By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2016-01512
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. FLAMM IN
`SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2016-01512
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`
`I, Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. I worked in academia, research, and industry in various roles for more than 50
`
`years. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publication, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`2. I have been a leading researcher and educator in the fields of semiconductor
`
`processing technology, air pollution control, materials science, and other areas of
`
`chemical engineering. My research has been funded by NASA, National Science
`
`Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and AT&T Bell Laboratories.
`
`While a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at Bell Laboratories, I led a
`
`semiconductor processing research group comprised of research colleagues,
`
`visiting university scientists, post-doctoral associates, and summer students. I
`
`have also served as a technical consultant to various semiconductor device and
`
`processing equipment manufactures.
`
`3. I have published over one hundred and fifty (150) technical journal articles
`
`and books, and dozens of articles in conference proceedings, most of them in
`
`highly competitive referred conferences and rigorously reviewed journals. I am
`
`an inventor listed in more than 20 U.S. patents, a number of which have been
`
`licensed through the industry, and most being in the general field of
`
`semiconductor processing technology.
`
`4. I had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`perspective of a personal having ordinary skilled in the art (“PHOSTIA”) stating
`
`at least at the time of my employment at AT&T Bell laboratories in 1977. At
`
`AT&T Bell Laboratories, I served as a member of the patent licensing review
`
`committee where I was responsible for reviewing hundreds of patents for
`
`potential utility and licensing potential. I have also served as a technical expert
`
`in patent disputes and litigation.
`
`5. I was admitted to the patent bar as an Agent in 2003 and have been registered
`
`as a Patent Attorney since 2006. I am also a member of the California State Bar.
`
`6. I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264, in the name of Daniel L
`
`Flamm and titled “(“the ‘264 Patent”).
`
`7. I have read the Petitioners Petition for Inter Partes Review in this matter and
`
`the various art cited therein, including, among others, U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710
`
`(“Kadomura”), Exhibit 1006 and U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”),
`
`Exhibit 1007, each of which has been cited in IPR2016-01512.
`
`8. I believe that a PHOSITA would conclude that Kadomura lacks key elements
`
`claimed by the ‘264 Patent. In particular, Kadomura teaches nothing about “a
`
`preselected time interval for changing temperature” as claimed but specifically
`
`teaches that while the temperature is being changed, no processing is performed,
`
`which suggestions away from my invention. The maximum time interval
`
`available for the temperature change in Kadomura is a function of the time it
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`takes to discharge the first gas, and then to introduce the second gas and stabilize
`
`the second gas. There would be no benefit from attempting to preselect a time
`
`period, which is taught by my invention, to change the Kadomura temperature
`
`since there is no processing during the temperature change that would be affected
`
`by the duration of the change, and foreshortening the time for changing
`
`temperature would not otherwise improve the Kadomura process.
`
`9. Additionally, at the time of the ‘264 invention, cryogenic etching taught by
`
`Kadomura was merely a laboratory curiosity that had been impractical owing to
`
`its various requirements to use ultracold fluids and gases, the difficulties in
`
`finding production worthy materials that could tolerate repeated cycling between
`
`room and low temperature without premature deterioration, brittle fractures, and
`
`leaks, and the relatively long times required to effectuate heating, cooling, and
`
`equilibration to attain sufficiently uniform and stable substrate temperatures.
`
`10. Moreover, the objects of the Kadomura cryogenic etching process were to
`
`attain “high accuracy and fine fabrication simultaneously, as well as actually
`
`putting the low temperature etching technique into practical use.” (Ex. 1006 at
`
`2:60-64.) By contrast, one of the ‘264 Patent’s primary objective was to increase
`
`throughput and selectivity of conventional plasma processes: “[the invention]
`
`overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which throughput and
`
`etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device damage to a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`workpiece.”
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`
`11. In summary, Kadomura’s technique of exhausting and replacing the gas
`
`between etches and employing very cold temperature results in relatively long
`
`intervals between etches, “about 30 sec.” (Ex. 1006 at 6:54, 8:42), which teaches
`
`away from my invention. Now, I will turn my discussion on Matsumura.
`
`12. I believe that a PHOSITA would conclude that Matsumura is irrelevant as
`
`prior art against my invention. The object of Matsumura was the different
`
`processing steps and modules for laying a uniform film of photoresist onto a
`
`substrate prior before exposing the photoresist to light. After the resist
`
`composition is applied and baked, it is exposed through a pattern mask to light,
`
`thereby forming a latent image in the resist. The resist having the latent image is
`
`then processed to form a layer of patterned photoresist on the substrate.
