`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent No. RE 40,264 E
`____________________
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. STANLEY SHANFIELD
`
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1013
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daniel L. Flamm
`IPR2016-01512
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion Regarding the Lack of a Benefit
`from Combining the Teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura ...................... 2
`III. Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion that the Teachings of Narita
`Cannot Be Combined with Kadomura and Matsumura .................................. 5
`IV. Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion Regarding the Combination of
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I, and Wang II ................................................ 6
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`
`I, Stanley Shanfield, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`
`As I testified in my declaration signed July 29, 2016, which I
`
`understand has been labeled as Exhibit 1002 in this proceeding, I have been
`
`retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) as an independent expert
`
`consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”). I previously provided testimony in this proceeding in my July 29, 2016
`
`declaration. (See Ex. 1002.) As with my previous work relating to this
`
`proceeding, no part of my compensation is contingent on the nature of my findings,
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding. Relevant aspects of my
`
`educational background, career history, and other qualifications were provided in
`
`my July 29, 2016 declaration. (See id. at ¶¶ 7-13.)
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to review and consider the testimony provided by
`
`Dr. Daniel Flamm in his declaration (Ex. 2001) and his cross-examination
`
`testimony (which I understand is being submitted in this proceeding as Exhibit
`
`1011) and provide my opinions regarding his positions. My rebuttal opinions are
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`set forth below, which reply to certain opinions offered by Dr. Flamm.1 My
`
`opinions in this rebuttal declaration are based on the documents I reviewed and my
`
`knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions in this rebuttal
`
`declaration, I considered the Declaration of Dr. Flamm (Ex. 2001), his deposition
`
`testimony (Exhibit 1011), and any other materials I refer to in this declaration in
`
`support of my opinions. In forming these opinions, I have also drawn on my
`
`knowledge and experience in designing, developing, and researching plasma
`
`processing systems, and rely on my opinions and discussions set forth in my July
`
`29, 2016 declaration, including my opinions regarding the level of skill of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In providing my rebuttal to Dr. Flamm’s positions, I do
`
`not change my opinions that I provided in my July 29, 2016 Declaration. Instead, I
`
`provide my opinions below to explain why I believe Dr. Flamm’s positions
`
`regarding my opinions in my July 29, 2016 Declaration are incorrect.
`
`II. Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion Regarding the Lack of a Benefit from
`Combining the Teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura
`3.
`
`It is my understanding that Dr. Flamm contends that there would have
`
`been no benefit to combining the teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura. (Ex.
`
`1 Although I respond to selected opinions offered by Dr. Flamm, doing so
`
`does not mean that I agree with any of Dr. Flamm’s testimony that I do not respond
`
`to in this rebuttal declaration.
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`2001 at ¶¶ 16-19, 22-24.) For instance, Dr. Flamm states that “incorporating
`
`Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura would have no meaningful effect, and
`
`certainly no beneficial effect, on Kadomura.” (Id. at ¶ 19.) I understand from
`
`reviewing his declaration
`
`that Dr. Flamm bases his conclusion on his
`
`understanding that the “time period for changing the temperature ‘does not
`
`constitute a factor’ in the process” described in Kadomura because “it matters not
`
`how long it takes to change the temperature” in Kadomura. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.) I
`
`disagree with Dr. Flamm’s conclusion because the disclosure of Kadomura
`
`suggests and supports the understanding that the time required to change the
`
`substrate temperature is an important factor in Kadomura’s process and must be
`
`controlled accurately to achieve Kadomura’s goal of not lowering throughput.
`
`4.
`
`Kadomura explains that two steps occur between etches. The first
`
`step involves changing the gases in the processing chamber, and the second step
`
`involves changing the temperature of the substrate while the gases are being
`
`changed. (See e.g., Ex. 1006 at 6:36-62, 8:24-50, 10:4-16.)
`
`5.
