Paper No. __
`Filed: July 29, 2016
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Joseph E. Palys (PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Chetan R. Bansal (PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR @paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. RE 40,264 E
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 2
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 2
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 5
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY, ’264 PATENT, AND
`PRIOR ART ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 5
`
`The ’264 Patent ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims ................................................ 9
`
`D. Okada I ................................................................................................ 10
`
`E.
`
`Incropera ............................................................................................. 13
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 16
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 18
`
`A. Overview of the Combined References .............................................. 18
`
`B. Ground 1: Okada I, Incropera, and Anderson Render Claims
`13, 15, 16, 22, and 64 Obvious............................................................ 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 34
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 64 .................................................................................... 38
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C. Ground 2: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Thomas Render
`Claim 14 Obvious ................................................................................ 39
`
`1.
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 39
`
`D. Ground 3: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Narita Render
`Claim 17 Obvious ................................................................................ 43
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 43
`
`Ground 4: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Yin Render
`Claim 18 Obvious ................................................................................ 46
`
`1.
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Ground 5: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Ishikawa Render
`Claims 19 and 20 Obvious .................................................................. 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 50
`
`G. Ground 6: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Kadomura
`Render Claims 21 and 23 Obvious ...................................................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 56
`
`H. Ground 7: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, Kadomura, and
`Okada II Render Claim 24 Obvious .................................................... 60
`
`1.
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 60
`
`I.
`
`Ground 8: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Mahawili Render
`Claims 25 and 26 Obvious .................................................................. 63
`
`1.
`
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 63
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 66
`
`2.
`
`J.
`
`Ground 9: Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and Matsumura
`Render Claim 65 Obvious ................................................................... 67
`
`1.
`
`Claim 65 .................................................................................... 67
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 46
`
`In re Boesch,
`617 F.2d 272 (CCPA1980) ................................................................................. 52
`
`Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984) ........................... 51
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`In re Luck,
`476 F.2d 650 (CCPA 1973) ................................................................................ 52
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 16
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 46
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F. 2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ......................................................................... 51
`
`Adminstrative Decisions
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247, Paper No. 20 (July 10, 2014) .................................................. 16
`
`Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors APS,
`IPR2015-01403, Paper No. 7 (Dec. 28, 2015) .................................................... 56
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01759, Paper No. 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) .............................................. 17, 28
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2016-01764, Paper No. 7 (February 24, 2016) ............................................. 44
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2016-00468, Paper No. 6 (June 30, 2016) .............................................. 10, 17
`
`Square Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00156, Paper No. 38 (May 14, 2015) .................................................. 16
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00633, Paper No. 11 (August 14, 2015) ............................................. 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 4, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 2, 3, 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ..................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Stanley Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Prosecution History of Reissue Patent 40,264
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/151,163
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H5-136095 to Okada Including
`Japanese-language version, English-language translation, and
`translation certification
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Frank P. Incropera et al., “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
`Transfer,” 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1990
`
`U.S. Statutory Invention Registration H1145 to Anderson
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 to Thomas et al.
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,876,119 to Ishikawa et al.
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`European Publication No. 0665575 to Yin
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 to Kadomura et al.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H5-243191 to Okada including
`Japanese-language version, English-language translation, and
`translation certification
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,059,770 to Mahawili
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,87 to Matsumura et al.
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`European Publication No. 0601788 to Collins et al.
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,884,778 to Sherstinsky et al.
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,746,928 to Yen et al.
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 to Narita et al.
