is then
`
`compared with a standard model of diffusion-limited first-order chemical
`
`reactions, to extract model parameters including a surface reaction rate constant.
`
`The surface reaction rate constant and/or other reactor parameters, for example, the
`
`diffusivity or the spacing between adjacent wafers, are then adjusted, in order to
`
`yield a more uniform etch rate profile. Ex. 1001.
`
`In my research, I have designed, constructed, and used plasma
`
`reactors, including inductively coupled plasma reactors, helicon plasma reactors,
`
`electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma reactors, and co-axial plasma reactors.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`17.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg6
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`I have used these plasma reactors for plasma etching and plasma assisted chemical
`
`vapor deposition. For example, publication 74 in my CV (Ex. 1006 at 15),
`
`describes a plasma processing apparatus, including an electron cyclotron resonance
`
`(ECR) plasma source used for plasma etching of polysilicon, silicon dioxide and
`
`silicon. 18.
`
`I have also used data collected from these reactors to modify,
`
`improve, and optimize the operation of the reactors. For example, publications 75
`
`and 77 in my CV (Ex. 1006 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 coupler included a dielectric window that
`
`functioned as a transmission line that adjusted the phase of the microwaves to
`
`match to the plasma. The optimized coupling reduced 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. 19. Publications 78 and 79 in my CV (Ex. 1006 at 15) describe a method
`
`for producing more uniform plasmas in ECR plasma etch reactors which led to
`
`more uniform etch rate across wafers. 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
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg7
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`polysilicon etch rate uniformity across the wafer was correlated with the plasma
`
`across the wafer was uniform to within about 2%
`
`uniformity. When the plasma uniformity was maximized, the polysilicon etch rate
`
`20. Publications 79 in my CV (Ex. 1006 at 15) describes another method
`
`for producing more uniform plasmas in ECR plasma etch reactors, based on
`
`multiplexing two different microwave modes in the transmission waveguide used
`
`to introduce the microwave power into the ECR reactor. The result of mixing the
`
`two modes was a more uniform deposition of the microwave power across the
`
`reactor. This work is the basis for U.S. Patent, 5,302,803, on which I am co-
`
`inventor. 21. As further examples, publications 92, 93, and 94 in my CV (Ex. 1006
`
`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
`
`control of thin film deposition. A co-axial inductively coupled plasma reactor was
`
`used in this work. In this work, reactant species diffused across the surface of the
`
`substrate where they underwent chemical reactions. 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, 8,187,678, and U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg8
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`14/215,962 (for which claims were allowed, September 29, 2015) on which I am
`
`I have also been asked to provide my technical opinions on concepts
`
`discussed in the ‘849 patent and other reference documents, as well as my
`
`technical opinions on how these concepts relate to several claim limitations of the
`
`‘849 patent in the context of the specification.
`
`In reaching the opinions stated herein, I have considered the ‘849
`
`patent, its prosecution history, and the references listed in the table below, and
`
`have also drawn as appropriate upon my own education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (the ‘849 patent)
`
`1002
`
`James F. Battey, The Effects of Geometry on Diffusion-Controlled
`Chemical Reaction Rates in a Plasma, JOURNAL OF THE
`ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY: SOLID-STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
`Vol. 124, No. 3 (March 1977) (Battey)
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`25.
`
`an inventor.
`
`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.
`
`I have been asked my technical opinions regarding the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates to the ‘849
`
`patent and other reference documents.
`
`22.
`23.
`24.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg9
`
`
`
`1003
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`Carl Galewski and William G. Oldham, Modeling of a High
`Throughput Hot-Wall Reactor for Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon,
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, Vol. 5,
`No. 3 (August 1992) (Galewski)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,450,205 (Sawin)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`‘849 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1008 H. Scott Fogler, ELEMENTS OF CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING 635-
`642 (2nd ed. 1992).
`
`III. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I have approached my analysis of the ‘849 patent from the perspective
`
`26.
