Paper No.
`Filed: October 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`v.
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`
`Patent No. RE 40,264 E
`____________________
`
` PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`Filed: October 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`v.
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`
`Patent No. RE 40,264 E
`____________________
`
` PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Demonstratives of Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,264 E
`
`IPR2016-01512
`
`Oral Hearing: October 12, 2017
`
`1
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 27, 32, 37, and 40 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 31 and 50 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kadomura, Matsumura, and
`Narita
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 27, 34, 37, 41, and 44 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kadomura, Matsumura,
`and Wang I
`
`• Ground 4: Claims 47 and 48 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Wang I, and Wang II
`
`Institution Dec’n at 32
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 27
`
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device, the method
`comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder temperature with a heat
`transfer device, the substrate holder having at least one temperature
`sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate holder in a chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second substrate temperature,
`the selected second substrate temperature being different from the selected
`first substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected first substrate
`temperature to the selected second substrate temperature, using a measured
`substrate temperature, within a preselected time interval for processing,
`and at least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room temperature.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 27
`
`3
`
`
`
`Kadomura
`
`Kadomura discloses controlling the temperature of specimen W by
`controlling the temperature of stage 12.
`
`Petition at 11
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kadomura) at FIG. 4 (annotated); Petition at 11
`
`Petition at 11-12; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 27-30
`
`4
`
`
`
`Kadomura
`
`Kadomura discloses three embodiments, each of which applies its dry
`etching method in a different manner.
`
`Petition at 12
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kadomura) at FIGS. 1-3
`
`Petition at 12; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 30
`
`5
`
`
`
`Matsumura
`
`[F]igure 9 shows a recipe . . . showing temperature as a function of time.
`
`Matsumura’s disclosed methods, i.e., “recipes,” allow for accurately controlling the
`thermal history curve.
`
`Petition at 13-14; Petitioner Reply at 9
`
`Ex. 1007 (Matsumura) at FIG. 9
`
`Petition at 13-15; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 31-35; Petitioner Reply at 9; Ex. 1013 at ¶¶ 7-8
`
`6
`
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine
`the Teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`Having reviewed both Matsumura and Kadomura, it is my opinion that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’264 patent would
`have been motivated to modify Kadomura’s system and process to control the
`substrate temperature change in Kadomura (e.g., the change from -30°C to 50°C) (a)
`within a preselected the time interval and (b) using the measured substrate
`temperature. Since Matsumura and Kadomura each disclose semiconductor
`processing equipment that heats and cools semiconductor wafers, a skilled artisan
`would have been encouraged to look to the teachings of Matsumura to improve the
`process disclosed in Kadomura. 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.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶ 60
`
`7
`
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine
`the Teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modifications
`would improve the flexibility of the Kadomura system and processes by allowing the
`specimen W to be set to several different temperatures in a controlled manner. Such
`flexibility would have improved the utility of Kadomura’s system by allowing it to
`process several different types of materials and substrates.
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶ 61
`
`[O]ne 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.
`
`Matsumura’s recipes 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.”
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶¶ 6-7
`
`8
`
`
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine
`the Teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura
`Petitioner Reply:
`In the Decision, the Board agreed with the Petition’s showings that the use of
`Matsumura’s “recipes” in Kadomura’s etching apparatus would have resulted in an
`apparatus that changes the temperature of a specimen from a first substrate
`temperature to a second substrate temperature “over a preselected time interval or
`period.” (Decision at 20-21; Petition at 31-33.) The Board found 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.” (Decision
`at 22; Petition at 31-33.)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 3
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`Patent Owner:
`for changing the
`According to Kadomura, a specific time interval
`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.
`Patent Owner Response at 5
`
`Hence, it matters not how long it takes to change the temperature, or, as
`Kadamura [sic] 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.”
`
`Patent Owner Response at 10
`
`Adding a preselected time interval between etches would not improve
`Kadomura one iota. … As discussed in Section III. above, Kadomura
`explicitly teaches that the specific time interval to change the temperature
`between etches is of no importance – 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.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 20
`
`10
`
`
`
`Time to Change Substrate Temperature
`Must Be Controlled in Kadomura
`Petitioner Reply:
`As acknowledged by Dr. Flamm during his deposition, because the time to
`change the gases (time “A”) is more than or equal to the time to change the
`specimen temperature (time “B”), the throughput is not adversely affected.