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Igarashi et al., “Sub-quarter Micron Copper Interconnects through
`Dry Etching Process and its Reliability,” Symposium on VLSI
`Technology Digest of Technical Papers (1994)
`
`Forney, “Computing Radiative Heat Transfer Occurring in a Zone
`Fire Model,” Fire Science & Technology (1994)
`
`Rewerts, “The Effect of Liquid Innundation, Vapor Shear, and non-
`condensible gases on the condensation of refrigerants HFC-134a and
`HCFC-123,” Iowa State University (1994)
`
`Liu et al., “Heat Transfer and Flow Structures in an Excited Circular
`Impinging Jet,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (1996)
`
`Sharp et al., “Turbulent Heat Transfer Investigation: Turbulence
`Length Scales and Turbine Heat Transfer,” Wright Laboratory
`Report (1996)
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Print out from the Library of Congress Catalog
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 40,264 E (“the ’264
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), which, on its face, is granted to Daniel L. Flamm (“Patent
`
`Owner”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies the following as the real
`
`parties-in-interest: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’264 patent against
`
`Petitioner in Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:15-
`
`cv-613-LY (WDTX). The case was transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California on April 27, 2016 and is now pending under Case No. 5:16-cv-2252-
`
`BLF (NDCA). The ’264 patent is at issue in the following IPRs that have been
`
`granted
`
`institution:
`
` IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768.1
`
` Petitioner
`
`is
`
`concurrently filing a petition challenging claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47,
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The ’264 patent was also at issue in IPR2015-01759, IPR2015-01766, IPR2016-
`
`00468, IPR2015-00469, and IPR2016-00470 where the Board denied institution.
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`48, and 50 of the ’264 patent.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224), and Backup counsel is (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508) and (2)
`
`Chetan R. Bansal (Limited Recognition No. L0667). Service information is Paul
`
`Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`
`Fax:
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`The PTO is authorized to charge all fees due at any time during this
`
`proceeding, including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’264 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 13-26, 64, and 65
`
`(“challenged claims”) of the ’264 patent, and cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds: Ground 1: Claims 13, 15, 16, 22, and 64 are unpatentable under 35
`2
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Japanese Patent Publication H5-136095 (“Okada I”)
`
`(Ex. 1006)2, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (“Incropera”) (Ex. 1007),
`
`and U.S. SIR H1145 (“Anderson”) (Ex. 1008); Ground 2: Claim 14 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera, Anderson,
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 (“Thomas”) (Ex. 1009); Ground 3: Claim 17 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera, Anderson,
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 (“Narita”) (Ex. 1019); Ground 4: Claim 18 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera, Anderson,
`
`and European Publication No. 0665575 (“Yin”) (Ex. 1011); Ground 5: Claims 19
`
`and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera,
`
`Anderson, and U.S. Patent No. 5,876,119 (“Ishikawa”) (Ex. 1010); Ground 6:
`
`Claims 21 and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I,
`
`Incropera, Anderson, and U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 (“Kadomura”) (Ex. 1012);
`
`Ground 7: Claim 24 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I,
`
`Incropera, Anderson, Kadomura, and Japanese Patent Publication No. H5-243191
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Ex. 1006 is a compilation containing the English-language translation of Okada I
`
`(id. at 1-4), followed by the Japanese language version of Okada I (id. at 5-6). The
`
`affidavit required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) (in the form of a declaration as
`
`permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2) follows the Japanese-language version.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`(“Okada II”) (Ex. 1013)3; Ground 8: Claims 25 and 26 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera, Anderson, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,059,770 (“Mahawili”) (Ex. 1014); and Ground 9: Claim 65 is unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Okada I, Incropera, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,151,871 (“Matsumura”) (Ex. 1015).
`
`As discussed below in section VII.C, the challenged claims are not entitled
`
`to a filing date earlier than September 11, 1997. Okada I published on June 1,
`
`1993, Incropera published in 1990 (see infra section VII.E), Thomas published on
`
`July 14, 1987, Narita was published on April 3, 1990, Yin was published on
`
`August 2, 1995, Okada II published on September 21, 1993, Mahawili was
`
`published on October 22, 1991, and Matsumura published on September 29, 1992.
`
`Therefore, these references are prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ishikawa was filed on December 19, 1995, and Kadomura was filed on February
`
`21, 1997. Therefore, these references are prior art at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Ex. 1013 is a compilation containing the English-language translation of Okada II
`
`(id. at 1-10), followed by the Japanese language version of Okada I (id. at 11-14).
