UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR 2016-00466
`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
`___________
`
`PETITIONER LAM RESEARCH CORP.'S
`MOTION FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`9931172 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`On January 14, 2016, Petitioner Lam Research Corp. ("Petitioner") filed a
`
`Petition for inter partes review ("IPR") (Paper 1), challenging claims 1-29 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,711,849 ("the '849 patent") on three grounds:
`
` Ground 1: claims 26-28 are obvious over Battey (Ex. 1002);
`
` Ground 2: claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21 and 29 are obvious over Battey
`
`in view of Galewski (Ex. 1003); and
`
` Ground 3: claims 4, 6, 13, 15 and 22-25 are obvious over Battey in view
`
`of Galewski and Sawin (Ex. 1004).
`
`Patent Owner Daniel L. Flamm ("Patent Owner") filed a Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 5) on April 27, 2016. The Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board ("the Board" or "PTAB") issued its Decision (Paper 7) on July 19, 2016,
`
`denying institution of IPR proceedings as to all grounds.
`
`In its decision, the Board focuses on Petitioner's showings with respect to
`
`Battey, on which Petitioner relied in whole or in part for every ground of
`
`invalidity. With regard to Ground 1, the Board states,
`
`Petitioner does not directs us, with any specificity, to
`evidence demonstrating sufficiently that Battey's description
`of quantity h teaches extracting a surface reaction rate
`constant from etching rate data determined from a relatively
`non-uniform etching profile. Dr. Cecchi simply states that
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`‐ 1 ‐
`
` 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Battey's quantity h is the surface reaction rate constant
`divided by the diffusivity, and does not expound upon the
`reasons why a person skilled in the art would understand
`that to be the case.
`
`Int. Dec., 9. On Ground 2, the Board states, "Galewski does not remedy the
`
`deficiencies in Battey as described above with respect to [Ground 1]," and that
`
`Galewski is directed to epitaxial growth of silicon, and does
`not discuss etching generally or defining etch rate data
`specifically. Petitioner does not explain adequately how or
`why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`understand Galewski's surface rate constant, which is used to
`convert deposition rate to a flux as a function of concen-
`tration, to be teaching extracting a surface reaction rate
`constant as required by the claims of the '849 patent.
`
`Id., 12. Finally, regarding Ground 3, the Board states "Petitioner does not
`
`rely on Sawin to teach" the limitations on which the Board's decision rests. Id., 13-
`
`14. Instead, the Board again notes it is "not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that the combination of Battey and Galewski teaches extracting a
`
`surface reaction rate constant from etch rate data defined from a relatively non-
`
`uniform etching profile," and that "Petitioner does not explain adequately how or
`
`why a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Battey's
`
`quantity h is the ratio of the surface reaction constant to the diffusion coefficient."
`
`Id.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Petitioner contends that the Board's decision should be modified to institute
`
`proceedings on all grounds raised in the January 14, 2016 Petition. In particular,
`
`Petitioner contends that the Board's findings that "Dr. Cecchi simply states that
`
`Battey's quantity h is the surface reaction rate constant divided by the diffusivity,
`
`and does not expound upon the reasons" are unsupported by the substantial
`
`evidence. As set forth below, Petitioner specifically identifies where the Petition
`
`and accompanying Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph Cecchi (Ex. 1005) previously
`
`and explicitly addressed these matters.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`To institute an IPR, the Board must find that there is "a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable."
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). "A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single
`
`request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board." The request
`
`must "specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a
`
`motion, an opposition, or a reply." 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`"When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for
`
`an abuse of discretion." 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Abuse of discretion includes "where
`
`the decision is based . . . on factual findings that are not supported by substantial
`
`evidence . . . ." Gose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 451 F.3d 831, 836 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`particular, "[t]he Board necessarily abuses its discretion when it rests its decision
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`on factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence." O'Keefe v. U.S. Postal
`
`Serv., 318 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`The Board's denial of institution on each and every claim was based on an
`
`erroneous finding of fact regarding the Battey reference that was unsupported by
`
`substantial evidence. Despite the Petition and Dr. Cecchi's declaration pointing to
`
`Battey's express disclosure that h is the ratio of the surface reaction rate constant to
`
`the diffusivity, the Board found that "Dr. Cecchi simply states" this to be a fact
`
`"and does not expound upon reasons why a person skilled in the art would
`
`understand that to be the case." (Int. Dec., 9).
