`Tel: 571–272–7822 Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Lam Research Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47,
`48, and 50 of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’264 patent”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311‒319. Daniel L. Flamm (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in
`the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the information
`presented does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’264 patent is the subject of concurrently filed inter partes review
`proceedings IPR2015-01759, IPR2015-01764, and IPR2015-01768.
`We are informed that the ’264 patent is presently at issue in a
`declaratory judgment action captioned Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and in an infringement action
`captioned Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case
`1:15-cv-613 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`B. The ’264 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’264 patent, titled “Multi-Temperature Processing,” is directed to
`a method “for etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device,” where the
`method “provide[s] different processing temperatures during an etching
`process or the like.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The apparatus used in the method
`is shown in Figure 1 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
`(chamber 12 of plasma etch apparatus 10). Id. at 3:24–25, 3:32–33, 3:40–
`41.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7, 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 “the fluid [is] used
`to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder.” Id. at 14:62–63;
`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 temperature control operation 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 heater to bring the fluid to a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`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 and 50–67.
`An example of a semiconductor substrate to be patterned is shown in
`Figure 9, 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
`Fig. 10, below. Id. at 17:58–18:57.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 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. Id.
`at 18:58–19:64. The plasma’s optical emission at 530 nm 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 27 and 37 are the only independent claims of the ’264 patent
`challenged in the Petition. Claim 37, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`claims at issue:
`37. A method of processing a substrate during the
`manufacture of a device, the method comprising:
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate
`holder within a chamber of a plasma discharge apparatus, the
`plasma discharge apparatus comprising: a substrate temperature
`control system comprising a substrate temperature sensor and a
`substrate temperature control circuit operable to adjust the
`substrate temperature to a predetermined substrate temperature
`value with a first heat transfer process; and a substrate holder
`temperature control system comprising a substrate holder
`temperature sensor and a substrate holder temperature control
`circuit operable to adjust the substrate holder temperature to a
`predetermined substrate holder temperature value with a second
`heat transfer process;
`performing a first film treatment of a first portion of the
`film at a selected first substrate temperature;
`with the substrate temperature control circuit, changing
`from the selected first substrate temperature to a selected
`second substrate temperature, the selected second substrate
`temperature being different from the selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`performing a second film treatment of a second portion
`of the film at the selected second substrate temperature;
`wherein the substrate holder is heated above room
`temperature during at least one of the first or the second film
`treatments, and the substrate temperature control circuit is
`operable to change the substrate temperature from the selected
`first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`temperature within a preselected time period to process the
`film.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:57–23:20. Claim 27 is directed to a method of etching a
`substrate in the manufacture of a device. Id. at 22:8–9. Claim 27
`recites “etching a first portion of the film,” “etching a second portion
`of the film,” and a substrate temperature change “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.” Id. at 22:16–17, 22:25–28.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`Exhibit
`Date
`Reference
`Publication
`1002
`Nov. 28, 1990
`Tegal
`EP 0 399 676 A1
`1003
`Sept. 29, 1992
`Matsumura
`US 5,151,871
`1004
`Apr. 3, 1990
`Narita
`US 4,913,790
`1005
`Dec. 29, 1992
`Hwang
`US 5,174,856
`1006
`May 31, 1994
`Nakamura
`US 5,316,616
`1007
`June 22, 1988
`Wang
`EP 0 272 140 A2
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D., dated
`August 18, 2015 (“Cecchi Declaration,” Ex. 1008), American Heritage
`Dictionary 1066 (3d ed. 1993) (Ex. 1009), and Merriam-Webster’s
`Dictionary 921 (10th ed. 1993) (Ex. 1010).
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and
`50 of the ’264 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 13, 30, 35):
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`§ 103(a)
`27, 31, 32
`§ 103(a)
`34
`37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, 50 § 103(a)
`
`
`References
`Hwang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Nakamura, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Wang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`
`F. Claim Interpretation
`Before proceeding with claim construction, we must determine the
`proper standard to apply. Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’264
`patent should be given their broadest reasonable construction. Pet. 10. That
`standard, however, is applicable only to unexpired patents. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`appears.”).
`The term of a patent grant begins on the date on which the patent
`issues and ends 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, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such
`application was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2002). The earliest patent
`application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for
`the ’264 patent, was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term
`extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, thus, expired no later than
`December 4, 2015.
