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.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2016-01512
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`VI.
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘264 PATENT ........................................................... 2
`III. THE PRIOR ART ........................................................................................... 3
`A. Kadomura ............................................................................................. 3
`B. Matsumura ............................................................................................ 6
`IV. THE ISSUES .................................................................................................. 7
`V. CAN MATSUMURA’S “RECIPES” BE BENEFICIALLY USED IN THE
`APPARATUS AND METHOD TOUGHT IN KADOMURA? .................... 9
`IN A MATSUMURA/KADOMURA COMBINATION, CAN
`KADOMURA’S PROCEDURE OF EXHAUSTING AND REPLACING
`THE GASES BETWEEN ETCHES BE ELIMINATED? ........................... 10
`A. Modifying Kadomura by eliminating the teaching of changing the gas
`between etches would by contrary MPEP § 2143.01 V. and VI ........ 11
`B. There is no prior art on this record that teaches or suggests modifying
`Kadomura by eliminating the teaching of changing the gas between
`etches .................................................................................................. 14
`VII. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY MATSUMURA RECIPES
`WOULD DO NOTHING BENEFICIAL FOR KADOMURA? .................. 15
`VIII. HAS PEITIONER FAILED TO PROVE MOTIVATION TO
`COMBINE? .................................................................................................. 18
`A. “Allowing the Specimen W To Be Set To Several Different
`Temperatures In A Controlled Manner” ........................................... 19
`B. “Allowing it to Process Several Different Types of Materials and
`Substrates” .......................................................................................... 20
`IX. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVE OBVIOUSNESS ...................... 22
`X. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 31 AND 50 ........................................................... 23
`XI. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 47 AND 48 ........................................................... 25
`XII. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 34 AND 41 ........................................................... 26
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 30
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 31
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORTIES
`
`CASES
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................... 18, 22
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................ 11
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 22
`In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................... 18, 23
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) .......................... 12
`STATUTES AND FEDERAL RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`MPEP § 2143.01(V and VI) .................................................................. 11, 13, 22
`
`
`PATENT OWNER LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D.
`Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01766, Paper No.
`7 (Feb. 24, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 2001
`Exhibit 2002
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`COMES NOW Patent Owner, Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the sole inventor and
`
`owner of the U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel,
`
`submits this response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 and asks that the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeals Board confirm the patentability of claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41,
`
`44, 47, 48 and 50.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This response addresses the two independent claims, 27 and 37, and
`
`dependent claims 31, 34, 41, 47, 48 and 50 that are the subject of the institution
`
`Order. The Board ruled that these claims would have been obvious “using
`
`Matumura’s control ‘recipes’ in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method.”
`
`(Decision p. 22)
`
`
`
`The obviousness issue revolves around the claim limitation, changing the
`
`temperature “within a preselected time interval for processing,” specifically:
`
`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. . . .
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 22:22-28.)
`
`
`
`The parties and the Board have treated claims 27 and 37 as essentially the
`
`same for the points at issue. The focus of the present discussion is on Ground 1.
`
`While Ground 3 also addresses claims 27 and 37, it adopts the obviousness
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`arguments of Ground 1. Petition at 50
`
` II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘264 PATENT
`
`The ‘264 patent describes methods of fabricating semiconductors, preferably
`
`using a plasma discharge. Multiple substrate temperatures are employed in a
`
`continuous process for etching films, where temperature changing is achieved
`
`within a preselected time period.
`
`One of the problems that was overcome by the invention is described at 2:17-
`
`25 (Ex. 1001) of the patent:
`
`In general, implantation of ions into a resist masking surface causes
`the upper surface of said resist to become extremely cross-linked
`and contaminated by materials from the ion bombardment. If the
`cross-linked layer is exposed to excessive temperature, it is prone
`to rupture and forms contaminative particulate matter. Hence,
`the entire resist layer is often processed at a low temperature to
`avoid this particle problem.
`
`
`Processing at low temperatures generally results in slower processing.
`
`“Accordingly, the present invention overcomes these disadvantages of
`
`conventional processes by rapidly removing a majority of resist at a higher
`
`temperature after an ion implanted layer is removed without substantial particle
`
`generation at a lower temperature.” (id. at 2:26-30) The invention achieves “high
`
`etch rates while simultaneously maintaining high etch selectivity...” (id. at 2:32-33)
`
` While methods involving the use of various temperatures for manufacturing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`semiconductors were known in the art prior to the ‘264 patent, none of the prior art
`
`discloses etching or processing where the temperature of the substrate is changed
`
`“within a preselected time interval for processing” (Claim 27) or “within a
`
`preselected time period to process the film” (Claim 37) in the manner claimed.