`
`Kadomura’s process takes into account the amount of time to control
`
`the temperature of the specimen (e.g., a substrate) between etching steps so that it
`
`can provide an etching treatment comprising multiple steps that can be applied
`
`rapidly without lowering the throughput. In particular, Kadomura states:
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`
`In the dry etching method described above, it is possible
`to attain both the high selectivity and ensurance for the
`anisotropic shape, that is, fine fabrication at high
`accuracy and, in addition, the temperature for the
`specimen can be changed easily and in a short period
`of time by conducting each of the steps in one
`identical etching device, so that the temperature can
`be changed about within a period of time required for
`a series of operations such as
`interruption of
`discharge or alteration of etching gases between the
`steps and, accordingly,
`the dry etching
`treatment
`comprising a plurality of steps can be applied rapidly
`without lowering the throughput.
`
`(Id. at 7:19-30 (emphasis added).) (See also id. at 6:36-62 (explaining that
`
`“introducing and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take[s] a time equal with or more
`
`than the time required for rapid cooling” (i.e., the time to change the temperature
`
`of the specimen is less than or equal to the time it takes to exchange the gases in
`
`the diffusion chamber).)
`
`6.
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Kadomura would
`
`have realized that controlling the specific time interval for changing temperature is
`
`important in the processes disclosed by Kadomura because if the time interval for
`
`changing temperature were not controlled accurately and it exceeded the time to
`
`change gases, the throughput would deteriorate.
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`As I explained in my July 29, 2016 Declaration, Matsumura’s recipes
`
`7.
`
`would have been able to provide accurate temperature control of the substrate
`
`temperature because the recipes would have allowed an “accurate control” of the
`
`“thermal history curve.” (See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 31-35, 57-61 (where I explain that
`
`Matsumura’s disclosed methods, i.e., “recipes,” allow for accurately controlling
`
`the thermal history curve).) Accordingly, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill
`
`would have understood the need to accurately control the time for the temperature
`
`change and would have been motivated to use Matsumura’s “recipes” to improve
`
`Kadomura’s process because these “recipes” would provide better temperature
`
`control and allow the substrate temperature to be changed in a controlled manner.
`
`This understanding is consistent with my opinions set forth in my July 29, 2016
`
`Declaration. (See e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶ 61.)
`
`8.
`
`For at least the above reasons, I believe Dr. Flamm is incorrect in his
`
`reasoning to support his conclusions relating to his position that “incorporating
`
`Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura would have no meaningful effect, and
`
`certainly no beneficial effect, on Kadomura.” (E.g., Ex. 2001 at ¶ 19.)
`
`III. Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion that the Teachings of Narita Cannot
`Be Combined with Kadomura and Matsumura
`9.
`I understand that Dr. Flamm contends that “Matsumura’s control
`
`system depends on his heater temperature being determinate of wafer temperature”
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`and that “Narita’s radiant heat source would defeat Matsumura basis for control.”
`
`(Ex. 2001 at ¶ 33.) I disagree with Dr. Flamm’s positions for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill would have understood Narita’s
`
`radiant heat source is compatible with both Kadomura and Matsumura bases for
`
`control. For instance, Narita discloses using sensors (i.e., pyrometer and
`
`thermocouple) to detect wafer temperature and to provide feedback to an IR lamp
`
`current controller for controlling the output of the IR lamp. (See Ex. 1008 at FIG.
`
`3, 5:11-42.) Similar to Narita, as I explained in my July 29, 2016 Declaration,
`
`each of Kadomura and Matsumura also uses a feedback system to control the
`
`heating/cooling of the wafer. (See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 71-73; Ex. 1006 at 12:37-48; Ex.
`
`1007 at 7:19-32.) Accordingly, based on the disclosures of these references, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Narita’s radiation heat source
`
`is compatible with the feedback control systems disclosed in Kadomura and
`
`Matsumura.
`
`IV. Response to Dr. Flamm’s Opinion Regarding the Combination of
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I, and Wang II
`11.
`
`I understand that Dr. Flamm contends that the high temperature radiant
`
`heating as disclosed in Wang II is incompatible with Kadomura’s alleged “cryogenic
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`etching process.” (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 40.) I disagree with Dr. Flamm’s assertions for at least
`
`the following reasons.