`
`The affidavit required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) (in the form of a declaration as
`
`permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2) follows the Japanese-language version.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’264 patent would have had i) a Bachelor's degree in engineering, physics,
`
`chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work
`
`experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields, or (ii) a Master'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. (Ex. 1002 at ¶18.)4 More education can supplement practical experience
`
`and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY, ’264 PATENT, AND PRIOR
`ART
`A. Technology Background
`By September 1997, plasma techniques for the manufacture, fabrication,
`
`and/or production of semiconductor devices had made significant advancements.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶26.) For instance, plasma etching (more particularly, dry etching)
`
`techniques were known that involved etching different layers of a film at different
`
`temperatures. (See id.; see generally Ex. 1006.) Sophisticated mechanisms had
`
`already been developed that controlled the temperature of a substrate and a
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield (Ex. 1002), an expert
`
`in the field of the ’264 patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶5–14).
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`substrate holder. (Ex. 1002 at ¶26; see generally Exs. 1006-1020.) Furthermore,
`
`the principle that the “thermal mass” of an object affects the rate of temperature
`
`change of the object was known for decades if not longer before the ’264 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶26.) (See generally Ex. 1007.) As discussed below, the challenged
`
`claims of the ’264 patent recite these well-known techniques, and thus offer no
`
`novel or non-obvious advance in the art. (Ex. 1002 at ¶26.)
`
`The ’264 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’264 patent reissued April 29, 2008, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/439,245 (“the ’245 application”), filed on May 14, 2003. 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. The ’264 patent is directed to a method “for etching a
`
`substrate in the manufacture of a device.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶19; Ex. 1001 at Abstract.)
`
`The apparatus used in the method is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1.)
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a substrate holder 600 that includes “a backside surface
`
`608,” which includes a plurality of zones 608A, 608B, 608C, and 608D. (Id. at
`
`14:27-28, 14:31-44.) Each of the zones, separated by a baffle 605, has an inlet 613
`
`and outlet 611 for temperature controlled fluid to enter and exit the zones “to heat
`
`or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder” that holds an object (e.g., a
`
`wafer). (Id. at 14:31-44, 14:62-63, 15:39-40.) (Ex. 1002 at ¶20.)
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6.)
`
`The substrate holder receives fluid heated by heating unit 705 and the fluid
`
`transfers energy in the form of heat to the substrate holder. (Id. at 16:5-20.) The
`
`fluid can also be cooled using a heat exchanger 723. (Id., Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 at ¶21.)
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 7.) According to the ’264 patent, “the temperature of the chuck and
`
`wafer” are adjusted “to predetermined temperatures within specified time intervals
`
`and within specified uniformity limits” by varying the temperature of the fluid.
`
`(Id. at 16:36–39, 16:50–67; Ex. 1002 at ¶21.)
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`C.
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than
`
`September 11, 1997. The ’224 application, filed on December 4, 1995, is the
`
`earliest application in priority chain of the ’264 patent. But the ’224 application
`
`does not support the subject matter of the challenged claims. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶22-
`
`24.) Accordingly, the filing date of the challenged claims can be no earlier than
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`September 11, 1997, which is the filing date of the ’650 Provisional.5 This
`
`conclusion is consistent with the Board’s decision in Lam Research Corp. v.
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00468, Paper No. 6 at 10-12 (June 30, 2016).
`
`For instance, the ’224 application does not disclose the concepts of selecting
`
`the thermal mass of the substrate holder, or changing the same substrate holder
`
`temperature from a first substrate holder temperature to a second substrate holder
`
`temperature, as recited in independent claim 13. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶23-24.) Instead,
`
`the ’224 application discloses changing the temperature of the substrate by moving
`
`the substrate to a different chamber having a different pedestal between each
`
`process step. (Id. at ¶24; Ex. 1005 at 45, 46.) Nor does the ’224 application
`
`suggest such missing features to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Ex. 1002 at ¶24.)