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Kadomura
`
`
`
`Kadomura teaches a cryogenic two-step etching treatment, wherein the
`
`etching is suspended between the first and second etches. During the suspension,
`
`the first etching gas is discharged and is replaced by a second etching gas for the
`
`second etching step. (Ex. 1006 at 6:36-44, 8:24-32, 10:4-6.) One of the benefits of
`
`this approach, according to Kadomura, is that the time required to discharge the
`
`first gas and replace and stabilize the second gas can be sufficient to allow
`
`simultaneously changing the substrate temperature for a second etch processing
`
`step:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that,
`[sic] is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more
`than the time required for rapid cooling, 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.
`
`
`(Ex. 1006. at 6:55-62 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7:22-30, 8:43-50, 10:13-16)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`Kadomura teaches nothing about a preselected time interval for changing
`
`
`
`temperature and specifically teaches that while the temperature is being changed,
`
`no processing is performed. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 8) The maximum time interval available
`
`for the temperature change in Kadomura is a function of the time it takes to
`
`discharge the first gas, and then to introduce the second gas and stabilize the
`
`second gas. (Id.) There would be no benefit from attempting to preselect a time
`
`period 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. (Id.)
`
`
`
`At the time of the ‘264 invention, cryogenic etching 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. (id. at ¶ 9) 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`technique into practical use.” (Ex. 1006 at 2:60-64.) By contrast, one of Dr.
`
`Flamm’s primary objectives 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 workpiece.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:11-14) (Ex. 2001, ¶
`
`10) 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,” which teaches away from the ‘264 patent (Ex. 1006 at 6:54,
`
`8:42, (id. at ¶ 11) In furtherance of increased throughput, Dr. Flamm’s ‘264 patent
`
`teaches a time interval of “several seconds” (Ex. 1001 at 19:8-12 & Fig. 10), which
`
`is at least an order of magnitude shorter than anything in Kadomura.
`
`
`
`According to Kadomura, a specific time interval for changing the temperature
`
`is of no importance, since the time interval to change the temperature is equal or
`
`less than the time interval to change the gas. As Kadomura repeatedly states:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that,
`[sic] is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more
`than the time required for rapid cooling, 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.
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 6:55-62; see also id. at 7:19-30 and 8:43-50, 10:13-16) Accordingly,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`Kadomura teaches away from the concept of a preselected time period in the ‘264
`
`Patent.
`
`B. Matsumura
`
`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 is applied and baked, it is exposed through a
`
`pattern mask to light, thereby forming a latent image. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 12) The resist
`
`having the latent image is then processed to form a layer of patterned photoresist
`
`on the substrate. (Id.) 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.1 (Ex. 1007 at 1:15-20, 4:56-59, Figs. 1 & 4,
`
`(Ex. 2001, ¶ 13) Matsumura’s “resist processing system,” is depicted in the block
`
`diagram Fig. 4 as the box 40. (Ex. 1007, 4:56-59 and Fig. 4.) Specifically, it
`
`comprises a “Sender,” 41, for transporting the wafer to the “Adhesion Unit,” 42,
`
`which applies HMDS to the wafer to enhance the adhesion of the resist while the
`
`
`1 While Matsumura includes “etching” in the list of other possible applications for his
`invention, he teaches nothing about etching and strongly suggests that he has not used
`his invention with any type of etching, let alone plasma etching. (Ex. 1003 at 10:3-7.)
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`substrate is held at a constant predetermined temperature (7:33-36), the resist is
`
`applied by the “Coating unit,” 43, and then it is baked in the “Baking Unit,” 44.
`
`(Id.) The “Receiver unit,” 45, then forwards the wafer to an “interface (not
`
`shown)” which transfers the wafer to an external “exposure unit (not shown).” (Id.
`
`at 5:5- 12 and Fig. 4.) 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. (Id. at
`
`3:10-11, 2:66-3:16, 3:17-51, Ex. 2001, ¶ 14) To improve adhesion before 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. (Id.) Matsumura teaches away from the invention of the
`
`‘264 Patent.