`
`But the original Petition and Cecchi Declaration did in fact point to specific
`
`and substantial objective evidence refuting the findings above. Because Petitioner
`
`relied in whole or in part on Battey for every ground of invalidity (as described
`
`below, Galewski was introduced primarily to address other claim limitations), the
`
`Petition therefore establishes the obviousness of claims 1-29 under combinations
`
`of Battey, Galewski and Sawin or, at minimum, establishes "a reasonable
`
`likelihood that . . . the claims . . . [are] unpatentable." 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`Petitioner's motion for rehearing should be granted and the Board should institute
`
`review of claims 1-29 of the '849 patent based on the Grounds set forth in the
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`January 14, 2016 Petition.
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`A. Battey's Quantity h Is The Surface Reaction Rate Constant
`Divided By The Diffusivity
`
`As noted above, the Board denied institution of the IPR based on its finding
`
`that "Dr. Cecchi simply states that Battey's quantity h is the surface reaction rate
`
`constant divided by the diffusivity, and does not expound upon the reasons why a
`
`person skilled in the art would understand that to be the case." Int. Dec., 9.
`
`But far from "simply stat[ing] that Battey's quantity h is the surface reaction
`
`rate constant divided by the diffusivity," Dr. Cecchi's declaration points to specific
`
`and substantial objective evidence demonstrating this fact in at least two instances.
`
`First, the declaration cites and quotes explicit statements from Battey establishing
`
`that h is the ratio of the surface reaction rate constant and the diffusivity. Second,
`
`the declaration undertakes an extended calculation that mathematically
`
`demonstrates that the surface reaction rate constant, and corresponding model of
`
`non-uniform reaction, disclosed in Battey is the same as the surface reaction rate
`
`constant, and corresponding model of non-uniform reaction, claimed in the '849
`
`patent. The math and engineering are not complicated: as Dr. Cecchi states in his
`
`declaration, a PHOSITA could "us[e] undergraduate engineering mathematics,
`
`including algebra and calculus . . . [to] show that the formulas modeling the
`
`relative etch rate in the ‘849 patent are mathematically equivalent to the
`
`corresponding formula[] in . . . Battey . . . ." Ex. 1005, ¶ 59.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Cecchi Identifies Battey's Explicit Showing That h Is
`The Ratio Of The Surface Reaction Rate Constant And The
`Diffusivity
`
`The Board has stated that "Petitioner does not direct us with any specificity,
`
`to evidence demonstrating sufficiently that Battey's description of quantity h
`
`teaches extracting a surface reaction rate constant from etching rate data
`
`determined from a relatively non-uniform etching profile." Int. Dec., 9. This
`
`finding is not supported by the substantial evidence for the reasons set forth below.
`
`First, the Petition explicitly addresses that the derivation of h is from
`
`"etching rate data determined from a relatively non-uniform etching profile." Dr.
`
`Cecchi's declaration discusses how Battey teaches using "etching rate data
`
`determined from a relatively non-uniform etching profile," citing several times to
`
`the Battey reference. Ex. 1005, ¶ 56 ("Battey describes a procedure . . . to 'strip the
`
`wafer for a length of time sufficient to remove a significant amount, but not all, of
`
`the photoresist from the center and edge of the wafer, and measure the thickness of
`
`the residual photoresist.' Ex. 1002, [Battey] at p. 438. . . . It discusses how '[t]he
`
`degree of inhomogeneity between edge and center also depends on the probability
`
`of reaction when a reactive species hits the photoresist.' Id. at p. 437 (Abstract).")
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1005, ¶ 56 ("The etch rate data comprising different etch
`
`rates at the edge and center of each wafer are also shown in Figure 2 of Battey,
`
`reproduced in the chart below.") (emphasis added).
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Dr. Cecchi's declaration then describes how Battey teaches using this data to
`
`derive a value of h. Ex. 1005, ¶ 56 ("Battey . . . states, 'It is known that h≈0.158
`
`cm-1 at 160 oC from the difference in etch rates at the edge and center in these
`
`experiments.' Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 439.") (emphasis added). Thus, Dr. Cecchi's
`
`declaration demonstrates that Battey derives a value of h from "the difference in
`
`etch rates at the edge and center" (e.g., a relatively non-uniform etching profile).
`
`Second, the Petition explicitly refutes the Board's finding that "Dr. Cecchi
`
`simply states that Battey's quantity h is the surface reaction rate constant divided
`
`by the diffusivity, and does not expound upon the reasons why a person skilled in
`
`the art would understand that to be the case. See Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 52, 58." Int. Dec., 9.
`
`Dr. Cecchi's declaration also cites and discusses specific portions of Battey that
`
`explicitly describe h as the surface reaction rate constant divided by the diffusivity.