`
`12. To begin, I disagree with Dr. Flamm’s basic premise for the above
`
`assertion. Specifically, Dr. Flamm’s assertion that high temperature radiant heating is
`
`incompatible with Kadomura’s apparatus presupposes that the Kadomura-Matsumura-
`
`Wang I-Wang II combination set forth in my July 29, 2017 declaration includes a
`
`radiant heat source such as an IR lamp. (Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 38, 40; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 123-
`
`125.) But the Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II combination set forth in my July
`
`29, 2017 declaration simply includes the deposition of the SiO2 film using CVD at a
`
`wafer temperature of 200 °C – 500 °C without any limitation on the heat source used
`
`for heating the wafer to this temperature. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 124.) That is, the use of
`
`radiant heating (e.g., an IR lamp) is not a requirement of the combination I set forth in
`
`my July 29, 2016 declaration.
`
`13.
`
`I also disagree with Dr. Flamm’s general assertion that the high
`
`temperature radiant heating as disclosed in Wang II is incompatible with Kadomura’s
`
`process (regardless of whether it is labeled as a cryogenic process or not). As I
`
`explained in my July 29, 2016 Declaration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had reason to consider and implement the teachings of Wang II with the combined
`
`Kadomura, Matsumura, and Wang I process and system. (See e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 120-
`
`125.)
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`14. Regarding his specific contention, Dr. Flamm does not explain what he
`
`means by a “cryogenic etching process” and after a detailed review of Kadomura, I
`
`cannot find any evidence suggesting that Kadomura’s etching process is a “cryogenic”
`
`etching process. In fact, the temperatures utilized in the etching examples provided in
`
`Kadomura are much higher than those that were typical of “cryogenic” etching, which
`
`is a type of etching that utilized very low substrate temperatures.
`
`15. For instance, a 1995 article to Shih et al., entitled “Patterned, Photon-
`
`driven Cryoetching of GaAs and AlGaAs,” published by Journal of Vacuum
`
`Science & Technology B, describes cryogenic etching of certain compound
`
`semiconductor materials. (Ex. 1012 at p. 43.) The Abstract of that article
`
`describes “a cryogenically cooled sample” having a temperature approximately of
`
`140 K. (Ex. 1012 at p. 43 (Abstract) (“. . . to excite a physisorbed later of Cl2 on a
`
`cryogenically cooled (~140 K) sample.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that 140 K equates to −133°C. Shih’s low temperature etching
`
`(e.g., etching at -133°C) illustrates substrate temperatures that were typically
`
`understood to correspond to “cryogenic etching.” But none of the etching
`
`processes described in Kadomura come close to such a low temperature because
`
`the lowest wafer temperature in the examples provided in Kadomura is only -50°
`
`C. (See Ex. 1006 at 8:40.)
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`16. While I understand that Kadomura discloses using cryogenic valves to
`
`control the coolant flows from the chiller (17) to stage (12) (see Ex. 1006 at 12:10-
`
`36, FIGS. 4-5), the mere use of the term “cryogenic” does not result in the etching
`
`process being “cryogenic” for the reasons I discussed above (i.e., the temperatures
`
`used in Kadomura’s examples are not typical of “cryogenic” etching). In my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Kadomura’s
`
`etchings processes to be cryogenic processes as Dr. Flamm ambiguously (in my
`
`opinion) suggests in his declaration.
`
`17. Even if I assume that Kadomura discloses a cryogenic etching process
`
`(which I do not agree with), it is my opinion that one skilled in the art would have
`
`understood that cryogenic processes were known to have been compatible with a high
`
`temperature process such as the one disclosed in Wang II. For instance, the 1995 article
`
`to Shih (Ex. 1012) describes a cryoetching system where a sample is preheated to 210°
`
`C, which is consistent with the understanding that high temperature processing was
`
`known to be compatible with a cryogenic etching (“cryoetching”) process. (See Ex.
`
`1012 at 43-45, Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield
`US. Patent No. RE 40,264E
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`18.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that these
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so
`
`made arc puniShable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18
`
`of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: July24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Stanleév’ hanfiéld
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
