Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Filed: February 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` 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: February 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40,
`
`41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 (“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 establishes that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Samsung would prevail in challenging claims 27, 31, 32, 34,
`
`37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes
`
`review as to these claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties represent that the ’264 patent is at issue in a district court
`
`case captioned Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 1:15-cv-613-LY
`
`(W.D. Tex.), which was transferred to the Northern District of California on
`
`April 27, 2016 and re-captioned No. 5:16-cv-2252-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 4, 2. Samsung further represents that the ’264 patent was at issue in a
`
`number of inter partes review proceedings filed by a different petitioner;
`
`however, the Board only granted institution in two proceedings, each of
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`which has since terminated following settlement. See Pet. 1 n.1. In addition
`
`to this Petition, Samsung filed another petition challenging the patentability
`
`of claims 13–26, 64, and 65 of the ’264 patent in Case IPR2016-01510. Id.
`
`at 1.
`
`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.” Id. at 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`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 31, 32, and 34 directly depend from independent claim 27;
`
`and claims 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Samsung relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Inventor or
`Applicant1
`Kadomura
`
`Matsumura
`
`Narita
`
`Wang
`(“Wang I”)
`Wang
`(“Wang II”)
`
`Patent or
`Publication No.
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,063,710
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,151,871
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,913,790
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,219,485
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0272140 A2
`
`Relevant Dates
`
`issued May 16, 2000,
`filed Feb. 21, 1997
`issued Sept. 29, 1992,
`filed June 15, 1990
`issued Apr. 3 1990,
`filed May 21, 1989
`issued June 15, 1993,
`filed Oct. 17, 1991
`published June 22, 1988,
`filed Dec. 18, 1987
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Samsung challenges claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and
`
`50 of the ’264 patent based on the asserted grounds of unpatentability
`
`(“grounds”) set forth in the table below. Pet. 2–3, 19–69.
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`§ 103(a) 27, 32, 37, and 40
`
`Kadomura, Matsumura, and Narita
`
`§ 103(a) 31 and 50
`
`Kadomura, Matsumura, and Wang I
`
`§ 103(a) 27, 34, 37, 41, and 44
`
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I, and
`Wang II
`
`§ 103(a) 47 and 48
`
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor or
`applicant.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`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) (2012 & Supp. III 2015). 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.
`
`On this record, because 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002).
`
`The parties do not propose constructions for any claim terms recited
`
`in the challenged claims of the ’264 patent. See generally Pet. 16–17;
`
`PO Resp. 1–12. 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) 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.
`
`
`
`Samsung 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. 8–9. Relying upon the testimony of its Declarant,
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Dr. Stanley Shanfield, Samsung explains how the ’224 application fails to
`
`disclose the following: (1) changing the substrate holder temperature from a
`
`first substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature in a preselected
`
`time interval, as required by independent claims 27 and 37; and (2) two
`
`separate temperature sensors, as required by independent claim 37. Id. at 9–
`
`10 (citing Ex. 1005, 45, 46;2 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–24). Consequently, Samsung
`
`asserts that, because the ’224 application does not provide sufficient written
`
`description support for certain limitations required by independent claims 27
`
`and 37, the challenged claims only are entitled to the priority date of the
`
`’650 provisional application (i.e., September 11, 1997). See id. 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 Samsung’s argument that the
`
`’224 application does not provide sufficient written description support for
`
`the following: (1) changing the substrate holder temperature from a first
`
`substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature in a preselected time
`
`interval, as required by independent claims 27 and 37; and (2) two separate
`
`temperature sensors, as required by independent claim 37. For purposes of
`
`this Decision, Samsung 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).
`
`
`
`2 All references to the page numbers in the ’224 application refer to the page
`numbers inserted by Samsung at the bottom, left-hand corner of each page in
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`With the exception of Kadomura, all the references that serve as the
`
`basis of the grounds asserted by Samsung in this proceeding were filed
`
`before December 4, 1995—the filing date of the ’224 application—and,
`
`therefore, qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’264 patent. On
`
`this record, it appears that Kadomura also qualifies as prior art to the
`
`challenged claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness Based on the Combination of Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`
`
`Samsung contends that claims 27, 32, 37, and 40 are unpatentable
`
`under § 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura and Matsumura. Pet. 19–
`
`47. Samsung 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 a sufficient reason to combine or
`
`modify the teachings of the references. Id. Samsung also relies upon the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield to support its positions. Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 42–83. On this record, we are persuaded by Samsung’s explanations and
`
`supporting evidence.