`
`IV. THE ISSUES
`
`Petitioner contends (Petition at 31):
`
`Having looked to Matsumura, a person of ordinary skill would have
`modified Kadomura’s system and processes to use features, like
`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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`The Board agreed, in instituting this IPR (Decision p. 22):
`[O]n this record, we are persuaded that Samsung has presented
`sufficient evidence
`to support a determination
`that using
`Matsumura’s control “recipes”
`in Kadomura’s dry etching
`apparatus and method is a predictable use of prior art elements
`according to their established functions—an obvious combination
`that would improve Kadomura’s abilities to process different types
`of materials and substrates and provide better temperature control.
`The questions presented regarding independent claims 27 and 37 are:
`
`1. Can Matsumura’s “recipes” be beneficially used in the apparatus and method
`
`taught in Kadomura?
`
`2. If the answer to that question is no: In a Matsumura/Kadomura combination,
`
`can Kadomura’s procedure of exhausting and replacing the gases between etches
`
`be eliminated?
`
`3. Are there additional reasons why Matsumura recipes would do nothing
`
`beneficial for Kadomura?
`
`4. Has Petitioner Failed to Prove Motivation to Combine?
`
`5. Has Petitioner met its burden of proof to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103?
`
`
`
`The question presented with regard to each of the dependent claims 31, 34,
`
`41, 47, 48 and 50 is: Has Petitioner met its burden of proving invalidity?
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`V. CAN MATSUMURA’S “RECIPES” BE BENEFICIALLY USED IN
`THE APPARATUS AND METHOD TAUGHT IN KADOMURA?
`
`Kadomura’s specification teaches:
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The time interval for changing the gas is “equal with or more” than the time
`
`interval to change the temperature;
`
`2. Accordingly, the time period for changing the temperature “does not constitute
`
`a factor” in the process. Ex. 1006 6:55-62, 7:22-30, 8:43-50, 10:13-16, (Ex. 2001,
`
`¶16)
`
`The specification explains:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that,
`[sic] is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more
`than the time required for rapid cooling, 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.
`
`
`Id. 6:55-62 emphasis added
`
`The point -- that the time interval between etches in Kadomura is solely a function
`
`of the time it takes to change the gas – is reiterated at 8:43-50 (emphasis added):
`
`Accordingly, since a series of operations of exhausting remaining
`gases in the diffusion chamber 2 after the interruption of discharge
`and further introducing and stabilizing a fresh etching gas takes a
`longer time than that required for rapid cooling also in this second
`embodiment, the time required for the rapid cooling does not
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`constitute a factor of delaying the time required for the etching of
`the specimen W.
`
`
`See also Id. 7:22-30, 10:13-16.
`
`Kadomura is implicitly teaching that the second etch will not begin until both
`
`the gas exchange and the temperature change have been completed. (Ex. 2001, ¶
`
`17) 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. (Id.) Hence, it matters not
`
`how long it takes to change the temperature, or, as Kadamura 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.” (Id.)
`
`Combining Matsumura’s time recipes with Kadomura would yield no benefit.
`
`VI. IN A MATSUMURA/KADOMURA COMBINATION, CAN
`KADOMURA’S PROCEDURE OF EXHAUSTING AND REPLACING THE
`GASES BETWEEN ETCHES BE ELIMINATED?
`Since the obstacle in the way of modifying Kadomura with Matsumura’s
`
`recipes is Kadomura’s teaching of changing the gas between etches, one might
`
`suggest jettisoning that teaching. That suggestion would run into two new
`
`obstacles: a) it would be contrary MPEP § 2143.01 V. and VI.; and b) there is no
`
`prior art on this record that teaches or suggests such a modification.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`
`
`A) Modifying Kadomura by eliminating the teaching of changing the gas
`between etches would be contrary MPEP § 2143.01 V. and VI.
`MPEP § 2143.01 V. and VI read:
`V. The Proposed Modification Cannot Render The Prior Art
`Unsatisfactory For Its Intended Purpose: If proposed modification
`would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory
`for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation
`to make the proposed modification.
`
`VI. The Proposed Modification Cannot Change The Principle Of
`Operation Of A Reference: If the proposed modification or
`combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation
`of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the
`the claims prima
`references are not sufficient
`to
`render
`facie obvious.
