By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC,
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE lPR2017-00279l
`
`US. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. FLAMM IN
`
`SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`'
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. Was joined as a party to this proceeding
`1
`Via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017—01749
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC,
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE lPR2017-00279l
`
`US. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. FLAMM IN
`
`SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`'
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. Was joined as a party to this proceeding
`1
`Via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017—01749
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017-00279
`
`1, Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I worked in academia, research, and industry in various roles for more than 50
`
`years. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publication, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`l have been a leading researcher and educator in the fields of semiconductor
`
`processing technology, air pollution control, materials science, and other areas of
`
`chemical engineering. My research has been funded by NASA, National Science
`
`Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and AT&T Bell Laboratories.
`
`While a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at Bell Laboratories, I led a
`
`semiconductor processing research group comprised of research colleagues,
`
`visiting university scientists, post-doctoral associates, and summer students.
`
`I
`
`have also served as a technical consultant to various semiconductor device and
`
`processing equipment manufacturers.
`
`3.
`
`I have published over one hundred and fifty (150) technical journal articles
`
`and books, and dozens of articles in conference proceedings, most of them in
`
`highly competitive referred conferences and rigorously reviewed journals.
`
`1 am
`
`an inventor listed in more than 20 US. patents, a number of which have been
`
`licensed through the industry, and most being in the general
`
`field of
`
`semiconductor processing technology.
`
`4.
`
`I had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`perspective of a personal having ordinary skilled in the art (“PHOSTIA”) starting
`
`at least at the time of my employment at AT&T Bell laboratories in 1977. At
`
`AT&T Bell Laboratories, I served as a member of the patent licensing review
`
`committee where I was responsible for reviewing hundreds of patents for
`
`potential utility and licensing potential.
`
`I have also served as a technical expert
`
`in patent disputes and litigation.
`
`5.
`
`I was admitted to the patent bar as an Agent in 2003 and have been registered
`
`as a Patent Attorney since 2006.
`
`I am also a member of the California State Bar.
`
`6.
`
`I am the inventor of US. Patent No. RE40,264E, in the name of Daniel L
`
`Flamm and titled “(“the “264 Patent”).
`
`7.
`
`I have read the Petitioners Petition for Inter Partes Review in this matter and
`
`the various art cited therein, including, among other.,
`
`8.
`
`Anderson fails to teach that “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is
`
`selected.” At best, the term “thermal mass” in Anderson means something
`
`completely different
`
`from that
`
`in the ‘264 patent. Petitioners completely
`
`misrepresent facts and the literal reading of Anderson. There is absolutely no
`
`mention that the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected. Anderson’s
`
`abstract cited for thermal mass at [Ex. 1111, 25:1-6] teaches nothing about any
`
`thermal mass of a substrate holder as required by claim 13. The abstract does no
`
`more than mention the use of a hollow cavity to utilize phase change (latent heat
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`of vaporization) to extract heat from a wafer. Latent heat is not thermal mass.
`
`The same is true of Anderson col. 2:60-65 that discloses nothing about any
`
`thermal mass. The only place Anderson even mentions the term “thermal mass”
`
`is in the single sentence concerning a heater that is placed in the chuck, where he
`
`states “the preferred embodiment is capable of heating the chuck 11 from room
`
`temperature to an operating temperature of 100 to 500 C. in a matter of seconds
`
`[before the plasma is switched on], due to the low thermal mass heater employed.”
`
`The low thermal mass heater of Anderson is not the same as the claimed thermal
`
`mass of the substrate holder.
`
`1 also note Anderson’s objective is to maintain the
`
`operating temperature (not change any temperature) and uses the latent heat of
`
`vaporization of the liquid [Ex. 1111 6:28-31] to achieve this objective. Anderson
`
`teaches a thermal mass heater can be useful
`
`to heat a wafer prior to any
`
`processing, but that it is not sufficient to maintain the wafer temperature when
`
`processing, never mind changing a wafer temperature during processing as
`
`required by the ‘264 patent.