`
`At ¶ 52, Dr. Cecchi describes how h is derived from consideration of a
`
`radiation boundary condition at the surface of the wafer: "[Battey] describes
`
`solving '[t]he radiation boundary condition [which] equates the diffusion current
`
`[of oxygen etchant] into the wafers, (cid:1830)(cid:3031)(cid:3092)(cid:3031)(cid:3053)(cid:4698)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868) , where D is the diffusion coefficient
`
`of atomic oxygen in molecular oxygen, to the reaction rate at the surface[.] Ex.
`
`1002, 438." (emphasis added). In the claim chart for claim element [26.g] at ¶ 64
`
`of his declaration, Dr. Cecchi explicitly reproduces Battey's formula for the "[t]he
`
`radiation boundary condition [which] equates the diffusion current . . . to the
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`reaction rate at the surface" as follows:
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 64 [26.g] (citing Ex. 1002, 438). The left-hand-side is the "diffusion
`
`current" (with D the "diffusion coefficient" or diffusivity) and the right-hand-side
`
`is "the reaction rate at the surface," comprised of "the average velocity" of oxygen
`
`(cid:1830)(cid:1856)(cid:2021)(cid:1856)(cid:1878)(cid:3628)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404)14(cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`atoms striking the wafer surface, (cid:2021)̅, the "probability of reacting per strike," p, and
`"the atomic oxygen concentration," (cid:2021). Id. (emphasis added).
`concentration, (cid:2021). This relation is also implicit in the calculations undertaken in Dr.
`Ks(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667) instead of (cid:2869)(cid:2872)(cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667). In other words, the following is true:
`(cid:1830)(cid:1856)(cid:2021)(cid:1856)(cid:1878)(cid:3628)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404) 14(cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`(cid:1856)(cid:2021)(cid:1856)(cid:1878)(cid:3628)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404) 14(cid:1830)(cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`If we set (cid:1860)(cid:3404) (cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)/4(cid:1830), this becomes (cid:3031)(cid:3092)(cid:3031)(cid:3053)(cid:4698)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404)(cid:1860)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667). Ex. 1005, ¶ 64
`
`It is a fundamental principal of chemistry that a reaction rate can be
`
`expressed as the product of a reaction rate constant, Ks, and a reactant
`
`Cecchi's declaration. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 52, 60-61. Thus, the right-hand-side of the
`
`equation above, representing the surface reaction rate, can be expressed as
`
`Battey's formula is algebraically re-arranged as follows (so that diffusivity D
`
`appears on the right-hand-side of the equation):
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`[26.g] (citing Ex. 1002, 438).
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`algebraically re-arranged as follows (so that diffusivity D appears on the right-
`
`Battey's formula (with (cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667) substituted for (cid:2869)(cid:2872)(cid:2021)̅(cid:1868)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)) is
`hand-side of the equation): (cid:1856)(cid:2021)(cid:1856)(cid:1878)(cid:3628)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404)(cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:1830)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`In other words, (cid:1856)(cid:2021)(cid:1856)(cid:1878)(cid:3628)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868)(cid:3404) (cid:1860)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:1830)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:1830)(cid:2021)(cid:4666)(cid:1878)(cid:3404)0(cid:4667)
`Both sides of the equation have a (cid:2021), which cancel each other out. This
`(cid:1860)(cid:3404) (cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:1830)
`hand-side, (cid:1837)(cid:3046) is the reaction rate constant and D is the "diffusion coefficient" or
`
`Thus,
`
`results in the following equation:
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 60 (Eq. 4). As discussed above, in the ratio above on the right-
`
`diffusivity. Thus it can be seen that Dr. Cecchi explicitly references specific and
`
`substantial objective evidence from Battey that mathematically establishes that
`
`Battey's h is the ratio of the surface reaction rate constant Ks to the diffusivity, D.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`2.
`
`The Cecchi Declaration Performs An Explicit Calculation
`To Confirm That Battey’s h Is The Ratio Of The Surface
`Reaction Rate Constant To Diffusivity
`In addition to showing that Battey itself defines h as the ratio of the surface
`
`reaction rate constant, (cid:1837)(cid:3046), to the diffusivity, D, Dr. Cecchi goes further in his
`
`declaration, mathematically demonstrating that Battey's disclosed surface reaction
`
`rate constant, and corresponding model of non-uniform reaction, are
`
`mathematically equivalent to what is claimed in the '849 patent. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 59-
`
`62.