`
`D. Okada I
`Okada I discloses a dry etching apparatus that converts a process gas into
`
`plasma, which is then used to etch an oxide film on a semiconductor substrate.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶27.) (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at ¶¶[0008]-[0011], [0017]-[0021], Figs. 1,
`
`2.) The dry etching apparatus is illustrated in figure 1 and includes a vacuum
`
`
`
` 5
`
` While Petitioner does not concede that the ’650 Provisional supports the subject
`
`matter of the challenged claims, the prior art applied in this petition predate the
`
`’650 Provisional filing date.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`process chamber. (Ex. 1006 at ¶¶[0008], [0010], [0021], Fig. 1, claim 1.)
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶27.) Inside the vacuum process chamber is
`
`“an electrode 25 on which a semiconductor substrate 29 is placed.” (Ex. 1006 at
`
`¶[0011].) Substrate 29 has an oxide film on it that is etched by using the dry
`
`etching apparatus disclosed in Okada I. (Id. at ¶¶[0008], [0017], [0020], [0021],
`
`Fig. 2.)
`
`Okada I discloses a plurality of coolant tanks 7, 8, and 9 with coolants at
`
`temperatures A, B, and C, respectively. (Ex. 1002 at ¶28; Ex. 1006 at ¶¶[0012]-
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`[0014].) To set electrode 25 to either temperature A, B, or C, the valves of the
`
`relevant coolant tanks are opened and the coolant provided to electrode 25. (Id. at
`
`¶[0015], Fig. 1.) In one example, electrode 25 is set to -50oC by selectively
`
`opening valves 16 and 19 for coolant tank 7 and providing coolant from coolant
`
`tank 7 which is at -50oC. (Id. at ¶[0015], [0018].) “Etching is carried out with the
`
`electrode 25 maintained at -50°C.” (Id. at ¶[0018].) In a second etching step, a
`
`second portion of the oxide film is etched by setting electrode 25 to a temperature
`
`of -30°C by supplying coolant from coolant tank 8 that is set at -30°C. (Ex. 1006
`
`at ¶¶[0016], [0018], [0019].) Figure 2 of Okada I shows that a first portion and a
`
`second portion of the oxide film 30 is etched in the first and second steps,
`
`respectively.
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶29.)
`
`Incropera
`
`E.
`Incropera is a textbook that sets forth basic principles of heat transfer in
`
`objects. (Ex. 1002 at ¶30.) Incropera was published in 1990 and is prior art to
`
`the ’264 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For example, Incropera was
`
`cataloged in 1990 at the Library of Congress. (Ex. 1007 at 2.) Specifically, a print
`
`out from the Library of Congress catalog shows that it was cataloged there on
`
`April 05, 1990. (Ex. 2025 at 1, highlighted to show MARC Tag 005 “19900405 . .
`
`. .”; see also id. at 2, explaining how to interpret MARC Tag 005.) Furthermore,
`
`several articles and documents published at least more than a year before
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`September 1997 cite to Incropera further proving that Incropera was publicly
`
`available at least one year prior to the September 11, 1997 date for the ’264 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1021 at 16; Ex. 1022 at 183; Ex. 1023 at 13; Ex. 1024 at 32.)
`
`Incropera explains that that objects having different thermal masses have a
`
`different rate of temperature change. (Id.) Incropera discloses that if an object is
`
`at an initial temperature Ti and is cooled by a source at temperature T∞, the rate of
`
`temperature change (i.e., the change in temperature of the object within a given
`
`time) depends on the “thermal capacitance” of the object. (Ex. 1007 at 226-228;
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶30-31.) For instance, Incropera explains that “[e]quation 5.6 may be
`
`used to compute the temperature reached by the solid at some time t,” where
`
`equation 5.6 is:
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 228.) Equation 5.6 provides that the time (t) it takes for an object to
`
`change from an initial temperature Ti to a temperature T depends on the product of
`
`‘ρ’ (density), ‘c’ (specific heat), and ‘V’ (volume). (Id.) This product is the
`
`
`
`“thermal mass” of the object.6 One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
` Incropera refers to ‘ρVc’ as the “thermal capacitance,” which one of ordinary
`
` 6
`
`skill would have understood is the same as “thermal mass.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶31 n.4.)