`
`of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a PHOSITA) at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the ‘849 patent, which I have been informed is May 3,
`
`1995, the earliest priority date recited by the ‘849 patent.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg10
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`28. Based on these factors, in my opinion, a person having ordinary skill
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
` Declaration for Petition
`
`in the art of the ‘849 patent would generally have had either (i) a Bachelor’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,
`
`or (ii) a Master’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a
`
`manufacturing or related fields.
`
`similar field and one or two years of work experience in semiconductor
`
`29. Based on this understanding of a PHOSITA for the ‘849 patent, I
`
`believe that I am at least a person having ordinary skill in the art for purposes of
`
`the ‘849 patent. For example, my qualifications and experiences discussed in
`
`Section II above, and in my CV (Ex. 1006), demonstrate my familiarity with and
`
`knowledge of the art of the ‘849 patent. I therefore believe that I am qualified to
`
`offer this declaration as to how such a person would have interpreted the ‘849
`
`patent and the prior art on or about May 3, 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 ‘849 patent at the time of the purported invention of
`
`the ‘849 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`30. 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.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg11
`
`
`
`31.
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`32.
`
`disclosed—i.e., if the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`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
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg12
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior art or a reconfiguration of
`
`a known system).
`
`33.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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;
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`34.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg13
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`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”;
`
`
`
`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.
`
`I appreciate that secondary considerations may be considered, if
`
`35.
`
`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 ‘849 patent, nor am I
`
`aware of any commercial success attributable to the ‘849 patent.
`
`I am also unaware of any copying of the alleged invention of the ‘849
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`patent.
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg14
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`I am unaware of any use to which the owner of the ‘849 patent has put
`
`
`
`the patent except to assert it in litigation.
`
`V. THE ‘849 PATENT
`I understand Lam is challenging claims 1-29 (“challenged claims”) of
`
`the ‘849 patent.
`
`36.
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the challenged claims are all directed to a method for
`
`fabricating semiconductor devices in a plasma etching apparatus. In the method, a
`
`film on the surface of the semiconductor is etched, yielding a non-uniform etch
`
`profile from which etch characteristics, such as a surface reaction rate constant, are
`
`derived. The surface reaction rate constant may then be used, such as in the
`
`fabrication of the device or to adjust or modify the plasma etching apparatus.
`
`I understand that the ‘849 patent issued from an application that was
`
`originally filed on May 3, 1995 and includes no claim to earlier priority. Ex. 1001-
`
`1; Ex. 1007. I understand that the references relied upon in this Petition are prior
`
`art to the ‘849 patent because they all predate May 3, 1995, the earliest possible
`
`priority date recited by the ‘849 patent.
`
`39. The crux of the alleged invention of the ‘849 patent is the
`
`A. Representative Claim 1
`
`straightforward and well-known process of modeling and/or optimizing uniformity
`
`of etch profiles for semiconductor devices in a plasma etch apparatus. For
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`38.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg15
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`example, claim 1 recites a process comprising (a) “providing a plasma etching
`
`apparatus comprising a substrate therein, said substrate comprising a top surface
`
`and a film overlaying said top surface, said film comprising a top film surface,” (b)
`
`“etching said top film surface to define a relatively non-uniform etching profile on
`
`said film,” (c) “defining etch rate data comprising an etch rate and a spatial
`
`coordinate which defines a position within said relatively non-uniform etching
`
`profile on said substrate, said etching comprising a reaction between a gas phase
`
`etchant and said film,” (d) “extracting a surface reaction rate constant from said
`
`etch rate data,” and (e) “using said surface reaction rate constant in the fabrication
`
`of a device.” Ex. 1001 [‘849 patent] at 17:36-50.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg16
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
` Declaration for Petition
`
`Plasma Etching Apparatus Comprising A Substrate
`Therein
`
`40. The ‘849 patent shows embodiments of a plasma etching apparatus in
`
`
`
`Figures 1 and 2. The embodiment in Figure 1 is described as “a co-axial reactor
`
`[that] includes at least three processing zones . . . a plasma processing zone (PG)
`
`13, a transport zone (TZ) 15, a plate stack zone (PS) 17, and others.” Ex 1001
`
`[‘849 patent] at 2:58-62. The plate stack zone allows for multiple wafers to be
`
`stacked co-axially, as shown in Fig. 1. The embodiment in Figure 2 is described as
`
`“a single wafer etching apparatus with elements such as a chamber 53, a top
`
`electrode 55, a bottom electrode 57, a power source 59, a platen 64, and others.”