`The MPEP provides the legal authority for V.
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
`(Claimed device was a blood filter assembly for use during medical
`procedures wherein both the inlet and outlet for the blood were
`located at the bottom end of the filter assembly, and wherein a gas
`vent was present at the top of the filter assembly. The prior art
`reference taught a liquid strainer for removing dirt and water from
`gasoline and other light oils wherein the inlet and outlet were at the
`top of the device, and wherein a pet-cock (stopcock) was located at
`the bottom of the device for periodically removing the collected dirt
`and water. The reference further taught that the separation is
`assisted by gravity. The Board concluded the claims were prima
`facie obvious, reasoning that it would have been obvious to turn the
`reference device upside down. The court reversed, finding that if
`the prior art device was turned upside down it would be inoperable
`for its intended purpose because the gasoline to be filtered would
`be trapped at the top, the water and heavier oils sought to be
`separated would flow out of the outlet instead of the purified
`gasoline, and the screen would become clogged.). “Although
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device
`require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a
`characteristic
`that weighs against obviousness of a more
`complicated device with added function.” In re Dance, 160 F.3d
`1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Court held
`that claimed catheter for removing obstruction in blood vessels
`would have been obvious in view of a first reference which taught
`all of the claimed elements except for a “means for recovering fluid
`and debris” in combination with a second reference describing a
`catheter including that means. The court agreed that the first
`reference, which stressed simplicity of structure and taught
`emulsification of the debris, did not teach away from the addition
`of a channel for the recovery of the debris.).
`The MPEP provides the legal authority for VI.
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA
`
`1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore
`engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers
`inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied
`upon in a rejection based on a combination of references disclosed
`an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a
`cylindrical sheet metal casing. Patentee taught the device required
`rigidity for operation, whereas the claimed invention required
`resiliency. The court reversed the rejection holding the “suggested
`combination of
`references would
`require a
`substantial
`reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary
`reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which
`the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.”).
`
`
`
`Kadomura describes three embodiments of his invention; in all three, the gas
`
`for the first etch is exhausted and replenished for the second etch. The procedure is
`
`set forth for first embodiment, referring to Fig. 1A-C:
`
`Then, for applying overetching of the second step succeeding to the
`first step, electric discharge in the etching device is once
`disconnected, and gases remaining in a diffusion chamber 2 are
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`exhausted. Then, an etching gas used in the second step to be
`described later (a gas identical with that in the first step is used in
`this embodiment) is introduced into the diffusion chamber, and the
`gas is stabilized and the inside of the diffusion chamber 2 is
`controlled to a constant pressure.
`
` (Ex. 1006, 6:36-44).
`
`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. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 19) For the first etch, the gas was “C12/02 90/10
`
`SCCM” and for the second etch, the gas was “Cl2 100 SCCM.” (Id., Ex. 2006 at
`
`9:58 and 10:23.
`
`The teaching of suspending processing between etches and exhausting and
`
`replenishing the gas is carried over in the only independent claim of Kadomura. It
`
`requires “evacuating the chamber of etching material” between the first and second
`
`etches. (id. at 12:61)
`
`A proposal, for 103 obviousness purposes, that Kadomura be modified to
`
`eliminate its gas exchange procedure must fail in view of MPEP § 2143.01 V., for
`
`it “would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its
`
`intended purpose.” The gas exchange is critical to all three of Kadomura’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`embodiments. As seen, the gas exchange was necessary in the third embodiment
`
`where different gases were employed for the two etches. Similarly, for the first
`
`two embodiments, different RF biases were used for the first and second etch. (Id.
`
`at 6:28 and 7:8; 8:15 and 8:63; 9:61 and 10:26). At the time of Kadomura, the
`
`skilled artisan 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. (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶ 20)
`
`Additionally, a proposal, for 103 obviousness purposes, that Kadomura be
`
`modified to eliminate its gas exchange procedure would fail under MPEP §
`
`2143.01 VI., for it “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. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 21)
`
`B) There is no prior art on this record that teaches or suggests modifying
`Kadomura by eliminating the teaching of changing the gas between etches
`
`It is one thing to argue, as Samsung does, that it would be obvious to modify
`
`Kadomura by adding Matsumura’s recipes. It is quite another thing to argue that it
`
`would be obvious to modify Kadomura by first eliminating the gas exchange
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`procedure and then adding Matsumura’s recipes. There is nothing in Matsumura
`
`or Kadamura that would teach or suggest any such thing; equally so for the other
`
`prior art on which Petitioner relies, i.e., Narita, Wang and Wang et. al. (Id.).
