By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2016-0468
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`FIFTH PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2016-0468
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`FIFTH PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... iii
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`
`II. Kadomura and Moslehi .......................................................................... 2
`
`III. Lam’s Analysis ...................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)........................................................................... 6
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)........................................................................... 6
`
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) ........................................................... 1
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case No. IPR2015-
`01759, DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016)
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the sole inventor and owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel, submits this preliminary
`
`response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 and asks that the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`Board decline to institute inter partes review on the instant petition because the
`
`petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This is Lam’s fifth petition for an IPR on Dr. Flamm’s RE40,264 patent. It is
`
`followed by two more petitions, bringing the total to seven. Trials were instituted
`
`on two of the first four petitions (Case Nos. IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01766)
`
`and denied on the other two (Case Nos. IPR2015-01759 and IPR2015-01766). A
`
`scorecard reflecting the rulings on the various patent claims is attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`Lam’s petition in Case No. IPR2015-01759 corresponds to the present petition
`
`in that it addressed independent claim 13 and all of its dependent claims, i.e., claims
`
`14-26 and 64-65. That petition was denied in its entirety. (Lam Research Corp. v.
`
`Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016), attached hereto as Exhibit 2001.)
`
`In that denied petition, Lam relied primarily on Tegal with an assist from
`
`Matsumura, neither of which is mentioned in the present petition. Lam now relies
`
`on Kadomura (Ex. 1002) with an assist from Moslehi (Ex. 1003). As will be
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`demonstrated below, however, these references, neither individually nor in
`
`combination, overcome the problems set forth by the Board in its denial to institute
`
`in Case No. IPR2015-01759.
`
`II. Kadomura and Moslehi
`
`Kadomura teaches a cryogenic two-step etching treatment wherein the etching
`
`is suspended between the first and second etches. During the suspension, the first
`
`etching gas is discharged and is replaced by a second etching gas for the second
`
`etching step. (Ex. 1002 at 6:36-:44; 8:24-:32; 10:4-:6.) One of the benefits of this
`
`approach, according to Kadomura, is that the time required to discharge the first gas
`
`and replace and stabilize the second gas allows sufficient time to change the substrate
`
`temperature for the second etching step:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that, [sic] is
`a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting remaining
`gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing and
`stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more than the
`time required for rapid cooling, the time required for the rapid cooling
`does not constitute a factor of delaying the time required for the etching
`treatment of the specimen W.
`(Id. at 6:55-:62; see also id. at 7:22-:30.)
`
`Kadomura teaches nothing about controlling the thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder or controlling the time interval for changing temperature. The time interval
`
`in Kadomura is dictated by his approach of discharging the gas after the first etch
`
`and introducing and stabilizing a second gas for the second etch. Accordingly, there
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`would be no benefit from controlling the thermal mass of the substrate holder (to
`
`reduce the time interval) or attempting to control the time interval.
`
`Thus, Kadomura teaches away from claim 13 by requiring that the etching be
`
`stopped after the initial etch, in order to change the gas for the second etch. (Id. at
`
`6:36-:44, 6:55-:62, 7:22-:30, 8:24-:32, 10:4-:6, and 12:51-14:14.) In contrast, claim
`
`13 of the ‘264 patent has no such limitation.
`
`Moslehi is summed up nicely in the opening paragraph of its specification:
`
`The present invention relates in general to a multipurpose low-thermal-
`mass chuck for semiconductor processing equipment, and more
`particularly to a method and apparatus for producing radio-frequency
`plasma, wafer heating, and wafer cooling in plasma processing
`applications (etch, deposition, annealing, and surface cleaning).
`(Ex. 1003 at 1:7-:13.)
`
`The only apparent relevancy of Moslehi is that it teaches the use of a low-
`
`thermal-mass chuck or substrate holder. Like Kadomura, however, Moslehi has zero
`
`teaching or suggestion of the limitation of claim 13 that “the thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time during processing.” (Ex. 1001 at 21:1-:3 (emphasis added).)
`
`III. Lam’s Analysis
`
`Lam tries to bridge this gap by separating the inseparable—slicing the clause
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`in half and relying on Moslehi for the first half and Kadomura for the second half.1
`
`The attempt fails for several reasons.