`
`13. Matsumura recognized that controlling heating and cooling during the
`
`“adhesion and baking processes” when precursor liquids are applied to
`
`semiconductor wafers and baked improved quality and reproducibility;
`
`Matsumura does not teach anything about etching as taught by my invention.
`
`14. The crux of Matsumura’s inventive solution for baking resist was to heat the
`
`wafer “according to a schedule contoured to the baking process by means of a
`
`conductive thin film embedded in the substrate support structure in accordance
`
`with the schedule information” in a stored recipe. To improve adhesion before
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`the resist is first applied to the substrate, the wafer is heated to a single
`
`predetermined temperature and maintained at that single temperature while a
`
`treatment with HDMS is performed.
`
`15. I will now discuss that the combination of Kadomura and Matsumura fail to
`
`teach my invention, and even suggest away from each other, and my invention.
`
`16. Kadomura’s specification teaches: (a) The time interval for changing the gas
`
`is “equal with or more” than the time period to change the temperature;
`
`Accordingly, the time period for changing the temperature “does not constitute a
`
`factor” in the process.
`
`17. Kadomura is implicitly teaching that the second etch will not begin until both
`
`the gas exchange and the temperature change have been completed. Thus, the
`
`only relevant time period is the longest of the two time periods, which, Kadomura
`
`tells us, is the time to change the gas. Hence, it matters not how long it takes to
`
`change the temperature, or, as Kadomura phrases it, “the time required for the
`
`rapid cooling does not constitute a factor of delaying the time required for the
`
`etching treatment of the specimen W.”
`
`18. With regard to processing different types of materials and the like,
`
`Kadomura taught etching a variety of material layers using a variety of different
`
`temperatures, plasma conditions, bias, and the like, while the utility of
`
`Matsumura’s recipes are exclusively limited to the application of baking of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`photoresist film at ambient pressure.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`
`19. Quite simply, incorporating Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura
`
`would have no meaningful effect, and certainly no beneficial effect, on
`
`Kadomura. The same description of the gas exchange is provided for the second
`
`embodiment, Fig. 2A-C. (Id. at 8:24-32) For the third embodiment, Fig. 3A-C,
`
`the gas exchange procedure is not explicitly laid out (see id. 10:4-16), but it is
`
`clear from the specification that the gas was exchanged because the second gas
`
`is different than the first gas. For the first etch, the gas was “C12/02 90/10 SCCM”
`
`and for the second etch, the gas was “Cl2 100 SCCM.” Id. at 9:58 and 10:23.
`
`20. At the time of Kadomura, a PHOSITA would have known that the bias could
`
`not be changed during etching, e.g., a) changing RF bias while the plasma is
`
`running can cause plasma instability and result in gate oxide breakdown or
`
`charging damage, and b) the automatic matching networks generally used at the
`
`time would be at least temporarily destabilized by a sudden change in impedance
`
`characteristics.
`
`21. Additionally, a proposal that Kadomura be modified to eliminate its gas
`
`exchange procedure would change the principle of operation of the prior art
`
`invention being modified. Changing the gas between the first and second etch is
`
`one of the principles of operation of the Kadomura invention. It is one thing to
`
`argue, as Petitioner does, that it would be obvious to modify Kadomura by adding
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`Matsumura’s recipes. It is quite another thing to argue that it would be obvious
`
`to a PHOSITA to modify Kadomura by first eliminating the gas exchange
`
`procedure and then adding Matsumura’s recipes. There is nothing in Matsumura
`
`or Kadomura that would teach or suggest any such thing; equally so for the other
`
`prior art on which Petitioner relies, i.e., Narita (U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790), Wang
`
`or Wang I (U.S. Patent No. 5,219,485) and Wang et. al. or Wang II (EP Patent
`
`Application No. 87311193.4).
`
`22. A PHOSITA would not find that Kadomura and Matsumura taught
`
`“Allowing The Specimen W To Be Set To Several Different Temperatures In A
`
`Controlled Manner.” This is not an improvement of Kadomura -- Kadomura
`
`already taught using several different temperatures in a controlled manner.
`
`Kadomura describes three embodiments of his invention. The “[s]pecimen
`
`temperature” for each etch in each embodiment is controlled and several different
`
`temperatures are used.