`
`the objective of Anderson is to effectuate an extreme
`
`temperature change before any processing, not tight control while changing wafer
`
`temperature during processing as is required by the ‘264 patent. The purpose of
`
`low thermal mass for a heater in Anderson was to effectuate extreme temperature
`
`changes very rapidly before processing when tight control is unnecessary.
`
`Given the above analysis, it is not well known to select a thermal mass for a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`substrate holder in the manner claimed, and Anderson does not teach this feature.
`
`A PHOSITA would never combine Anderson and Muller to teach claim 13.
`
`In
`
`particular, a PHOSITA would conclude it would not have been obvious to use a
`
`substrate holder with a selected thermal mass of Anderson in the device of Muller.
`
`That is, Anderson has nothing to do with etching a substrate at two temperatures
`
`during processing, as taught by Muller. On the contrary, the object of Anderson
`
`was to rapidly heat or cool before processing, and perform processing at a single
`
`constant substrate temperature. (EX. 1111 2:66—3:1-7, 3:30—33, also see 6:19—31)
`
`Anderson addresses the problems associated with initially heating or cooling a
`
`chuck before beginning a process, and aims to reduce that heating time so that
`
`overall
`
`throughput
`
`is
`
`increased.
`
`The process itself
`
`is performed while
`
`maintaining a single temperature.
`
`9. Claim 13 also requires that the thermal mass ofthe substrate holder be selected
`
`for “a predetermined temperature change with a specific interval oftime during
`
`processing.” Anderson fails to teach this element, and even suggests away from
`
`this element by only addressing the problems of initially heating or cooling a
`
`Chuck before beginning a single constant temperature process, which stands in
`
`stark contrast to claim 13. To overcome the failure of Anderson, Petitioners
`
`attempt to rely on the remote art of Hinman to disclose this element. They argue
`
`that Hinman describes “how to preselect the thermal mass of a material in a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017-00279
`
`chemical analyzer’s ‘temperature control system’ to effectuate predetermined
`
`temperature changes within a specific interval.” Pet. 33, 40—41. Hinman,
`
`however, is irrelevant.
`
`It fails to teach that the “thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific
`
`interval of time during processing.” It would not have been obvious in view of
`
`Anderson and Hinman to select the precise thermal mass of the substrate holder
`
`used in Muller,
`
`to achieve a predetermined temperature change of a specific
`
`interval of time.
`
`A PHOSITA would not have had reason to use Hinman’s
`
`teachings to calculate the precise thermal mass of the substrate holder taught by
`
`Anderson, or
`
`to address the goal of throughput
`
`in semiconductor wafer
`
`processing as respectively done by Muller and Anderson. Not only is Hinman
`
`non-analogous art having nothing to do with semiconductor processing, but it is
`
`devoid of any relevance. A PHOSITA would find that Hinman has nothing at all
`
`in common with the ‘264 patent. Respondent is at a loss to know where even to
`
`begin to enumerate the differences and highlight
`
`its remoteness. Hinman
`
`concerns heating a small cuvette of liquid in a wet-chemical analysis instrument.
`
`Hinman mentions (uses the term) “thermal mass” for a preheated (e.g. a
`
`temperature reservoir) ring that is used to raise the temperature of liquid in the
`
`small cuvette using heat energy already stored in the ring (e.g. the thermal mass
`
`is selected for the ring to act as a thermal reservoir). The objective in Hinman is
`
`5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`lPR20l 7-00279
`
`for the ring to be able to heat the cuvette while its own temperature stays
`
`sufficiently constant. Hinman accomplishes this by having the thermal mass be
`
`about 20 times that of the liquid in the cuvette (stated in another way: bringing
`
`about a ldegree temperature change in the liquid only changes the ring
`
`temperature by about 1/20 degree). Hinman selects a thermal mass of the ring
`
`that can prevent its own temperature from changing significantly, yet be able to
`
`change the temperature of the liquid before processing. The thermal mass of the
`
`ring is different from the thermal mass of the substrate holder in the ‘264 patent.