`
`As set forth in his declaration, Dr. Cecchi begins by writing the '849 patent's
`
`formula for the relative etch rate u(r) at radial coordinate r in terms of the surface
`
`reaction rate constant:
`
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3297)(cid:3290)(cid:3005)(cid:1870)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3297)(cid:3290)(cid:3005)(cid:1853)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1837)(cid:3046)(cid:3404)(cid:4666)(cid:1837)(cid:3092)(cid:3042)(cid:4667)(cid:1856), then (cid:1837)(cid:3092)(cid:3042)(cid:3404)(cid:1837)(cid:3046)/(cid:1856), which can be substituted into the formula above),
`this equation can be expressed in terms of the surface reaction rate constant, (cid:1837)(cid:3046), as:
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1870)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1853)(cid:4679)
`
`As set forth in Dr. Cecchi's declaration (where he explains how because
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 60 (Eqs. 1-3). In the expression immediately above, I0 is the zeroth
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`Bessel function, d is the wafer spacing, D is the diffusivity, and a is the wafer
`
`radius. Dr. Cecchi notes that the expression in the '849 patent assumes a small
`
`wafer separation (i.e., d << a), allowing variations in etchant concentration along
`
`the axial (z) direction to be neglected. Id. ("This is true in the limit of d
`
`approaching 0 (or of d << a)"); see also Ex. 1001, 11:61-63 ("[T]he distance
`
`between stacked wafers dgap is small compared to the lineal dimensions of a
`
`substrate in the embodiment.").
`
`Dr. Cecchi then proceeds to evaluate the corresponding formulas in Battey.
`
`As set forth in his declaration, he writes Battey's formula for the relative etch rate:
`
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:4668)(cid:2009)cos(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1878)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)(cid:1860)(cid:1871)(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1878)(cid:4667)(cid:4669)(cid:3419)sin(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1856)(cid:4667)(cid:3398)(cid:3035)(cid:3080)(cid:1855)(cid:1867)(cid:1871)(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1856)(cid:4667)(cid:3423)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:1853)(cid:4667)(cid:4668)(cid:4666)(cid:2009)(cid:2870)(cid:3397)(cid:1860)(cid:2870)(cid:4667)(cid:1856)(cid:3397)2(cid:1860)(cid:4669)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 60 (Eq. 8). He notes that, unlike the '849 patent, "Battey does not . . .
`
`ignore variations in the concentration of the reactants in the axial (z) direction,"
`
`thus yielding a more complex-looking expression that includes z dependence. Id.
`
`To make evident the equivalence of Battey's model with that of the '849 patent
`
`model (when variations in the concentration of the reactants in the axial (z)
`
`direction are ignored in both models), Dr. Cecchi sets forth a series of
`
`mathematical calculations in his declaration to apply the small wafer spacing
`
`approximation to Battey's model.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`First, the parameter α, which Battey relates to h and d by a transcendental
`
`equation (see Ex. 1005, ¶ 60 (Eq. 4) and Ex. 1002, 438), is shown by Dr. Cecchi to
`
`reduce, in the small spacing limit, to α2 = 2h/d. Ex. 1005, ¶ 60 (Eq. 7). Dr. Cecchi
`
`then enforces the small separation limit by averaging over the z direction. Id. (Eqs.
`
`9-15). Thus, as set forth in Dr. Cecchi's declaration, the Battey model results in the
`
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)α(cid:1870)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)α(cid:1853)(cid:4667) (cid:4670)Battey(cid:4671)
`
`following expression:
`
`Id. (Eq. 15).
`
`Because α was calculated previously (α2 = 2h/d), taking the square root of α2
`
`and substituting the result into this equation produces:
`
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:2870)(cid:3035)(cid:3031)(cid:1870)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:2870)(cid:3035)(cid:3031)(cid:1853)(cid:4679) (cid:4670)Battey(cid:4671)
`
`Finally, substituting out h with the ratio of the surface reaction rate constant,
`
`Ks, to the diffusivity, D, (i.e., Ks/D) yields Battey's relative etch rate formula (in the
`
`limit of small wafer spacing): (cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:2870)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1870)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:2870)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1853)(cid:4679) (cid:4670)Battey(cid:4671)
`
`Id. (Eq. 16). Clearly, Battey’s relative etch rate formula is mathematically
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`equivalent to the '849 patent's relative etch rate formula:
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`(cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1870)(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:2868)(cid:4678)(cid:3495)(cid:3012)(cid:3294)(cid:3031)(cid:3005)(cid:1853)(cid:4679) (cid:4670)(cid:4593)849 patent(cid:4671)
`Id. (Eq. 3). (Battey's extra factor of √2 in the argument of the Bessel function is
`
`explained by Dr. Cecchi as due to Battey etching films on facing sides of two
`
`wafers [reducing the inter-wafer spacing from d to d/2]. The '849 patent only
`
`etches one side. Ex. 1005, ¶ 60.)