`
`First, the Board specifically rejected Lam’s approach of parsing phrases that
`
`are “interdependent,” and it did so in its decision denying Lam’s First Petition
`
`relating to this very claim 13:
`
`At the outset, we agree with Flamm that Lam’s analysis improperly
`breaks the elements of claim 13 into small phrases, and then attempts
`to match disclosures from the prior art to those phrases taken out of
`context. In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal
`mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time during processing. The claim
`language requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be
`parsed into separate elements met individually. In other words, the
`thermal mass must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined
`temperature change within a specific interval of time (for example, a
`change of 10°C per minute). Lam’s analysis is deficient, to the extent
`it separates predetermined temperature change from specific interval
`of time and analyzes each separately.
`(Ex. 2001 at 17 (emphasis in original).)
`
`The fact that Lam now parses only in two segments instead of three, as in the
`
`first round, does not change the Board’s admonishment: “The claim language
`
`requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed into separate
`
`elements met individually.” (Id.) Clearly, as this Board observed, the word “for” in
`
`
`1 E, m, and c2 were separately all well known before Einstein.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`the clause “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined
`
`temperature change” establishes that the phrases are “interdependent.”
`
`Second, notwithstanding Lam’s page-long quote from Kadomura (Pet. at 26),
`
`there is no teaching in Kadomura of the claim 13’s limitations that “a predetermined
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing” and “the
`
`specified time interval comprises the time for changing from the selected first
`
`substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:2-:3 and 21:7-:10.) Both of these claim limitations require an
`
`interdependence between the time interval and the temperature change. As the
`
`Board observed in its decision denying Lam’s prior petition:
`
`In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal mass of
`the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change
`within a specific interval of time during processing. The claim
`language requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be
`parsed into separate elements met individually.
`(Ex. 2001 at 17.)
`
`Thus the claim language “temperature change within a specific interval of
`
`time” is interdependent. (Ex. 1001 at 21:2-:3 (emphasis added).) But, in Kadomura,
`
`the temperature change and the time interval are not interdependent. The time
`
`interval in Kadomura is totally divorced from the temperature change. As discussed
`
`above, the time interval in Kadomura is wholly a function of the time required to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`exhaust the first gas and introduce and stabilize the second gas. (Ex. 1002 at 6:55-
`
`:62.)
`
`For the same reason, Kadomura does not meet the final limitation in claim 13,
`
`i.e., “the specified time interval comprises the time for changing from the selected
`
`first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`
`temperature.” (Ex. 1001 at 21:7-:10.) Moreover, Kadomura fails to meet this
`
`limitation in any event as Kadomura teaches no interval at all, much less a “specified
`
`time interval” as required by claim 13. Lam has failed to meet its burden to “specify
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art,” as required under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Since neither of the two prior art references relied on by Lam teach or suggest
`
`three of the elements of claim 13, the petition as to claim 13 should be denied.
`
`As a matter of law, the petition should also be denied as to all of claims that
`
`depend from claim 13, i.e., claims 14-26 and 64-65. Hartness Int’l Inc. v.
`
`Simplimatic Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A fortiori, dependent
`
`claim 3 was nonobvious (and novel) because it contained all of the limitations of
`
`claim 1 plus a further limitation.”); Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`
`745 F.2d 1437, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“We need consider no other claim because
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`if the invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious the same is true as to the
`
`remaining dependent claims.”).
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 27, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim #
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`56
`57
`58
`59
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`
`Lam v. Flamm IPRs
`Appendix A
`IPR 2016‐0469
`IPR 2016‐0470
`IPR 2016‐0468
`IPR 2015‐01768
`IPR 2015‐01766
`IPR 2015‐01764
`IPR 2015‐01759
`'264 First Petition '264 Second Petition '264Third Petition '264 Fourth Petition '264 Fifth Petition '264 Sixth Petition '264 Seventh Petition
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`Not Instituted
`Instituted
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-0468
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 FIFTH PETITION
`
`was served by electronic mail on this day, April 27, 2016, on the following
`
`individuals:
`
`Michael Fleming
`(mfleming@irell.com)
`Samuel K. Lu
`(slu@irell.com)
`Kamran Vakili
`(kvakili@irell.com)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Beata Ichou/
`Beata Ichou
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