`Petitioner Reply at 6
`
`Therefore, controlling the specific time interval for changing temperature
`(i.e.,
`time “B” in the hypothetical posed to Dr. Flamm during his
`deposition) is important in Kadomura because if time “B” were not
`controlled accurately and “B” exceeded “A” (i.e., the time to change
`gases), the throughput would deteriorate:
`Q.
`So if B was greater than A, then B would be rate
`limiting, correct?
`A.
`In those – in that terminology, yes.
`Q.
`And if B exceeded A, then B would lower the
`throughput --
`A.
`
`Sure.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 6-7; Ex. 1011 at 101:20-25
`
`11
`
`
`
`Time to Change Substrate Temperature
`Must Be Controlled in Kadomura
`Petitioner Reply:
`to change
`the time interval
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s assertion that
`temperature does “not constitute a factor in the process,” . . . misreads
`Kadomura’s disclosure, which simply states that the time interval does
`“not constitute a factor of delaying” . . . the etch process. The time interval
`to change the temperature is a “factor” affecting the process and must be
`controlled as evidenced by Dr. Flamm’s testimony.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 6-7
`
`As pointed out in the Petition and acknowledged in the Decision, 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.”
`Petitioner Reply at 8
`
`12
`
`
`
`Time to Change Substrate Temperature
`Must Be Controlled in Kadomura
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`[T]he 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.
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶ 3
`
`[O]ne 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.
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶ 6
`
`13
`
`
`
`PO’s Other Arguments
`
`1) Kadomura teaches away
`
`2) Compatibility between Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`14
`
`
`
`Kadomura Does Not Teach Away
`
`Patent Owner:
`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.
`Petitioner Reply:
`But none of the challenged claims recite the time duration between the
`first etch and second etch and “[a]lthough the claims are interpreted in
`light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read
`into the claims.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). . . .
`Indeed, for a finding of teaching away, Patent Owner would have to show
`that Kadomura criticizes, discredits, or otherwise disparages the claimed
`invention. Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (internal citations omitted). Patent Owner does not even come close
`to meeting that burden.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 5
`
`Petitioner Reply at 11
`
`15
`
`
`
`The Combination Does Not Eliminate
`the Gas Change Step in Kadomura
`Patent Owner:
`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.
`
`Ex. 2001 at ¶ 21; Patent Owner Response at 10-14
`
`Petitioner Reply:
`But this is a straw man argument and should be dismissed. Nowhere did
`Petitioner or the Board even suggest removing the gas change step
`between etches in the combination of Kadomura and Matsumura.
`Petitioner Reply at 11-12
`
`16
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses that Its Processes
`Can Be Applied to Plasma Etching
`Patent Owner:
`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)
`Patent Owner Response at 15
`
`Petitioner Reply:
`But Matsumura explicitly discloses that its processes can be applied to
`“any of the ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing processes.” (Ex.
`1007 at 10:3-7, emphases added; see also Petition at 13; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 31,
`49.) As acknowledged by Dr. Flamm, an “ashing process” is a plasma
`etching process for removing photoresist. (Ex. 1011 at 62:25-63:3.)
`Petitioner Reply at 12
`
`17
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses a Feedback Control
`System to Control Its Substrate Temperature
`Patent Owner:
`[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.) . . .
`(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.)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 16
`
`18
`
`
`
`Matsumura Discloses a Feedback Control
`System to Control Its Substrate Temperature
`
`Petitioner Reply:
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Matsumura discloses a feedback
`control system to control its substrate temperature. (See Ex. 1007, 7:19-32
`(“The temperature measured is determined on the basis of the detection
`signal in the digital adder 202 and the amount of current supplied to the
`conductive thin film 14 is
`feedback-controlled responsive to the
`temperature measured”); see also id at 8:25-35, 9:9-15; Petition at 40.)
`Because Matsumura utilizes a feedback system to control its process, one
`of ordinary skill would have understood that its system accounts for
`external heating (e.g. plasma and ion bombardment, highly exothermic
`etching reactions) given that Matsumura explicitly discloses that
`its
`invention can be applied to “any of the ion implantation, CVD, etching
`and ashing processes.” (Petition at 13, citing Ex. 1007 at 10:3-7; Ex. 1002
`at ¶¶31-35, 49.) As discussed above, Dr. Flamm acknowledges that an
`ashing process is a plasma etching process. (Ex. 1011 at 62:25-63:3.)
`Petitioner Reply at 13-14
`
`19
`
`
`
`Claims 31 and 50
`
`31. The method of claim 27 wherein the first substrate
`temperature is changed to the second substrate temperature by
`transferring energy using at least radiation.