`
`
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of Kadomura
`
`and Matsumura, 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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`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
`
`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. 1006, 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
`
`
`
`3 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Shanfield, Samsung offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 18).
`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 Samsung and Dr. Shanfield.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`period of time, dry etching treatment may be applied without deteriorating
`
`the throughput. Id. at 4:49–54.
`
`Kadomura discloses three embodiments, each of which applies its dry
`
`etching method in a different manner. Ex. 1006, 5:44–56, Figs. 1A–1C, 2A–
`
`2C, 3A–3C. In the third embodiment discussed in relation to Figures 3A–
`
`3C, Kadomura discloses a method of fabricating polysilicon on an SiO2
`
`layer having a high step. Id. at 9:36–10:27. The main etching in the first
`
`step is applied at a low temperature (i.e., -30ºCelsius (“C”)), whereas the
`
`overetching in the second step is applied at a much higher temperature (i.e.,
`
`50ºC) within a short period of time of about fifty (50) seconds. Id. at 9:54–
`
`62, 10:11–27. According to Kadomura, the change in temperature of
`
`specimen W is controlled by “the cooling means and the heater disposed to
`
`the stage 12.” Id. at 10:7–10. The functioning of the cooling means is
`
`controlled by thermometer 18, which is “connected for measuring the
`
`temperature of the specimen W.” Id. at 11:48–51, 12:36–47.
`
`3. Matsumura Overview
`
`Matsumura generally relates to heat-processing a semiconductor
`
`wafer and, in particular, to controlling temperatures of the semiconductor
`
`wafer when it is heated or cooled. Ex. 1007, 1:8–13. According to
`
`Matsumura, one objective of the disclosed invention is to provide a “method
`
`of heat-processing semiconductor devices whereby temperatures of the
`
`semiconductor devices can be controlled at devices-heating and -cooling
`
`times so as to accurately control their thermal history curve.” Id. at 2:60–65.
`
`Matsumura discloses applying the method to plasma etching when it states
`
`that, although “the present invention has been applied to the adhesion and
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`baking processes for semiconductor wafers in the above-described
`
`embodiments . . . , it can also be applied to any of the ion implantation,
`
`[chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”)], etching and ashing processes.” Id. at
`
`10:3–7.
`
`Figure 5A, reproduced below, is a schematic diagram of an
`
`embodiment for heat-processing a substrate (wafer W) on a substrate holder
`
`(wafer-stage 12, which includes upper plate 13 and conductive thin film 14)
`
`in chamber 11.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 5A, adhesion unit 42 along with control system 20
`
`measures the temperature of thin film 14 deposited on the underside of upper
`
`plate 13 by using thermal sensor 25. Ex. 1007, 5:13–17, 5:32–47, 5:67–6:4,
`
`6:45–50. Control system 20 sends signals (SM) to power supply circuit 19
`
`to heat semiconductor wafer W on upper plate 13 by conductive thin film
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`14, and sends signals (SC) to cooling system 23 to control the amount of
`
`coolant supplied to jacket 22. Id. at 5:52–6:32, Figs. 5A, 5B.
`
`Inside the control system is a “recipe,” such as that shown in Figure 9,
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts a “recipe” with a “thermal history curve” showing
`
`temperature as a function of time. Ex. 1007, 4:42–43. At a given time (or
`
`pulse), the control system measures the substrate holder temperature with
`
`thermal sensor 25, compares this measurement to that of the recipe shown in
`
`Figure 9, and either (1) sends a signal (SM) to power supply circuit 19 to
`
`heat the substrate (wafer W) (e.g., heating wafer W from 20ºC to 90ºC
`
`within 60 seconds); (2) sends a signal (SC) to cooling system 23 to cool the
`
`substrate by allowing jacket 22 arranged under stage 12 to exchange heat
`
`with thin film 14 (e.g., cooling wafer W from 140ºC to 20ºC within 60
`
`seconds); or (3) sends no signal and waits for the next measurement time
`
`(e.g., holding the temperature of wafer W at 140ºC for 30 seconds). Id. at
`
`5:52–6:32, Figs. 5A, 5B.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`4. Claims 27 and 37
`
`
`
`Samsung contends that Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method
`
`teaches all the limitations recited in independent claim 27, except “the
`
`substrate holder having at least one temperature sensing unit,” and changing
`
`from a first substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature “using a
`
`measured substrate temperature, within a preselected time interval for
`
`processing.” Pet. 19–33. With respect to “the substrate holder having at
`
`least one temperature sensing unit,” Samsung contends that Kadomura in
`
`combination with Matsumura teaches or suggests this limitation. Id. at 19.
