Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Filed: July 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.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Filed: July 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.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Lam Research Corporation (“Lam”), filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 27–50, 66, and 67 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’264
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm”),
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments
`presented in Flamm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the
`information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Lam would prevail in challenging any of claims
`27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties represent that the ’264 patent is presently at issue in a
`declaratory judgment action captioned Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and in an infringement action
`captioned Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 1:15-cv-00613-
`LY (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`In addition to this Petition, Lam also filed other petitions challenging
`the patentability of certain subsets of claims of the ’264 patent in the
`following cases: (1) Case IPR2015-01759; (2) Case IPR2015-01764; (3)
`Case IPR2015-01766; (4) Case IPR2015-01768; (5) Case IPR2016-00468;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`and (6) Case IPR2016-00469. Pet. 2. To date, another panel of the Board
`has entered a Decision Denying Institution in each of Cases IPR2015-01759
`and IPR2015-01766, and a Decision Granting Institution in each of Cases
`IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768.
`
`B. The ’264 Patent
`
`The ’264 patent, titled “Multi-Temperature Processing,” reissued
`April 29, 2008, from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/439,245 (“the ’245
`application”), filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
`The ’264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776 B1 (“the ’776
`patent”), which issued May 15, 2001, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/151,163 (“the ’163 application”), filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64].
`The ’264 patent is directed to a method “for etching a substrate in the
`manufacture of a device,” where the method “provide[s] different processing
`temperatures during an etching process or the like.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`The apparatus used in the method is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a substrate (product 28, such as a wafer to be etched) on a
`substrate holder (product support chuck or pedestal 18) in a chamber
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`(chamber 12 of plasma etch apparatus 10). Id. at 3:24–25, 3:32–33, 3:40–
`41.
`
`Figures 6 and 7, reproduced below, depict a temperature-controlled
`substrate holder and temperature control systems.
`
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7 depict temperature-controlled fluid flowing through
`substrate holder (600, 701), guided by baffles 605, where “[t]he fluid [is]
`used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder.” Ex. 1001,
`14:28–63, 16:5–67. Figure 6 also depicts heating elements 607 underneath
`the substrate holder, where “[t]he heating elements can selectively heat one
`or more zones in a desirable manner.” Id. at 15:10–26. Referring to Figure
`7, the operation of the temperature control system is described as follows:
`The desired fluid temperature is determined by comparing the
`desired wafer or wafer chuck set point temperature to a measured
`wafer or wafer chuck temperature . . . . The heat exchanger, fluid
`flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck,
`etc. should be designed using conventional means to permit the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`heater to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the
`temperature of
`the chuck and wafer
`to predetermined
`temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified
`uniformity limits.
`Id. at 16:36–39, 16:50–67.
`An example of a semiconductor substrate to be patterned is shown in
`Figure 9, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts substrate 901 having a stack of layers including oxide layer
`903, polysilicon layer 905, tungsten silicide layer 907, and photoresist
`masking layer 909 with opening 911, from the treatment method shown in
`Figure 10, reproduced below. Ex. 1001, 17:58–18:57.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts the tungsten silicide layer being etched between
`points B and D at a constant temperature; the polysilicon layer being
`exposed between Points D and E; the polysilicon layer being etched at a
`constant temperature beyond point E; and the resist being ashed beyond
`Point I. Ex. 1001, 18:58–19:64. The plasma’s optical emission at 530
`nanometers is monitored to determine when there is breakthrough to the
`polysilicon layer (Point D) and a lower etch temperature is required to etch
`the polysilicon layer (Point E). Id. at 19:8–24, 19:45–52.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 27 and 37 are the only independent
`
`claims at issue. Independent claim 27 is directed to a method of etching a
`substrate in the manufacture of a device, whereas independent claim 37 is
`directed to a method of processing a substrate during the manufacture of a
`device. Claims 28–36 and 66 directly depend from independent claim 27;
`and claims 38–50 and 67 directly depend from independent claim 37.
`Independent claim 27 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
`reproduced below:
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a
`device, the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder
`temperature with a heat transfer device, the substrate
`holder having at least one temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate
`holder in a chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second
`substrate temperature, the selected second substrate
`temperature being different from the selected first
`substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected
`first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`temperature, using a measured substrate temperature,
`within a preselected time interval for processing, and at
`least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room
`temperature.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:8–28 (italics omitted).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Lam relies upon the following prior art references:
`Inventor1 or
`Patent or
`Relevant Dates
`Applicant
`Publication No.
`Wang (“Wang
`U.S. Patent No.