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The ‘849 Patent Disclosure
`1.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg17
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`Id. at 4:16-18. The ‘849 patent describes a method whereby “[a] substrate with an
`
`overlying film is placed into a plasma etching apparatus. . . . [and a] step of plasma
`
`etching the film is performed.” Id. at 5:11-16.
`
`2.
`
`Relatively Non-Uniform Etching Profile
`
`
`
`41. The ‘849 patent describes how “[a] limitation with the conventional
`
`
`
`plasma etching technique is obtaining and maintain etching uniformity,” which it
`
`claims “relies upon a ‘trial and error’ process” to obtain and maintain such desired
`
`uniformity. Id. at 1:26-34. Figure 1A shows an “example of an etched substrate
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg18
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`21 from the plate stack zone,” where “the top surface film includes a convex
`
`region, or etching profile … [which] occurs by way of different etch rates along the
`
`r-direction of the substrate corresponding to different etchant species
`
`concentrations.” Id. at 3:66-4:6. In an effort to systematize the process of
`
`obtaining and maintaining etching uniformity, “a plasma etching method that
`
`includes determining a reaction rate coefficient based upon etch profile data is
`
`provided.” Id. at 1:51-53. Accordingly, the ‘849 patent asserts that “an easy and
`
`cost effective way to select appropriate etching parameters . . . by way of the etch
`
`profile data” is facilitated. Id. at 1:54-57.
`
`3.
`
`Etch Rate Data Comprising An Etch Rate And A Spatial
`Coordinate
`
`42. The ‘849 patent describes the characterization of a relatively non-
`
`uniform etching profile for an etched substrate in terms of “etch rate data,”
`
`including an etch rate and a spatial coordinate. “The etching profile is thereby
`
`characterized as a relative etch rate u, a x-location, and a y-location u, (x, y).” Id.
`
`at 5:38-41. In addition to x-y coordinates, the ‘849 patent discusses how, “[i]n
`
`cylindrical coordinates, the relative etch rate is also in the z-direction, and the
`
`spatial coordinates are defined in the r and θ coordinates.” Id. at 5:42-44.
`
`43. The ‘849 patent discusses etching a sample substrate to yield an
`
`4.
`
`Surface Reaction Rate Constant
`
`“etching profile,” and how “[t]he present methods provide for improved etching
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg19
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`conditions by way of a reaction rate constant derived from . . . [the] etching
`
`profile.” Id. at 4:67-5:3. The specification describes modelling a measured etch
`
`rate according to the following solution, (cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:3010)(cid:3116)(cid:3436)(cid:3495)(cid:3286)(cid:3297)(cid:3116)(cid:3253)(cid:3045)(cid:3440)
`(cid:3010)(cid:3116)(cid:3436)(cid:3495)(cid:3286)(cid:3297)(cid:3116)(cid:3253)(cid:3028)(cid:3440), where u(r) is the etch
`
`rate, I0 is the modified Bessel function of the first kind, D is the diffusivity, a is the
`
`outer radius of the wafer, and kν0 is the reaction rate constant. Id. at 6:20-25. For
`
`the particular geometry of the co-axial reactor described in the ‘849 patent, the
`
`surface reaction rate constant is related to the reaction rate constant via, Ks =
`
`(kvo)dgap, where dgap is the wafer spacing. Id. at 6:58-62.
`
` The ‘849 patent goes on to describe using the extracted surface
`
`44.
`
`reaction rate in some embodiments. For example, it states “[f]rom the
`
`concentration and the surface reaction rate, the particular etching step can be
`
`improved by way of adjusting selected etching parameters.” Id. at 7:22-24.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`In my opinion, patents and printed publications predating the
`
`purported invention of the ‘849 patent disclosed the limitations of the challenged
`
`claims. For example, the references discussed herein disclose methods for
`
`fabricating semiconductor devices in a plasma etching apparatus, wherein a film on
`
`the surface of the semiconductor is etched, yielding a non-uniform etch profile
`
`from which etch characteristics, such as a surface reaction rate constant, are
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`45.