`
`That the expression for the relative etch rate in the '849 patent is
`
`mathematically equivalent to the expression in Battey (in the limit of small wafer
`
`spacing) is no passing coincidence. Rather, it is specific and substantial objective
`
`evidence that Battey and the '849 patent are exploiting the same model of diffusion
`
`limited first-order reactions to characterize the non-uniform etching of surface
`
`films. In particular, it validates Dr. Cecchi's identification of Battey's h with the
`
`ratio of the surface reaction rate constant, Ks, to the diffusivity, D. If Dr. Cecchi's
`
`identification were incorrect, then the expression for the relative etch rate in the
`
`'849 patent would not have been mathematically equivalent to the expression in
`
`Battey (in the limit of small wafer spacing).
`
`Thus, it is clear that both the '849 patent and Battey describe etching a
`
`surface film, modeling the non-uniform etch rate according to the formulas above,
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`and extracting etch rate parameters including the surface reaction rate constant.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`The Board's finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. The
`
`main difference between the models in Battey and the '849 patent, other than
`
`Battey's version being more general in not requiring close spacing, is that Battey
`
`was published 18 years before the '849 patent was filed.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner's Motion For Rehearing Does Not Rely Upon Galewski
`For The Teachings Specifically Objected To By The Board
`
`Galewski (Ex. 1003) was introduced primarily to address claim limitations
`
`related to "using the surface reaction rate constant to optimize the fabrication of a
`
`device or the design of a second plasma etching apparatus." Pet., 25; Ex. 1005, ¶
`
`68. The Board's objections to Galewski being "directed to epitaxial growth . . .
`
`[that] does not discuss etching," and that "Petitioner does not explain adequately
`
`how or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Galewski's
`
`surface rate constant . . . to be teaching extracting surface reaction rate constant as
`
`required by the claims of the '849 patent," (Int. Dec., 12) are thus obviated by the
`
`demonstration above that Battey itself teaches extraction of a surface reaction rate
`
`constant from etch rate data. See supra Section V.A. Petitioner's reasons for the
`
`combinability of Battey with Galewski with relation to elements pertaining to use
`
`of the reaction rate constant for optimization of device fabrication or apparatus
`
`design are set forth in the Petition and Dr. Cecchi's declaration, and were not
`
`specifically objected to in the Board's decision. Pet., 46-47; Ex. 1005, ¶ 117.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`IV. CONCLUSION
`As explained above, the January 14, 2016 Petition and accompanying
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cecchi present specific and substantial evidence demonstrating
`
`that the prior art not only disclose the elements of the challenged claims, but in fact
`
`disclose the same mathematical model underlying the claims as described in the
`
`specification of the '849 patent. Furthermore, a PHOSITA would have readily
`
`recognized the equivalence of those models. As explained and explicitly
`
`demonstrated in Dr. Cecchi's declaration, "[u]sing undergraduate engineering
`
`mathematics, including algebra and calculus, a PHOSITA . . . could show that the
`
`formulas modeling the relative etch rate in the '849 patent are mathematically
`
`equivalent to the corresponding formulae in . . . Battey . . . .." Ex. 1005, ¶ 59.
`
`That the same model of non-uniform chemical reaction discussed in the '849 patent
`
`turns up in prior art stretching back eighteen years is further evidence supporting
`
`Dr. Cecchi's demonstration that the model was known and that the connection
`
`between the art and the '849 patent would have been readily made by a PHOSITA.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`authorize a review of claims 1-29 of the '849 patent as rendered obvious by
`
`combinations of Battey, Galewski and Sawin as set forth in the January 14, 2016
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`
`IPR Case No. 2016-00466
` 
`
`
`
`Dated: August 17, 2016
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Michael Fleming
` Michael Fleming
`Michael Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707)
`Kamran Vakili (Reg. No. 64,825)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Tel.: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`mfleming@irell.com; slu@irell.com;
`kvakili@irell.com
`Attorneys for Petitioner Lam Research Corp.
`
`9931172 
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`
` 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 and 42.105, that a
`
`complete copy of PETITIONER LAM RESEARCH CORP.'S MOTION FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 is being served, pursuant to the parties'
`
`service agreement, via electronic mail (e-mail) upon the following , on the 17th
`
`day of August, 2016, the same day as the filing of the above-identified documents
`
`in the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`Registration No. 42,557
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`George Summerfield
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Summerfield@StadheimGrear.com
`
`
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`9931172