`’485”)
`5,219,485
`Kawamura
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,892,207
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,063,710
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0 272 140
`A2
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0 399 676
`A1
`
`Kadomura
`
`Wang (“EP
`Wang”)
`
`Tegal
`
`issued June 15, 1993,
`filed Oct. 17, 1991
`issued Apr. 6, 1999,
`filed Nov. 27, 1996
`issued May 16, 2000,
`filed Feb. 21, 1997
`published June 22, 1988,
`filed Dec. 18, 1987
`
`published Nov. 28, 1990,
`filed May 1, 1990
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1003
`
`1005
`
`1002
`
`1006
`
`1004
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Lam challenges claims 27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent based on
`
`the asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set forth in the table
`below. Pet. 13–60.
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`References
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura § 103(a) 27–29, 31–46, 50, 66,
`and 67
`§ 103(a) 30 and 49
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`and Tegal
`Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang
`
`§ 103(a) 37, 47, and 48
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As an initial matter, we determine the proper standard of construction
`to apply. The term of a patent grant begins on the date on which the patent
`issues and ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for
`the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a
`specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section
`120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such
`application was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2002). The earliest patent
`application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for
`the ’264 patent, was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term
`extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than
`December 4, 2015.
`Because, on this record, we conclude that the term of the ’264 patent
`expired prior to the filing of the Petition, for purposes of this Decision we
`construe the claims of the ’264 patent under the standard applicable to
`expired patents. For claims of an expired patent, our claim interpretation is
`similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (en banc)). There is, however, a
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`The parties do not propose constructions for any claim terms recited
`in the challenged claims of the ’264 patent. See generally Pet. 12–14,
`Prelim. Resp. 1–16. Because there is no dispute between the parties
`regarding claim construction, we need not construe explicitly any claim term
`of the ’264 patent at this time. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those
`claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`B. Priority Date for the Challenged Claims of the ’264 Patent
`As explained previously, the ’264 patent reissued from the ’245
`
`application, filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [21], [22]. The ’245
`application is a reissue of the ’776 patent, which issued May 15, 2001, from
`the ’163 application, which was filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64]. The
`’163 application is a continuation-in-part of the following two applications:
`(1) the U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/058,650 (“the ’650 provisional
`application”), filed on September 11, 1997; and (2) U.S. Patent Application
`No. 08/567,224 (“the ’224 application”), filed on December 4, 1995. Id. at
`[60], [63], 1:11–15.
`
`Lam contends that Flamm may only claim the benefit of the filing
`date of the ’650 provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997, because
`this is the earliest filed application in the priority chain that includes
`sufficient written description support for certain limitations recited in the
`challenged claims. Pet. 4. Relying upon the testimony of its Declarant Dr.
`Joseph L. Cecchi, Lam explains how the ’224 application fails to disclose
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 27
`and 37. Id. at 8–12 (citing Ex. 1008, 45, 46, 53–65, 2 Figs. 1–9; Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 37–44). Consequently, Lam asserts that, because the ’224 application
`does not provide sufficient written description support for these limitations,
`the challenged claims only are entitled to the priority date of the ’650
`provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Id. at 12. Flamm does not
`present arguments as to whether the ’264 patent is entitled to claim a priority
`date earlier than September 11, 1997.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded by Lam’s argument that the ’224
`application does not provide sufficient written description support for
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 27
`and 37. For purposes of this Decision, Lam has presented sufficient
`evidence indicating that the challenged claims of the ’264 patent only are
`entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of the ’650 provisional
`application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Consequently, on this record, it
`
`
`2 All references to the page numbers in the ’224 application refer to page
`numbers inserted by Lam at the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`appears that both Kadomura and Kawamura qualify as prior art to the
`challenged claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura
`
`Lam contends that claims 27–29, 31–46, 50, 66, and 67 are
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`and Kawamura. Pet. 15–52. Lam explains how this proffered combination
`purportedly teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or
`modify the references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of
`Dr. Cecchi to support its positions. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–122. On this record, we
`are not persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time
`interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and similarly recited in
`independent claim 37.
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura, and then we address the parties’
`contentions with respect to independent claims 27 and 37.
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art;3 and (4) when in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this
`asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in
`mind.
`
`2. Kadomura Overview
`
`Kadomura generally relates to a dry etching method used primarily for
`the production of semiconductor devices and, in particular, to a dry etching
`method and apparatus that provides compatibility for anisotropic fabrication
`and high selectivity. Ex. 1002, 1:6–10. According to Kadomura, one
`objective of the disclosed dry etching method is to apply an etching
`treatment that includes a plurality of steps to a specimen within the same
`processing apparatus, wherein the temperature of the specimen is changed
`between etching in a first step and etching in a second step. Id. at 2:65–3:5.