`
`VII. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY MATSUMURA
`RECIPES WOULD DO NOTHING BENEFICIAL FOR KADOMURA?
`Matsumura’s recipes would do nothing beneficial for Kadomura. (Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶ 21-30) First, Matsumura’s various specific temperature changing recipes have
`
`no utility at all for plasma etching. (id. at ¶ 25) They are for baking a nascent
`
`photoresist layer after the precursor material has been spread onto a substrate. (Id.)
`
`Secondly, plasma etching depends on a surface chemical reaction. (id. at ¶ 26)
`
`The only surface chemical reaction disclosed in Matsumura relates to spraying
`
`HDMS onto a wafer to promote adhesion, at a constant temperature. (Id.)
`
`Matsumura teaches nothing about any benefits arising from changing temperature
`
`during surface reactions. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 27) The time-temperature curves from
`
`Matsumura shown in Samsung’s IPR are for baking resist, and more generally the
`
`Matsumura invention is for “for heat-processing [an] object.” (Ex. 2007,2:66-69,
`
`3:17-33) The object of Kadomura and the present invention is to perform surface
`
`reactions such as gasification in plasma etching, which is a different thing. (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶ 27)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`To the extent that Matsumura’s recipes are regarded as a method of
`
`temperature control using analogous apparatus, a Matsumura type temperature
`
`control apparatus would have degraded the reproducibility, control, and
`
`temperature uniformity of Kadomura’s system for several obvious reasons. (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶ 28) For one thing, 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. (Id.) The Kadomura
`
`control system was thereby operable to compensate for wafer to wafer and process
`
`variability in film and pattern uniformity and properties, thermal resistance to the
`
`substrate support, and plasma heating of the substrate. (Id.) Matsumura on the
`
`other hand, taught “open loop” control of his substrate temperature. (Id.) The
`
`Matsumura recipes only controlled the temperature of a thin film heater [14] layer
`
`in a wafer support structure. (Id.) 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. (Id.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`resistance between the substrate and the alumina plate on which it rested against
`
`the force of gravity. (id. at ¶ 29) Kadomura, on the contrary, taught an electrostatic
`
`chuck to hold a wafer in intimate contact with his heating/cooling source. (Id.) An
`
`electrostatic chuck was well known in the art to provide low, reproducible, and
`
`uniform thermal contact resistance. (Id.) Moreover, the Kadomura recipes
`
`depended on directly sensing and maintaining a substrate temperature with a
`
`feedback a control system. (Id.)
`
`Kadomura’s control system is adapted to control the cryogenic temperatures
`
`in a low pressure etching environment in his recipes. (Id.) The materials and
`
`design of the Matsumura system are incompatible with such an environment. (Id.)
`
`There is no evidence in the record nor any articulated reasoning to support the
`
`notion that anything in Matsumura “would improve Kadomura’s abilities to
`
`process different types of materials and substrates and provide better temperature
`
`control”. On the contrary, while Kadomura’s temperature control method and
`
`system was operable to maintain the temperature of a substrate subject to wafer to
`
`wafer, and plasma heating variability in a vacuum environment, Matsumura’s
`
`recipes had no ability to compensate for such processing variability. (Id.) 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,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`plasma conditions, bias, and the like, while the utility of Kadomura’s recipes are
`
`exclusively limited to the application and baking of a photoresist film at ambient
`
`pressure. (id. at ¶ 18)
`
`Quite simply, incorporating Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura would have
`
`no meaningful effect, and certainly no beneficial effect, on Kadomura. (id. at ¶ 19)
`
`VIII. HAS PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE MOTIVATION TO
`COMBINE?
`
`“In accessing the prior art, the PTAB ‘consider[s] whether a PHOSITA would
`
`have been motivated to combine prior art to achieve the claimed invention.’” In Re:
`
`Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383(Fed. Cir. 2016) “’[C]onclusory statements’
`
`alone are insufficient and, instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned
`
`explanation.’” (Id.) “Although identifying a motivation to combine ‘need not
`
`become [a] rigid and mandatory formula[],’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, the PTAB must
`
`articulate a reason why a PHOSITA would c