`Because, on this record, we conclude that the term of the ’264 patent
`expired subsequent to the filing of the Petition and the Preliminary
`Response, but prior to the end of the preliminary stage of an inter partes
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`review, for purposes of this Decision we treat the patent as expired. For
`claims of an expired patent, the Board’s 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, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). There is, however, a
`“‘heavy presumption’” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “portion of the
`film” (claims 27, 34, 37, and 41), “preselected time interval” (claim 27), and
`“preselected time period” (claim 37). Pet. 10–12. Patent Owner does not
`dispute the proposed claim constructions in the Preliminary Response.
`Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that express
`construction of any term is necessary in order to resolve the disputes
`currently before us. Thus, we discern no need to provide any express
`constructions at this time. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.”).
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to determine whether Petitioner has met the threshold
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We begin with a description of Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita, which are asserted in each ground argued in the
`Petition.
`
`A. Prior Art References
`1.
`Tegal
`Tegal “relates to plasma etch processes for the manufacture of
`semiconductor wafers . . . .” Ex. 1002, 1:4–5. Figure 1, below, is a
`schematic of an embodiment for etching a silicon oxide layer at two
`temperatures in the same chamber.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts plasma reactor 10 with a chamber having a substrate (wafer
`15) on a substrate holder (electrode 13 with plurality of tines 16). Id. at
`2:52–3:7. The plasma reactor “performs different types of etch, requiring
`different temperatures, in a single reactor” on the substrate. Id. at 1:43–48.
`For example, “a tapered etch can be performed in oxide through a patterned
`photoresist” by a first etching at 80°C for an isotropic etch, followed by a
`second etching at 10°C–40°C for an anisotropic etch. Id. at 5:5–45.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`2. Matsumura
`Matsumura discloses 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.” Ex. 1003, 2:60–65. Matsumura envisions
`applying the method to plasma etching when Matsumura states that while
`“the present invention has been applied to the adhesion and baking processes
`for semiconductor wafers in the above-described embodiments . . . it can
`also be applied to any of the ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing
`processes.” Id. at 10:3–7.
`Figure 5A, below, is a schematic 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`Figure 5A depicts adhesion unit 42 with control system 20. Control system
`20 measures the temperature of thin film 14 deposited on the underside of
`upper plate 13 with thermal sensor 25. Id. at 5:13–17, 5:32–47, 5:67–6:4.
`Control system 20 sends signals (SM) to power supply circuit 19 to heat
`semiconductor wafer W on upper plate 13 by conductive thin film 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.
`
`
`Narita
`3.
`Narita discloses a method for treating “a surface of a workpiece while
`accurately controlling the temperature of the workpiece.” Ex. 1004, 2:7–10.
`Narita further discloses that the method can be applied to plasma etching and
`thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD), among other treatment methods.
`Id. at 3:3–5. The disclosed treating method “includes a temperature rise step
`in which first temperature control is performed and a treatment step in which
`second temperature control is performed.” Id. at Abstract. Figure 1, below,
`is a schematic of an embodiment for a CVD process where there is a
`substrate (semiconductor wafer 2) on a substrate holder (support member 5).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts control section 23 that controls the temperature using
`two temperature detecting mechanisms: (1) thermocouple 6, which contacts
`substrate 2, and (2) pyrometer 16, which does not contact the substrate. Id.
`at 3:13–37, 3:65–4:13, 4:26–31.
`
`B. Obviousness over Hwang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Petitioner contends that claim 27 would have been obvious in view of
`the etching process disclosed by Hwang as modified by the chamber, control
`system, and heating and cooling systems of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita,
`described above. Pet. 13–23. Petitioner also contends that claims 31 and 32,
`which each depend from claim 27, would have been obvious in further view
`of Narita, Tegal, and Matsumura. Id. at 23–25. After identifying in the prior
`art the limitations of claims 27, 31, and 32, Petitioner provides a reason for
`combining the references. Id. at 25–30. We begin with a summary of the
`Hwang etching process.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`1. Hwang
`Hwang discloses a method “for removing from an integrated circuit
`structure photoresist remaining after a metal etch.” Ex. 1005, Abstract. The
`method can be done in the same chamber where the metal etch was done.