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg20
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`derived and used, such as in the fabrication of the device or to adjust or modify or
`
`46. The prior art article by Battey, The Effects of Geometry on Diffusion-
`
`re-design the plasma etching apparatus.
`
`Controlled Chemical Reaction Rates in a Plasma, was published by the Journal of
`
`the Electrochemical Society in March 1977. Ex. 1002. Battey describes a process
`
`for stripping photoresist from silicon wafers in a plasma etch apparatus and
`
`modeling etch non-uniformity. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 437 (Abstract). In
`
`my opinion, it teaches or suggests a process for device fabrication. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1002 [Battey] at p. 437, 439. Battey further teaches or suggests providing a plasma
`
`etching apparatus comprising a substrate therein comprising a top surface and a
`
`film overlying said top surface, said film comprising a top film surface, and
`
`etching said top surface at a temperature, via a reaction between a gas phase
`
`etchant and said film, to define a relatively non-uniform etching profile on said
`
`film, thereby defining etch rate data comprising an etch rate and a spatial
`
`coordinate from which is extracted a surface reaction rate constant for said
`
`temperature. Id. at 437-38, 440. I discuss the Battey reference in more detail
`
`below in Section VII.A-C where I explain my opinions that claims 1-29 of the ‘849
`
`patent are unpatentable based on the grounds discussed in those sections.
`
`47. The prior art article by Galewski, Modeling of a High Throughput
`
`Hot-Wall Reactor for Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon, was published by the
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg21
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing in August 1992. Ex. 1003.
`
`Galewski describes diffusion-limited chemical reactions in a co-axial reactor to
`
`conduct chemical vapor deposition for epitaxial growth of silicon. Ex. 1003
`
`[Galewski] at p. 169. It describes using “[t]he simplest possible model that
`
`accurately predict these [growth] data,” nothing that “a simple first-order model is
`
`sufficient” to model growth non-uniformity on the semiconductor wafers in the
`
`radial direction. Id. The model is then employed “to demonstrate improvements to
`
`the existing hot-wall reactor, and to propose a design for a scaled up production-
`
`sized hot-wall reactor.” Id. I discuss the Galewski reference in more detail below
`
`in Section VII.B-C where I explain my opinions that claims 1-29 of the ‘849 patent
`
`are unpatentable based on the grounds discussed in those sections.
`
`In addition to Battey and Galewski, I discuss other reference in
`
`Section VII where I explain my opinions that claims 1-29 of the ‘849 patent are
`
`48.
`
`unpatentable based on the grounds discussed in that section.
`
`VII. OPINIONS RELATING TO EACH OF THE GROUNDS
`
`49. As I explain in detail below, it is my opinion that claims 1-29 of the
`50.
`
`‘849 patent are unpatentable on the following grounds.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 26-28 Are Obvious Over Battey Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`In my opinion, Battey teaches the well-known process of optimizing
`
`uniformity of etch profiles for semiconductor devices in a plasma etch apparatus,
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`6458854
`
`
`
`LAM Exh 1005-pg22
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
` Declaration for Petition
`
`
`
`and teaches or renders obvious all of the elements of independent claim 26 and
`
`dependent claims 27 and 28.
`
`51.
`
`1.
`
`Battey Teaches All the Limitations of Independent Claim 26
`
`In my opinion, Battey teaches “A process for fabricating a device
`
`using a plasma etching apparatus,” as recited by claim 26. Battey is generally
`
`directed to modelling and adjusting edge-to-center inhomogeneity for etching of
`
`photoresist on semiconductor wafers. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 437-439;
`
`Id. at p. 437 (“If a boatload of silicon wafers is introduced in an oxygen plasma,
`
`the atomic oxygen must diffuse between the wafers in order to strip the photoresist.
`
`The strip
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