`
`Samsung argues that, although Kadomura discloses that thermometer 18
`
`measures the temperature of specimen W, it does not disclose explicitly
`
`whether this thermometer is part of stage 12. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`11:49–50, Fig. 4). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Shanfield, Samsung
`
`argues that Figure 4 of Kadomura would have suggested to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art that thermometer 18 may be part of stage 12. Id. at 21 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 47).
`
`Alternatively, Samsung argues that Matsumura’s sensor 25 is attached
`
`to stage 12 and is used to measure the temperature of thin film 14. Pet. 21
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, 5:68–6:4, 7:20–24). Relying on the testimony of
`
`Dr. Shanfield, Samsung asserts that it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to modify Kadomura’s stage 12 to include
`
`Matsumura’s sensor 25 in order to measure the temperature of the stage. Id.
`
`at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 49, 50). According to Samsung, this
`
`proffered combination would predictably result in better control of the
`
`heating and cooling process, as well as allow for measuring the temperature
`
`difference between Kadomura’s specimen W and stage 12. Id.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`With respect to changing from a first substrate temperature to a
`
`second substrate temperature “using a measured substrate temperate, within
`
`a preselected time interval for processing,” Samsung contends that
`
`Kadomura in combination with Matsumura teaches or suggests this
`
`limitation. Pet. 26. Samsung argues that Kadomura’s dry etching method
`
`involves a first or main etching step applied at -30ºC, and a second or
`
`overetching step applied at 50ºC that occurs in a short period of time of
`
`about 50 seconds. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 9:36–10:27). Samsung further
`
`argues that Kadomura’s thermometer 18 reads the temperature of specimen
`
`W and functions to control both the cooling means and heater so that the
`
`temperature reading of specimen W changes from a first to a second
`
`temperature “using a measured substrate temperature.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex.
`
`1006, 11:48–54, 12:36–47, Fig. 4).
`
`Samsung turns to Matsumura’s temperature control system that uses
`
`“predetermined recipes” to heat or cool an object over a predetermined
`
`period of time to teach changing from a first substrate temperature to a
`
`second substrate temperature “within a preselected time interval for
`
`processing.” Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:1–7). For example, Samsung
`
`argues that Figure 9 of Matsumura shows a control “recipe” with a
`
`temperature change from 20°C to 90°C within 60 seconds. Id. at 29 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 8:56–9:19, Fig. 9). Alternatively, Samsung also argues that
`
`Matsumura’s disclosure of detecting the temperature of the wafer prior to
`
`changing the temperature according to the recipe teaches changing from a
`
`first to a second temperature “using a measured substrate temperature.” Id.
`
`at 30 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:16–23).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Shanfield, Samsung asserts that it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`Kadomura’s dry etching method by incorporating the use of Matsumura’s
`
`control “recipes” in order to control the temperature of specimen W (e.g., by
`
`changing the temperature of specimen W from a first temperature to a
`
`second temperature in a “preselected time interval for processing”). Pet. 31–
`
`32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 60, 61). According to Samsung, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would
`
`improve the flexibility of Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus by allowing it
`
`to process several different types of materials and substrates, as well as to
`
`better control both the temperature of the wafer and the heating/cooling
`
`process. Id. at 32–33.
`
`Turning to independent claim 37, Samsung contends that Kadomura
`
`teaches all the limitations recited in this claim, except “a substrate holder
`
`temperature sensor,” and changing from a first substrate temperature to a
`
`second substrate temperature “within a preselected time period to process
`
`the film.” Pet. 35–46. With the exception of “a substrate holder temperate
`
`sensor,” Samsung relies upon essentially the same analysis with respect to
`
`independent claim 27 discussed above to support its assertion that
`
`independent claim 37 would have been obvious over the combination of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura. Compare id. at 19–33, with id. at 35–46.