`Because the disclosed dry etching method conducts each of the etching
`treatments in the same processing apparatus, the time for changing the
`specimen temperature between the steps may be shortened. Id. at 4:46–49.
`Moreover, by conducting the change of specimen temperature within a short
`period of time, dry etching treatment may be applied without deteriorating
`the throughput. Id. at 4:49–54.
`
`
`3 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Cecchi, Lam offers an assessment as to
`the level of skill in the art. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 27–30). Flamm does
`not challenge this assessment of the level of skill in the art or propose an
`alternative. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we
`accept the assessment offered by Lam and Dr. Cecchi.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Kadomura discloses three embodiments, each of which applies its dry
`etching method in a different manner. Ex. 1002, 5:44–56, Figs. 1A–1C, 2A–
`2C, 3A–3C. Of particular importance to this case is the first embodiment
`discussed in relation to Figures 1A–1C. This embodiment applies the dry
`etching method to a method of fabricating a W polycide using a two-step
`etching treatment. Id. at 6:1–7:18. The main etching in the first step is
`applied at a normal temperature (20ºCelsius (“C”)), whereas the overetching
`in the second step is applied at a much cooler temperature (-30ºC). Id. at
`6:17–28, 6:63–7:7 According to Kadomura, it is possible in this
`embodiment to attain both high selectivity and assurance for the anisotropic
`shape, as well as change the temperature of the specimen in a short period of
`time, by conducting each of the steps in the same etching device. Id. at
`7:19–23.
`
`3. Wang ’485 Overview
`
`Wang ’485 generally relates to a process for etching conductive layers
`used in semiconductor integrated circuits and, in particular, to a method for
`etching metal silicides, polycrystalline silicon, and composite silicide-
`polysilicon structures, as well as reactive plasma gas chemistry for use in
`such methods. Ex. 1003, 1:13–19. Of particular importance to this case are
`Figures 20 and 21, reproduced below, that depict the effect of hexode
`temperature on polysilicon etch rate and on molybdenum silicide etch rate
`for etching gases that are devoid of and contain a small volume percentage
`of additive gas, respectively. Id. at 6:1–5.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figures 20 and 21 each show an increase of silicide etch rates over a range
`from 45ºC to 75ºC for the substrate holder temperature. Id. at 10:14–30.
`
`4. Kawamura Overview
`
`Kawamura generally relates to a treatment unit and, in particular, to a
`temperature control apparatus for controlling the temperature of a support
`for a substance to be treated, such as a semiconductor wafer. Ex. 1005, 1:6–
`10. According to Kawamura, the treatment unit includes at least one
`temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the support. Id. at
`1:47–51.
`
`5. Claims 27 and 37
`
`Our analysis focuses on the following limitation recited in
`
`independent claim 27, and similarly recited in independent claim 37: “[the]
`substrate temperature is changed from the selected first substrate
`temperature to the selected second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing . . . .” Ex. 1001, 22:22–28
`(emphasis added), 23:15–21. We view the parties’ arguments regarding “a
`preselected time interval/period” as dispositive to Lam’s Petition.
`In its Petition, Lam relies on Kadomura’s first embodiment,
`particularly its disclosure of adjusting the temperature of the specimen
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`between etching steps in a short time period of about thirty (30) seconds, to
`teach “a preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and
`similarly recited in independent claim 37. Pet. 20–21, 26 (citing Ex. 1002,
`6:18–55, 7:19–30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 77); see also id. at 39, 41 (arguing the same).
`In response, Flamm contends that neither Kadomura nor any other prior art
`cited by Lam teaches this particular limitation required by independent
`claims 27 and 37. Prelim. Resp. 7; see also id. at 9 (arguing the same).
`Flamm argues that, although Kadomura discloses a short time period of
`about 30 seconds, there is no disclosure in Kadomura that this time period
`was selected at all. Id. at 7. Instead, Flam asserts that this time period
`disclosed in Kadomura is dictated by the time that it takes to discharge the
`first gas prior to introducing and stabilizing the second gas. Id. at 7–8
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:55–62, 7:19–30, 8:43–50).
`We agree with Flamm that Lam does not account properly for “a
`preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and similarly
`recited in independent claim 37. Kadomura discloses that, in its first
`embodiment, the temperature of the specimen is cooled rapidly between
`etching steps “within a short period of time of about 30 [seconds].”