`
`23. Matsumura’s “recipes,” to control the temperature of the specimen W in the
`
`apparatus taught by Kadomura such that the temperature of specimen W is
`
`changed from a first temperature to a second temperature in a “preselected time
`
`interval for processing.” Adding a preselected time interval between etches
`
`would not improve Kadomura one iota.
`
`24. As discussed above, Kadomura explicitly teaches that the specific time
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`interval to change the temperature between etches is irrelevant – it “does not
`
`constitute a factor” -- because the time interval to change out the gas is “equal
`
`with or more” than the time interval to change the temperature.
`
`25. I have also provided an analysis of additional details of Kadomura and
`
`Matsumura from a purely technical point of view, where a PHOSITA would not
`
`combine them for at least these reasons noted. A combination of Matsumura’s
`
`recipes and the elements related to plasma etching of Kadomura would not teach
`
`the invention of the ‘264 Patent, and would be inoperable. Matsumura’s recipes
`
`also teach away from any combination with Kadomura or the invention of the
`
`‘264 Patent. In particular, Kadomura relates to plasma etching techniques, while
`
`Matsumura’s specific temperature changing recipes are for baking a photoresist
`
`layer, which has no utility with the plasma etching techniques taught by
`
`Kadomura. That is, Matsumura’s techniques are specific for baking a nascent
`
`photoresist layer after the precursor material has been spread onto a substrate
`
`which teaches away from Kadomura or is irrelevant to plasma etching of the ‘264
`
`Patent.
`
`26. Additionally, plasma etching depends on a surface chemical reaction of
`
`reactant species, which is not shown or suggested by Matsumura. At best, the
`
`only surface chemical reaction disclosed in Matsumura relates to spraying
`
`HDMS onto a wafer to promote adhesion, at a constant temperature. Such
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`constant temperature teaches away from any multi-temperature process of
`
`Kadomura or the invention of the ‘264 Patent.
`
`27. Further, Matsumura teaches nothing about any benefits arising from
`
`changing temperature during surface reactions in etching processes. The time-
`
`temperature curves from Matsumura shown in the present Samsung IPR are for
`
`baking resist, and more generally the Matsumura invention is for “for heat-
`
`processing [an] object” [2:66-69] [3:17-33]. Again, Matsumura teaches away
`
`from any concept of changing temperatures in relation to etching techniques, and
`
`is generally silent on this point. In contrast, the object of Kadomura is to perform
`
`surface reactions such as gasification in plasma etching, which is a different thing
`
`than baking resist taught by Matsumura.
`
`28. To the extent that Matsumura’s recipes are regarded a method of temperature
`
`control using analogous apparatus, which is unlikely interpretation by a
`
`PHOSITA, a Matsumura type temperature control apparatus would have
`
`degraded the reproducibility, control, and temperature uniformity of Kadomura’s
`
`system for several reasons. For example, Kadomura’s control system was based
`
`on sensing a temperature of the substrate being processed and using feedback
`
`control to adjust heating/cooling to maintain the desired substrate temperature.
`
`The Kadomura control system was thereby operable to compensate for wafer to
`
`wafer and process variability in film and pattern uniformity and properties,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`thermal resistance to the substrate support, and plasma heating of the substrate.
`
`Matsumura, on the other hand, taught “open loop” control of his substrate
`
`temperature. The Matsumura recipes only controlled the temperature of a thin
`
`film heater [14] layer in a wafer support structure. Matsumura had nothing
`
`capable of maintaining a temperature in the presence of external heating (e.g.
`
`plasma and ion bombardment, highly exothermic etching reactions) of a wafer or,
`
`for that matter, variability in thermal contact resistance.
`
`29. Additionally, Matsumura taught a device having thermal resistances arising
`
`from a fluorocarbon film and an alumina upper plate above a thin heater film,
`
`and using nothing at all (neither mechanical or electrostatic clamping) to control
`
`the thermal resistance between the substrate and the alumina plate on which it
`
`rested against the force of gravity. Kadomura, on the contrary, taught an
`
`electrostatic chuck to hold a wafer in intimate contact with his heating/cooling
`
`source. An electrostatic chuck was well known in the art to provide low,
`
`reproducible, and uniform thermal contact resistance. Moreover, the Kadomura
`
`recipes depended on directly sensing and maintaining a substrate temperature
`
`with a feedback a control system. That is, Kadomura’s control system is adapted
`
`to control the cryogenic temperatures in a low pressure etching environment in
`
`his recipes. The materials and design of the Matsumura system are incompatible
`
`with such an environment of Kadomura by any interpretation of a PHOSITA.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`While Kadomura’s temperature control method and system was operable to
`
`maintain the temperature of a substrate subject to wafer to wafer, and plasma
`
`variability in a vacuum environment, Matsumura’s recipes had no ability to
`
`compensate for such processing variability in Kadomura.