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`recognized that if a certain temperature rate of change is desired for an object,
`
`equation 5.6 can be used to select the thermal mass by filling in the temperature (T
`
`= desired temperature, Ti = initial temperature) and time (t = time to change from
`
`Ti to T) values in equation 5.6. (Ex. 1002 at ¶31.) This fundamental concept is
`
`illustrated in figure 5.2 of Incropera, which shows that for different thermal
`
`masses, the rate of temperature change is different. (Ex. 1007 at 228; Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶32.)
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “thermal mass” is defined
`
`as the product of specific heat and mass. (Id.) Because density x volume = mass,
`
`‘ρVc’ equals the product of specific heat and mass, i.e., “thermal mass.” (Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶31 n.4.)
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ’264 patent expired on December 4, 2015. Accordingly, the claims of
`
`the ’264 patent should be construed under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See, e.g., Square Inc. v. J. Carl
`
`Cooper, IPR2014-00156, Paper No. 38 at 7 (May 14, 2015) (citing In re Rambus,
`
`Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Under Phillips, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings, as would be understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the
`
`language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record.
`
`See, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper No.
`
`20 at 2-3 (July 10, 2014). The Board, however, only construes the claims when
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`necessary to resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport
`
`Systems, Inc., IPR2014-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (August 14, 2015) (citing Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Petitioner submits that for purposes of this proceeding, no terms require
`
`construction and the terms of the challenged claims should be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.7 In a previous IPR proceeding involving the ’264 patent
`
`and the challenged claims, the Board construed the term “selected thermal mass”
`
`as “thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the
`
`material of the substrate holder, or both.” Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`
`Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Paper No. 7 at 11-13 (Feb. 24, 2016). But in a later
`
`decision involving the same challenged claims, the Board did not construe
`
`“selected thermal mass.” Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-
`
`00468, Paper No. 6 at 9-10 (June 30, 2016). As discussed below, the cited
`
`references disclose the “selected thermal mass” and the Board need not construe
`
`
`
` 7
`
` Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other arguments in
`
`the pending district court litigation. For example, Petitioner has not necessarily
`
`raised all challenges to the ’264 patent, including challenges to the claims under §
`
`112, given the limitations placed by the Rules.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`
`this or any other term.8 (Ex. 1002 at ¶25.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Overview of the Combined References
`The grounds below rely on combinations of prior art references that are
`
`directed to similar technical subject matter, address similar issues in semiconductor
`
`processing, and/or material or process characteristics relating to semiconductor
`
`processing, among other things. For example, barring Incropera, all of the
`
`references (Okada I, Anderson, Thomas, Narita, Yin, Ishikawa, Kadomura, Okada
`
`II, and Mahawili) disclose systems and processes relating to semiconductor
`
`processing, some describing plasma-based film etching techniques. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶27-47, 49, 77, 83, 91, 95, 105, 116, 121, 130.) These references address similar
`
`issues, including temperature control related issues, for semiconductor processing.
`
`(Id.) Incropera discloses fundamental concepts of heat transfer which are directly
`
`applicable to such processes, including the design of equipment (e.g., a substrate
`
`holder) used in semiconductor processing. (Id. at ¶¶30-33.) As such, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the teachings of these
`
`references in the manners discussed below to address issues of etching substrates
`
`
` As discussed below, the prior art discloses the claimed “select thermal mass”
`
` 8
`
`under its ordinary and customary meaning and as the Board construed the term in
`
`IPR2015-01759.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 40,264 E
`to manufacture a device such as an integrated circuit. (Id. at ¶¶49, 77, 83, 91, 95,
`
`105, 116, 121, 130.) For example, as addressed below for claim 13, one skilled in
`
`the art would have been motivated to look to solutions in Incropera for designing
`
`the substrate holder system in Okada I to select a substrate holder with a thermal
`
`