`Ex. 1002, 6:52–55. Kadomura further discloses that, by conducting the
`etching steps in the same etching device, the temperature of the specimen
`may be adjusted in “a short period of time.” Id. at 7:22–24. Lam, however,
`does not direct us to, nor can we find, a disclosure in Kadomura indicating
`that its control device may pre-select the time period for adjusting the
`temperature of the specimen between etching steps. In other words,
`Kadomura is silent with respect to the control device adjusting the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`temperature of the specimen between etching steps to a certain temperature
`within a pre-selected time period.
`We also do not find Dr. Cecchi’s supporting testimony on this
`particular issue to be persuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 77. Dr. Cecchi’s analysis
`essentially repeats the arguments advanced in the Petition, and does not
`explain adequately how Kadomura’s short time period of about 30 seconds
`amounts to “a preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27,
`and similarly recited in independent claim 37. For these reasons, we do not
`credit his testimony that the combined teachings of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`and Kawamura properly account for all the limitations recited in
`independent claims 27 and 37.
`In summary, based on the record before us, Lam has not demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that independent
`claims 27 and 37 would have been obvious over the combination of
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`6. Claim 28, 29, 31–36, 38–46, 50, 66, and 67
`
`By virtue of their dependency, each of claims 28, 29, 31–36, 38–46,
`50, 66, and 67 include the same limitations as one of independent claims 27
`and 37. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
`independent claims 27 and 37, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that dependent claims 28, 29,
`31–36, 38–46, 50, 66, and 67 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`D. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang
`
`Lam contends that claims 37, 47, and 48 are unpatentable under
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`Pet. 54–60. Lam explains how this proffered combination purportedly
`teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or modify the
`references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Cecchi to
`support its positions. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 126–38. On this record, we are not
`persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time period,” as
`recited in independent claim 37.
`EP Wang generally relates to method for performing single and in-situ
`multiple integrated circuit processing steps, including thermal chemical
`vapor deposition, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (“PECVD”),
`reactor self-cleaning, film etchback, and modification of profile or other film
`property by sputtering. Ex. 1006, 1:4–10. In the context of discussing a
`preferred planarization process, EP Wang discloses a substrate having a film
`thereon. Id. at 30:14–17. EP Wang also discloses forming a conformal
`silicon dioxide coating with thermal chemical vapor deposition performed
`by heating a wafer to a temperature of 200ºC to 500ºC, as well as forming a
`layer of silicon dioxide with PECVD performed by heating the wafer to a
`temperature of 300ºC to 500ºC. Id. at 26:38–27:17, 29:54–30:4, 30:18–36.
`1. Claim 37
`As explained previously, independent claim 37 is similar to
`independent claim 27 in that it recites, in relevant part, “the substrate
`temperature control circuit is operable to change the substrate temperature
`from the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`temperature within a preselected time period to process the film.” Ex. 1001,
`23:15–21 (emphasis added). Lam relies upon essentially the same
`contentions with respect to independent claims 27 and 37 discussed above in
`the context of the asserted ground based on Kadomura, Wang ’485, and
`Kawamura to support its assertion that this particular limitation recited in
`independent claim 37 would have been taught by Kadomura. Compare Pet.
`20, 26, 39, 41 with id. at 56–57. For the same reasons discussed above, Lam
`does not account properly for “a preselected time period,” as recited in
`independent 37. Based on the record before us, Lam has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that independent
`claim 37 would have been obvious over the combination of Kadomura,
`Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`
`2. Claim 47 and 48
`
`By virtue of their dependency, claims 47 and 48 each include the
`same limitations as independent claim 37. Therefore, for the same reasons
`discussed above with respect to independent claim 37, Lam has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that
`dependent claims 47 and 48 would have been obvious over the combination
`of Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`
`E. Remaining Ground
`
`Lam also contends that claims 30 and 49 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and
`Tegal. Pet. 53–54. By virtue of their dependency, each of claims 30 and 49
`include the same limitations as one of independent claims 27 and 37. As
`applied by Lam, Tegal does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`teachings of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura identified above.
`Consequently, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
`prevail on its assertion that claims 30 and 49 would have been obvious over
`the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Tegal.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking into account the arguments presented in Flamm’s Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does
`not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Lam will prevail in
`challenging any of claims 27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent as
`unpatentable under § 103(a).
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is
`DENIED and no trial is instituted.
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel K. Lu
`Irell & Manella LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`slu@irell.com
`LamFlammIPR@irell.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
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