`
`30. Accordingly, no PHOSITA would combine the temperature control system
`
`Matsumura with the control system of Kadomura, and any combination of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura would be inoperable, and even teach away from each
`
`other, and the invention of the ‘264 Patent.
`
`31. Based on the current record, I declare neither Kadomura nor Kadomura in
`
`view of Matsumura teach or suggest all of the limitations required by independent
`
`claims 27 and 37 or their respective dependent claims. I will now discuss various
`
`dependent claims.
`
`32. Claims 31 and 50 are dependent claims that further recite the first substrate
`
`temperature being changed to the second substrate temperature by transferring
`
`energy using at least radiation.
`
`33. A PHOSITA would not combine Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and
`
`method that involves changing the temperature of specimen W from -30°C to
`
`50°C by providing heat from the heater disposed to stage 12 with Narita’s heater
`
`(e.g., infrared ray lamp, halogen lamp, or normal heater) that heats a workpiece
`
`by means of radiation, contrary to what is stated in the DECISION to Institution
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`of Inter Partes Review. Any combination with Kadomura and Matsumura is
`
`also non-obvious based on the reasons noted already. More particularly,
`
`Matsumura’s control system depends on his heater temperature being
`
`determinate of wafer temperature. Narita’s radiant heat source would defeat
`
`Matsumura basis for control.
`
`34. Kadomura specifically teaches to change temperature when no processing is
`
`being performed and to effectuate changing temperature by means of controlling
`
`heat transfer to a liquefied gas using the sensed wafer temperature at a time when
`
`there is negligible heating from radiation. A PHOSITA would not have combined
`
`Narita with Kadomura to effectuate a temperature change because a PHOSITA
`
`would know that heating through intimate contact with Kadomura’s electrostatic
`
`chuck was operable to provide better uniformity and control than an infrared ray
`
`lamp or halogen lamp taught by Narita. Such infrared ray lamp or halogen lamp
`
`is primarily for rapid heating, commonly called “RTP,” which would not be
`
`combined with Kadomura’s technique that emphasizes better uniformity and
`
`control for cryogenic processing. A PHOSITA would recognize that these
`
`different techniques teach away from each other.
`
`35. Furthermore, Narita’s means to control rapid heating depended on detecting
`
`radiation emitted from a wafer (3:68-4:4). A PHOSITA would have known that
`
`a plasma discharge is a source of radiation that would interfere with detecting the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`radiation emanating from the wafer, leading to inoperability of control rapid
`
`heating using detected radiation. In addition, it would have been known to a
`
`PHOSITA that the intensity and uniformity of radiation emanating from the
`
`plasma discharge of Kadomura could not be controlled using Narita’s method
`
`and apparatus. For at least these reasons, combining Narita’s system with
`
`Kadomura would not work and be inoperative, and the techniques even teach
`
`away from each other.
`
`36. Claims 47 and 48 are patentable and non-obvious based upon any
`
`combination of Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I, and Wang II.
`
`37. Claim 47 is dependent upon claim 37 and recites “wherein at least one film
`
`treatment, selected from the first film treatment and the second film treatment,
`
`comprises chemical vapor deposition.”
`
`38. Kadomura in view of Matsumura, Wang I and Wang II does not disclose or
`
`suggest this feature. For the reasons noted, Kadomura would not be combined
`
`with Matsumura. Additionally, contrary to motivations by a PHOSITA,
`
`Samsung argues that Wang II discloses depositing an SiO2 film on a substrate
`
`using chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”) such that “improved highly conformal
`
`(100%) silicon dioxide coatings are formed by the thermal chemical vapor
`
`deposition . . . using lamp radiant heating to provide a wafer temperature of about
`
`200o C - 500o C, and high pressures” would be combined with Kadomura. That
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`is, a PHOSITA would not combine high temperature radiant heating with
`
`Kadomura, which teaches a cryogenic etching process, each of which is
`
`incompatible with each other. Accordingly, a PHOSITA would not combine
`
`Wang II with Kadomura, and any combination among Kadomura, Matsumura,
`
`Wang I, and Wang II is not obvious to teach the invention of claim 47.
`
`39. Claim 48 is dependent upon claim 37 and recites “at least one film treatment
`
`comprises maintaining the substrate temperature at a elected value from about
`
`300 to500 degrees centigrade.”