`
`Samsung, however, turns to Matsumura’s sensor 25 to teach “a substrate
`
`holder temperature sensor.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:19–26)
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Flamm focuses on whether the asserted
`
`prior art discloses changing from a first substrate temperature to a second
`
`substrate temperature within a preselected time interval or period, as
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`required by independent claims 27 and 37. Flamm also argues that Samsung
`
`does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura. We address each of Flamm’s arguments in turn.
`
`a. “preselected time interval” or “preselected time period”
`
`First, Flamm acknowledges that Kadomura discloses a time interval,
`
`but contends this particular time interval is dictated by its approach of
`
`discharging the gas after the first etching step and introducing/stabilizing a
`
`second gas during the second etching step. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Flamm
`
`argues that Kadomura’s time interval is not controlled for changing
`
`temperatures. Id. at 5. Indeed, Flamm notes that Samsung concedes that
`
`Kadomura does not teach changing from a first substrate temperature to a
`
`second substrate temperature “within a preselected time interval.” Id. at 6.
`
`On this record, we are not persuaded by Flamm’s individual attacks
`
`on Kadomura. It is well-settled that “non-obviousness [cannot be
`
`established] by attacking references individually,” when, as here, the
`
`asserted ground of obviousness is based upon the combined teachings of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
`
`Instead, the test is what the combined teachings of these references would
`
`have taught or suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Young,
`
`927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this case, Samsung’s asserted ground
`
`of obviousness does not rely upon Kadomura to teach a preselected time
`
`interval or period. Rather, Samsung turns to Kadomura’s disclosure of a
`
`first or main etching step applied at -30ºC, and a second or overetching step
`
`applied at 50ºC, to teach changing from a first substrate temperature to a
`
`second substrate temperature, as required by independent claims 27 and 37.
`
`We understand Samsung to argue that using Matsumura’s control “recipes”
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus would result in an apparatus that
`
`changes from a first substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature
`
`over a preselected time interval or period.
`
`
`
`Second, Flamm contends that Matsumura does not remedy the
`
`deficiency in Kadomura identified above. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. That is,
`
`Flamm argues that, although Matsumura discloses the timing of certain
`
`events, those events are in no way related to a time interval between two
`
`selected temperatures for etching. Id. at 7–8. On this record, we are not
`
`persuaded by Flamm’s individual attacks on Matsumura. As we explained
`
`above, Samsung does not rely upon Matsumura to teach changing from a
`
`first substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature, but rather
`
`Samsung relies upon Kadomura’s two step etching method to teach this
`
`particular feature. Samsung turns to Matsumura’s control “recipes” to teach
`
`heating or cooling an object over a preselected time interval or period.
`
`b. Rationale to Combine
`
`As we explained above, Samsung provides more than one reason as to
`
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine or
`
`modify the teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura. See Pet. 22–23, 31–33.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Flamm contends that there are at least two
`
`reasons as to why it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to modify Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method to include
`
`Matsumura’s control “recipes.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`First, Flamm argues that Kadomura and Matsumura teach away from
`
`one another because Kadomura teaches not to process anything during the
`
`temperature change, whereas Matsumura teaches processing while the
`
`temperature is changing, and further discloses using an apparatus to control
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`the time-temperature history curve thereof in order to obtain improved
`
`results. Id. at 8–9. Second, Flamm argues that it does not appear that
`
`Matsumura’s control “recipes” may be used in conjunction with Kadomura’s
`
`dry etching apparatus and method. Id. at 9. According to Flamm, because
`
`Kadomura’s disclosure of the time that elapses when the temperature
`
`changes between the first and second temperature is largely, if not wholly, a
`
`function of the time it takes to discharge the first gas and recharge the
`
`second gas, Matsumura’s control “recipes” would not teach an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan about further reducing this time interval, much less provide a
`
`“pre-selected time interval for processing.” Id.
`
`Apart from mere attorney argument, the record before us does not
`
`include sufficient or credible evidence that combining the teachings of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura in the manner proposed by Samsung amounts to
`
`either a teaching away, or would result in an inoperable device, that would
`
`preclude a conclusion of obviousness. Cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
`
`1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory
`
`statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
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