`
`50. The method of claim 37 wherein the first substrate
`temperature is changed to the second substrate temperature by
`transferring energy using at least radiation.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 31 and 50
`
`20
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Narita Combination
`
`Having looked to Narita, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`implement an infrared ray lamp or a halogen lamp as the heater in the combined
`Kadomura-Matsumura system to heat stage 12. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 88.) The skilled artisan
`would have combined the teachings of these references because this adds flexibility
`to the system by providing alternative heat source options (e.g., infrared ray lamp,
`halogen lamp) for the process designer.
`
`Petition at 48-49; Decision at 24-25
`
`21
`
`
`
`Narita’s Radiation Heat Source
`Is Compatible with Kadomura and Matsumura
`Patent Owner:
`Matsumura’s control system depends on his heater temperature being
`determinate of wafer temperature. Narita’s radiant heat source would
`defeat Matasumura basis for control.
`Petitioner Reply:
`[N]either Patent Owner nor Dr. Flamm provides any evidence or
`explanation to support that Narita’s radiant heat source would defeat
`Matsumura’s basis for control. (See Ex. 2001 at ¶ 33.) Therefore, Dr.
`Flamm’s testimony relied upon by Patent Owner should be entitled to little
`or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). (“Expert testimony that does not
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
`entitled to little or no weight.”)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 23; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 33
`
`Petitioner Reply at 18
`
`22
`
`
`
`Narita’s Radiation Heat Source
`Is Compatible with Kadomura and Matsumura
`Petitioner Reply:
`Patent Owner’s argument is not responsive to the combination set forth in
`the Petition and the Decision. Specifically, the combination relies on the
`incorporation of a heater similar to Narita’s in Kadomura’s apparatus (as
`modified by Matsumura) to serve as a heat source (Decision at 24-25;
`Petition at 48) and therefore, Petitioner’s attack on an alleged failure of
`Matsumura’s control system because of Narita’s heat source is improper.
`Petitioner Reply at 18
`
`Further, to the extent that Matsumura’s control system factors into the
`assessment of the proposed combination, 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 . . . to detect wafer temperature and to provide feedback to an IR
`lamp current controller for controlling the output of the IP lamp. . . .
`Similar to Narita, each of Kadomura and Matsumura . . . also uses a
`feedback system to control the heating/cooling of the wafer. . . . Patent
`Owner’s assertion that “Narita’s radiant heat source would defeat
`Matsumura basis for control” is therefore incorrect.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 19
`
`23
`
`
`
`Narita’s Radiation Heat Source
`Is Compatible with Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`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.
`
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶ 10
`
`24
`
`
`
`Narita Provides Uniform Temperature Distribution
`
`Patent Owner Response at 24; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 34
`
`Patent Owner:
`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.
`Petitioner Reply:
`Patent Owner’s only support for this allegation is a citation to Dr. Flamm’s
`declaration, which is conclusory and provides no evidence or explanation
`and thus is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). . . . To the
`extent Dr. Flamm refers to temperature uniformity and control, he ignores
`that Narita discloses that, even using a lamp, the wafer can have a uniform
`temperature distribution. (See Ex. 1008, 4:61-67, “The mount base 3 has
`already been heated by the lamp 8 by this time . . . if the contact surface of
`the support member 5 with the wafer 2 is constituted by a ceramic material
`or the like having a low heat conductivity, the temperature distribution of
`the wafer 2 becomes uniform. Hence, variations in treatment can be
`prevented.”)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 20
`
`25
`
`
`
`Narita’s Radiation Heating Method
`Can Be Applied to Plasma Etching Processes
`Patent Owner:
`A PHOSITA would have known that a plasma discharge is a source of
`radiation that would interfere with detecting the 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.
`Petitioner Reply at 1
`
`Patent Owner Response at 24-25; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 35
`
`26
`
`
`
`Narita’s Radiation Heating Method
`Can Be Applied to Plasma Etching Processes
`Petitioner Reply:
`First, Narita expressly discloses that its radiation heating method can be
`applied to various plasma etching processes. (See Ex. 1008, 3:3-5; see also
`id. 8:32-36 (“plasma etching, sputter etching, ozone ashing, and plasma
`ashing”); see also Decision at 24; Petition at 48.)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 21
`
`Second, Dr. Flamm’s admissions during cross-examination rebut his direct
`testimony that Patent Owner relies upon. Specifically, the portion of Narita
`cited by Patent Owner, i.e. Ex. 1008 at 3:68-4:4, relates to a pyrometer
`that detects the wafer temperature by detecting radiation emanating from
`the wafer. The temperature detected by the pyrometer is used to control the
`Petitioner Reply at 21
`heater (e.g., lamp) output. (Ex. 1008 at 5:13-17.) Patent Owner and Dr.