`
`40. Kadomura in view of Matsumura, Wang I, and Wang II does not disclose or
`
`suggest this feature. As discussed above with respect to claim 47, it would not
`
`have been obvious to modify the first film treatment in the combined Kadomura-
`
`Matsumura-Wang I system and process to include a CVD step to deposit SiO2
`
`film 31 with the wafer temperature between 200 to 500 degrees centigrade based
`
`on Wang II. That is, the high temperature radiant heating process of Wang II
`
`would be incompatible with the cryogenic etching of Kadomura. Therefore, a
`
`PHOSITA would not combine Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I, and Wang II to
`
`teach the claimed range of “300 to 500 degrees centigrade.”
`
`41. Claims 34 and 41 limits the respective methods of independent claims 27
`
`and 37 to the second portion of the film having a material composition that is
`
`different from the material composition of the first portion of the film.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`42. A PHOSITA would not combine Kadomura with Matsumura, and then
`
`Wang. Any combination with Kadomura and Matsumura is also non-obvious
`
`based upon the reasons noted already.
`
`43. Kadomura teaches a method where the substrate temperature is cooled far
`
`below room temperature to avoid etching a second portion of the film having a
`
`composition that is different from the composition of the first portion of the film
`
`in an etching process. The concept of avoiding etching the second portion of the
`
`film is even emphasized by Kadomura (see for example 9:10-15). Kadomura
`
`teaches to maintain a cryogenic temperature where etching of a different second
`
`underlying composition is insignificant. Kadomura 4:35-40
`
`44. In Kadomura’s first embodiment for etching a tungsten polycide structure
`
`(FIGS. 1A-1c), Kadomura teaches to etch the polycide (33) and some underlying
`
`polysilicon 32 at one temperature (20°C) before stopping this first process (FIG.
`
`1B) and reducing the substrate temperature to -30°C for a subsequent overetching
`
`process. Kadomura teaches to complete the polysilicon removal and overetch at
`
`-30°C to avoid etching the different material composition (31) of silicon oxide
`
`underneath polysilicon (FIG. 1C). Kadomura also discloses the second
`
`embodiment (FIGS. 2A-2C) that comprises a similar sequence of a first etching
`
`process, stopping that process after etching part way through a film composition
`
`(FIG. 2B), and then cooling the substrate to a cryogenic temperature before
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`starting a second etching process in which the remaining portion of the film is
`
`removed and overetched under conditions selected to prevent etching a second
`
`underlying portion of the film having a different composition (e.g. the silicon
`
`substrate 40). Kadomura’s third embodiment effectuates similar selectivity. A
`
`polysilicon layer (51) is removed using a cryogenic etching temperature to avoid
`
`etching the u portion having different composition (SiO2) underlying the
`
`polysilicon (Fig. 3B). After the polysilicon is removed and this etching process
`
`terminated, the wafer is heated to 50°C before processing the substrate in a
`
`second plasma discharge using the chemical reaction of atomic chlorine with
`
`silicon (atomic chlorine is formed by plasma dissociation of Cl2) which is highly
`
`selective against etching SiO2. In each of these embodiments, etching is
`
`prevented or suppressed.
`
`45. Samsung contended that Kadomura in view of Matsumura teaches or
`
`suggests to etch a first portion of a film having one composition at a first
`
`temperature and a second portion of the film having a different composition at a
`
`second temperature. To the contrary, Kadomura’s first embodiment teaches to
`
`use room temperature to etch one portion of film having a silicide composition
`
`before etching another portion of the film having a polysilicon composition in
`
`tandem during the same process (FIG. 1B). Kadomura’s second embodiment
`
`comprises a similar sequence. A film portion having a first composition (SiO2)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
` IPR2016-01512
`
`etched at -20°C, the process is shut down, the temperature is lowered to -50°C,
`
`and another portion of the film having same material composition is etched at a
`
`temperature that prevents etching a portion underneath that has a different
`
`composition (silicon). Finally, Kadomura’s third embodiment selectively
`
`removes polysilicon with a process at a first temperature (-30°C) without etching
`
`a portion of the film having different composition, terminating that etching
`
`process, increasing the substrate temperature to 50°C, and selectively removing
`
`the remainder of the polysilicon in another process (here performed at 50°C)
`
`while substantially preventing the etching of a film portion having a different
`
`material composition (SiO2).