`Id. at 3:13–16. The method includes “a first stripping step . . . followed by a
`subsequent step.” Id. at Abstract. The first stripping step maintains the
`substrate (wafer) temperature from “about 40°C to about 100°C.” Id. at
`3:13–42. The substrate temperature is then “slowly ramped up, at a rate of
`about 10° C./second,” to a second temperature. Id. at 3:58–4:6. The
`subsequent step maintains the substrate at the second temperature “of from
`about 150°C to about 400°C, typically about 245°C . . . .” Id. at 4:1–32.
`2. Analysis
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in its obviousness challenge to claims 27, 31, and 32.
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the
`prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
`(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). As
`explained in KSR, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`independently, known in the prior art.” Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`We find that Petitioner’s reason for combining Hwang with Tegal
`lacks a sufficient rational underpinning. Petitioner contends that Hwang
`teaches a “metal etch chamber” or a “vacuum stripping chamber” in which
`to perform a dry etch process for removing a photoresist mask, but “does not
`provide details about the etch chamber itself.” Pet. 25–26. According to
`Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason “to use
`the chamber taught by Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita to perform the Hwang
`process” because “Hwang suggests the use of a single chamber but does not
`provide the specific teachings of the apparatus.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1008
`¶ 85). The single chamber suggested by Hwang, however, is a stripping
`chamber. Id. at 25 (“Hwang suggests using a single stripping chamber for
`both photoresist etching steps”). Petitioner states that the Hwang process
`“could” be performed in the chamber of Tegal, but does not explain why one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify Hwang with the
`chamber of Tegal. Id. at 26. Without such articulated reasoning,
`Petitioner’s contentions are insufficient to establish that claim 27 of the ’264
`patent would have been obvious based on the combination of Hwang, Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`For at least this reason, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge to claim 27,
`as well as claims 31 and 32, which depend therefrom, based on the
`combination of Hwang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita.
`
`C. Obviousness over Nakamura, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Petitioner contends that claim 34 would have been obvious in view of
`the etching process disclosed by Nakamura as modified by the chamber,
`substrate holder, and electronically controlled heat transfer device of Tegal,
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`Matsumura, and Narita. Pet. 30–32. After identifying in the prior art the
`limitations of claim 34, Petitioner provides a reason for combining the
`references. Id. at 33–35. We begin with a summary of the Nakamura
`etching process.
`
`Nakamura
`1.
`Nakamura “relates to dry etching a material such as polycrystalline
`silicon and silicides with hydrogen bromide or bromine.” Ex. 1006, 1:12–
`15. For Sample A, a silicon wafer (substrate) with a layer (film) of arsenic–
`doped polycrystalline silicon was prepared and coated with a patterned
`photoresist layer. Id. at 12:22–30. Sample B was similar except that arsenic
`“was not ion implanted and phosphorus was thermally diffused into the
`polycrystalline silicon.” Id. at 12:31–34. Each sample was etched at 100°C
`in an apparatus similar to the Figure 6 apparatus shown below. Id. at 13:1–
`4, 12:49–55.
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a substrate (wafer 41) on a substrate holder (electrostatic
`chuck 45 and holder 46) in a chamber (etching chamber 42). Each sample
`was transferred to a second chamber shown in Figure 8, below, and etched at
`60°C. Id. at 13:16–31.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts a substrate (wafer 61) on a substrate holder (stage 64) in a
`chamber (sample chamber 70).
`
`2. Analysis
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 34 based on Nakamura, Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita.
`Petitioner asserts that Nakamura discloses all of the limitations recited
`in claim 34 because Nakamura teaches etching a polycrystalline silicon layer
`at 100°C, then etching a photoresist layer at a wafer temperature of 60°C,
`and therefore “the second portion of the film comprises a material
`composition that is different from the material composition of the first
`portion of the film” as recited in the claim. Pet. 30. Claim 34, however,
`depends from claim 27 and, therefore, includes all of the limitations of claim
`27. According to Petitioner, all of the requirements of claim 27 are also met
`because “the process taught by Nakamura can be performed in the chamber
`taught by the combination of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita.” Id. at 31.
`Petitioner incorporates its reasons for combining Tegal, Matsumura, and
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`Narita provided in the context of its combination of Tegal, Matsumura, and
`Narita with Hwang, discussed above, and further asserts that one of ordinary
`skill in the art “would have had reasons to use the system taught by Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita to perform the Nakamura process in a single
`chamber to increase throughput.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 96).