`Flamm appear to contend that a pyrometer would not work in a plasma
`etching environment. (Response at 24-25; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 35.) But during his
`deposition, Dr. Flamm admitted that at the time of the alleged invention of
`the ’264 patent, it was known that “a pyrometer is applicable to anything,
`pretty much, . . . the plasma wouldn’t change its utility.” (Ex. 1011 at 55:2-
`14.)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 21
`
`27
`
`
`
`Claims 47 and 48
`
`47. The method of claim 37 wherein at least one film treatment,
`selected from the first film treatment and the second film
`treatment, comprises chemical vapor deposition.
`
`48. The method of claim 37 wherein at least one film treatment
`comprises maintaining the substrate temperature at a selected
`value from about 300 to 500 degrees centigrade.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 47 and 48
`
`28
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II Combination
`
`Kadomura discloses an SiO2 film 31 disposed on the substrate 30. (See Ex. 1006 at
`Fig. 1A, 6:7-11.) . . . Kadomura does not explain how this film 31 is deposited on the
`substrate 30. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 122.)
`
`Wang II discloses depositing an SiO2 film on a substrate using chemical vapor
`deposition (“CVD”). (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 123.)
`
`In view of Wang II, a skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention of the ’264
`patent would have been motivated to modify Kadomura’s first film treatment . . . to
`include depositing the SiO2 layer 31 using CVD at a wafer temperature of 200º C -
`500º C as disclosed in Wang II.
`
`Petition at 67-68; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 121-25
`
`29
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II Combination
`
`Patent Owner:
`[A] PHOSITA would not combine high temperature radiant heating with
`Kadamura [sic], which teaches a cryogenic etching process, each of which
`is incompatible with each other. Accordingly, a PHOSITA would not
`combine Wang II with Kadamura [sic], and any combination among
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Wang I and Wang II is not obvious to teach the
`invention of claim 47.
`Petitioner Reply:
`First, Dr. Flamm’s premise for this argument is that a “radiant” heat source
`(e.g., the IR lamp in Wang II) would be incorporated into the Kadomura-
`Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II combination. (Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 38, 40.) But the
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang
`I-Wang
`combination
`involves
`the
`II
`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. (Decision at 30; Petition at 68; Ex. 1002 at
`¶ 124; see also Ex. 1013 at ¶¶ 11-12.) That is, the use of radiant heating
`(e.g., an IR lamp) is not a requirement of the combination.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 25-26
`
`Petitioner Reply at 22
`
`30
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II Combination
`
`Petitioner Reply:
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found Kadomura as
`describing a “cryogenic etching process” because the temperatures utilized
`in the etching examples provided in Kadomura are much higher than those
`that were typical of “cryogenic” etching. (See generally Ex. 1006; see also
`Ex. 1013 at ¶¶ 13-14.)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 23-24
`
`31
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II Combination
`
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`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.
`
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶ 14
`
`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).
`
`Ex. 1013 (Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield) at ¶ 16
`
`32
`
`
`
`Claims 34 and 41
`
`34. The method of claim 27 wherein the second portion of the
`film comprises a material composition that is different from the
`material composition of the first portion of the film.
`
`41. The method of claim 37 wherein the second portion of the
`film comprises a material composition that is different from the
`material composition of the first portion of the film.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 34 and 41
`
`33
`
`
`
`Kadomura-Matsumura-Wang I-Wang II Combination
`
`Patent Owner:
`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.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 29
`
`Petitioner Reply:
`But as explained in the Petition, Kadomura discloses this feature because
`in the first embodiment, “the first portion of the film” includes WSix 33
`and polysilicon 32, whereas “the second portion” includes just polysilicon
`32. (See Petition at 58-59; see also Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) The combination of
`“WSix 33 and polysilicon 32” is a different material composition than just
`“polysilicon 32.” (See id.)
`
`Petitioner Reply at 25-26
`
`34
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 11th day of October 2017, a copy of
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits was served by electronic means, as agreed by
`
`the parties, upon Counsel for Patent Owner at the following addresses of record:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`(chris@ntknet.com)
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`
`George C. Summerfield
`(summerfield@stadheimgrear.com)
`400 N. Michigan Ave.,
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`Dated: October 11, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
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