`
`Hinman also fails to teach the objective of changing the temperature of anything
`
`during processing. The ‘264 patent teaches to select a thermal mass for the
`
`opposite purpose, “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a
`
`predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time during
`
`7
`processing.’ This is completely inconsistent with the Hinman ring that is to
`
`indirectly heat and maintain a small amount of liquid sample at a single constant
`
`temperature for processing (the reaction temperature). Accordingly, Hinman
`
`utterly fails to teach the aforementioned element of claim 13.
`
`10. Patent Owner also acknowledges that Hinman was cited in an attempt to
`
`overcome the failure of Anderson’s disclosure. Hinman suffers from other
`
`shortcomings, as discussed, and further emphasized below. Patent Owner asserts
`
`that Anderson does not disclose selecting a thermal mass of a substrate holder,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017-00279
`
`contending that Anderson merely discloses that its heater has a low thermal mass,
`
`as discussed. See also, Prelim. Resp. 3—4.
`
`It is also not reasonable to conclude, as
`
`Petitioners suggest, that heating layer 15 is part of the substrate holder of Anderson
`
`such that modifying the thermal mass of the heater substantially affects the overall
`
`thermal mass of the substrate holder. As previously noted, and further emphasized
`
`again, Petitioners simply misrepresent the facts. Anderson’s abstract cited for
`
`thermal mass at [p.25 1-6] teaches nothing about any thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder.
`
`It does no more than mention a hollow cavity to in which to use phase
`
`change (latent heat of vaporization) to remove heat from a wafer. Latent heat is
`
`not thermal mass. Likewise, Anderson col. 2:60—65 discloses nothing about any
`
`thermal mass. Only once, in the single sentence concerning a heater that is placed
`
`in the chuck, does Anderson mention the term “thermal mass” in stating “the
`
`preferred embodiment is capable of heating the chuck 11 from room temperature to
`
`an operating temperature of 100 to 500 C. in a matter of seconds [before the
`
`plasma is switched on], due to the low thermal mass heater employed.”
`
`Furthermore, what Anderson relies on to maintain the operating temperature (not
`
`change any temperature) is the latent heat of vaporization of the liquid [Col. 6, 28-
`
`31].
`
`In other words, Anderson teaches a low thermal mass heater can be useful to
`
`bring a wafer to its operating temperature as quickly as possible prior to any
`
`processing [Co]. 2, 60—65], but that it is not sufficient to maintain the wafer
`
`7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR20'17—00279
`
`temperature in controlled manner while processing, never mind changing a wafer
`
`temperature during processing as claimed by the ‘264. The objective of
`
`Anderson was to effectuate an extreme temperature change before any processing.
`
`Anderson discloses nothing about tight control while changing wafer temperature
`
`to improve selectively during processing. Furthermore, the purpose of the low
`
`thermal mass heater in Anderson was to effectuate extreme temperature changes
`
`very rapidly before processing. Anderson teaches to use a liquid spray for
`
`controlling heat removal to maintain a single constant processing temperature.