`Petitioner, however, does not explain sufficiently how the process of
`Nakamura in combination with Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita, meets the
`limitations of claim 27.
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis regarding claim 27 is set forth in the
`claim chart provided on pages 31–32 of the Petition. In the claim chart,
`Petitioner provides citations to Nakamura, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita.
`Id. at 31–32. Providing a road map to where each of the limitations recited
`in claim 27 may be found in one or more of the cited prior art references is
`not sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing
`claim 27 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakamura,
`Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. It is Petitioner’s responsibility “to explain
`specific evidence that support its arguments, not the Board’s responsibility
`to search the record and piece together what may support Petitioner’s
`arguments.” Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc., Case
`IPR2013-00225, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) (Paper 15); see DeSilva
`v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir. 1999)(“A brief must make all
`arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist
`with the record.”). We find that Petitioner has not met its burden.
`For at least this reason, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge to claim 34
`of the ’264 patent based on Nakamura, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Wang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita
`Petitioner contends that claim 37 would have been obvious in view of
`the chemical vapor deposition process disclosed by Wang as modified by the
`chamber, substrate holder, and electronically controlled heat transfer device
`of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. Pet. 35–50. Petitioner also contends that
`claims 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 would have been obvious in further view of
`the disclosures in Wang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. Id. at 50–56. After
`identifying in the prior art the limitations of claims 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48,
`and 50, Petitioner provides a reason for combining the references. Id. at 56–
`60. We begin with a summary of the Wang process.
`1. Wang
`Wang discloses a “high pressure, high throughput, single wafer,
`semiconductor processing reactor (10) . . . capable of thermal CVD, plasma-
`enhanced CVD, plasma-assisted etchback, plasma self-cleaning, and
`deposition topography modification by sputtering, either separately or as
`part of in-situ multiple step processing.” Ex. 1007, Abstract. Figure 2,
`below, depicts reactor (10). Id. at 7:28–34.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a substrate (wafer 15) on a substrate holder (wafer-holding
`susceptor 16) in a chamber (inner vacuum chamber 13).
`Wang further teaches that “[a] preferred in-situ multiple-step process
`for forming a planarized silicon dioxide layer uses (1) high rate silicon
`dioxide deposition at a low temperature and high pressure followed by (2)
`the deposition of the conformal silicon dioxide layer also at high pressure
`and low temperature, followed by (3) a high rate isotropic etch, preferably at
`low temperature and high pressure in the same reactor used for the two oxide
`deposition steps.” Id. at Abstract. Step (1) “heat[s] the wafer surface to a
`temperature of 300 to 500°C” (id. at 30:35–36), and, preferably 375°C ±
`20°C (id. at 30:48–49). Step (2) is run “at temperatures of about 200 to
`400°C.” Id. at 31:26–27. Step (3) is run “at a temperature in the range of
`about 100°C to 500°C and preferably 200°C to 400°C.” Id. at 32:17–18.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`2. Analysis
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
`in light of the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in its obviousness challenge to claims 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50
`based on Wang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita.
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`understood that in addition to performing etching processes, CVD and
`PECVD processes also could be performed in the Tegal chamber just as all
`these processes can be performed in the Wang chamber.” Pet. 36. In
`support of its position, Petitioner cites to both Wang and Tegal disclosing a
`diode reactor for its chamber. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 6:24–26, 8:51–56; Ex.
`1002, 2:38–43). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary
`skill in the art would modify Wang with the disclosures in Tegal, other than
`to state that “CVD and PECVD processes also could be performed in the
`Tegal chamber just as all these processes can be performed in the Wang
`chamber.” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 58. This is not an
`explanation why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have altered the
`Wang chamber. For example, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why
`one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Wang to include the substrate
`holder of Tegal. See id. at 36–37. Without such articulated reasoning,
`Petitioner’s contentions are insufficient to establish that claim 37 of the ’264
`patent would have been obvious based on the combination of Wang, Tegal,
`Matsumura, and Narita. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`For at least this reason, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge to claim 37
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`of the ’264 patent based on Wang, Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. Because
`claims 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 each depend from claim 37, we find
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in it
`obviousness challenge to these claims based on Wang, Tegal, Matsumura,
`and Narita for the same reason.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we do not institute an inter partes review
`of any of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent on any of the asserted
`grounds.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`IPR2015-01766
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel K. Lu
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`LamFlamIPR@irell.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`
`
`