`
`46. A PHOSITA would have recognized that Kadomura teaches using a second
`
`etching temperature to etch the same material composition without etching a
`
`different material composition. Accordingly Kadomura teaches away from
`
`etching a first film portion comprising one material composition at one
`
`temperature, immediately before etching a second film portion having a different
`
`material composition using another temperature.
`
`47. Samsung then cites Wang for the generally well known principle that plasma
`
`etching rates usually increase with substrate temperature. Etching rates and
`
`selectivity are different things. The object of Kadomura’s cryogenic etching was
`
`to provide selectivity which is to etch one material composition without etching
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`a different composition. However, claims 34 and 41 are to the opposite wherein
`
`a film portion having a first composition is etched at a first temperature and a
`
`film portion having a different material composition is etched at a second
`
`temperature. Wang does not add anything to Kadomura.
`
`48.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on this 1st day of May, 2017
`
`
`
`Daniel L. Flamm
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`Daniel L. Flamm
`476 Green View Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`(925) 826‑ 3113 dlf@alum.mit.edu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Profile
`Internationally recognized scientist/chemical engineer with experience in nanotechnology, process
`control, applied chemistry, instrumentation, and computer software and hardware. Former
`chemical/electrical engineering professor, researcher, inventor, corporate founder/board member.
`Experienced programmer and network administrator. Patent attorney and technical expert in domestic
`and international patent disputes and litigation.
`Education and Professional Certifications
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bachelor of Science (Mathematics, minor Physics), 1964
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master of Science (Chemical Engineering), 1966
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Doctor of Science (Chemical Engineering), 1970
`Golden Gate University School of Law, Juris Doctor (Intellectual Prop. Certif. with Distinction), 2004
`California Bar No. 239,825
`
`U.S. Patent Bar No. 54,100
`
`Texas Prof. Engineer No. 34,308
`Employment
` 2008–present
`Microtechnology Law and Analysis, Walnut Creek, Cal.
`Patent and Trademark Attorney, Semiconductor Processing & Intellectual Property Consultant.
`Patent drafting/prosecution/strategy in areas such as photovoltaics, digital image technology,
`data networking, internet servers, business methods, plasma sources, thin film technologies, and
`material delivery systems. Work included PCT and international practice, infringement
`analysis, scientific technical analysis, and art searches, trademark prosecution, and general
`counsel services.
`2007–2008
`Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, LLP, Redwood Shores, Cal.
`Associate.
`Patent drafting and prosecution in areas such as multimedia, digital voice and video
`recognition, optical network switching, food supplement production, integrated circuit
`processing, gene databases, focused ion beam systems, high frequency device modeling, and
`endpointing.
`2006–2006
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Mountain View, Cal.
`Contract Associate.
`Patent drafting and prosecution in areas such as multimedia, digital voice and video
`recognition, optical network switching, food supplement production, integrated circuit
`processing, gene databases, focused ion beam systems, high frequency device modeling, and
`endpointing.
`1989–2005
`Microtechnology Analysis Grp, Walnut Creek, Cal.
` CEO & Technical Consultant
`Technical, scientific, engineering consulting, co-development and market research for domestic
`semiconductor device & equipment manufacturers such as National Semiconductor, Applied
`Materials, ASM America, Lam Research Corporation and others. Experts and expert services
`provided to law firms and corporate counsel. Joint semiconductor equipment product and
`intellectual property development, and technical support for multinational Japanese
`
`

`

`1972–1976
`
`1977–1989
`
`corporation.
`
`University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1988–1998
`McKay Lecturer, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`Taught graduate seminars in plasma processing and display technology, conducted research in
`semiconductor processing such plasma sources for pattern definition and extreme UV
`lithography semiconductor technology at University of California and Lawrence Livermore
`Laboratories.
`AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey
`Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
`Pioneering research in plasma etching, plasma, chemical vapor deposition, optoelectronics
`materials processing. Discovered/patented novel plasma chemistries and plasma sources,
`directional plasma CVD, fluorinated silicon nitride, oxygen enhanced diamond film deposition,
`laser-induced fluorescence diagnostics, photochemical-distillation purification technology.
`Managed design, purchase, installation and operations of Materials Research Division computer
`network. Personally did systems software support. Developed prototype instrumentation,
`computer hardware and Unix software to automate laboratory experiments. Member of patent
`and licensing review committees.
`Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
`Assistant Professor
`Taught core chemical engineering courses and performed research directed to air pollution
`chemistry and analyses. Developed exhaust and ambient air sampling and analysis techniques
`in collaboration with the EPA