`
`Patent Owner also disagrees with the Board that the ’264 patent specification only
`
`describes selecting the thermal mass of a portion of the substrate holder, namely
`
`the upper surface of the substrate holder. See BX. 1001, 15:40—48 (“the upper
`
`surface [of the substrate holder] is made using a low thermal mass, high
`
`conductivity material”). To the contrary, the ‘264 patent specifically teaches “the
`
`use of a workpiece support which has a low thermal mass in comparison to the heat
`
`transfer means” (1d. 2:37-41) and “the selected thermal mass ofthe substrate
`
`holder allows for a change for a first temperature to a second temperature within a
`
`characteristic time period to process a film.” (Id. 2:51-56) The passage in the “264
`
`specification noted by the Board, is a teaching about providing the upper surface of
`
`the substrate holder with “desirable heat transfer characteristics.” It discloses a
`
`specific embodiment where the upper surface is made using a material having a
`
`8
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017-00279
`
`combination of low thermal mass and high [thermal] conductivity, such a
`
`diamond—like or diamond film (overlying a copper or copper like substrate). This
`
`teaching does not qualify or negate the selection of a thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder “for a predetermined temperature change
`
`during processing,” and the
`
`noted embodiment is no evidence to the contrary.
`
`Again, Anderson teaches nothing about this element. Anderson’s teaching is
`
`incompatible with the cited ‘264 passage because copper has a coefficient of
`
`thermal expansion (~16.5 um/m-K) which is about 15-16 times greater than that of
`
`diamond (~l .1 ttm/m—K), and therefore would be excluded by his requirement that
`
`the surface of the chuck 14 match the coefficient of expansion of the heater
`
`material (Id. ozl 2—14). Accordingly, Anderson fails to teach that “the thermal mass
`
`of the substrate holder is selected...”
`
`11. Turning to Hinman, a PHOSHITA in the field of semiconductor
`
`processing would not have even considered Hinman. Furthermore, even assuming
`
`arguendo that he/she had, Hinman discloses nothing about the “thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval oftime during processing.” Patent Owner also disagrees with the
`
`Board that Hinman provides a more definite example of selecting a specific
`
`thermal mass, for example a 1 kg aluminum ring for the reasons already discussed
`
`and further emphasized below.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPRZO] 7—00279
`
`As discussed, Hinman concerns heating a small cuvette of liquid in a wet-
`
`chemical analysis instrument and mentions “thermal mass” for a preheated ring
`
`that is used to raise the temperature of liquid in the small cuvette using heat energy
`
`already in the ring. The objective in Hinman is for the ring to be able to heat the
`
`cuvette while its own temperature stays sufficiently constant. Hinman
`
`accomplishes this by having the thermal mass be about 20 times that of the liquid
`
`in the cuvette. Hinman selects a thermal mass of the ring that can prevent its own
`
`temperature from changing, yet change the temperature of the liquid prior to any
`
`processing. The ring is no substrate holder and thermal mass of the ring is
`
`different from the thermal mass of the substrate holder that changes temperature
`
`during processing in the ‘264 patent.
`
`In fact Hinman is also deficient because it
`
`fails to disclose changing the temperature of anything during processing, as
`
`required by the ‘264 patent.
`
`Patent Owner reiterates that Hinman is not analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention of the ’264 patent, because it is neither in the same field of endeavor nor
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the ’264 patent. Prelim. Resp. 5—10.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with the Board that Hinman is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem addressed by the ’264 patent. Patent Owner disagrees with the Board that
`
`the prior art would recognize a link between the control of substrate holder
`
`temperature and the throughput of the etching process. Additionally, a PHOSITA
`
`10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`would not perceive any link between the prior art and the ‘264 patent since each of
`
`them is directed to solving a totally different problem.
`
`That is, the ‘264 patent’s goal does not solely address control of the
`
`substrate holder temperature and the throughput of the etching process, as noted by
`
`the Board. Rather, the ‘264 patent is concerned with achieving or improving etch
`
`selectivity in a high throughput etch process for semiconductor processing, which
`
`is a different problem being addressed than any of the cited art. Etch selectivity
`
`and throughput for semiconductor processing are important in the ‘264 patent, and
`
`not found in either Muller or Hinman, as discussed below.
`
`Muller teaches that the change in taper angle of etched trenches correlates
`
`with increasing wafer temperature during the trench etching processes. Muller,
`
`3:33—66, Figs. 1 and 2. Muller has nothing to do with etch selectivity but is
`
`concerned with using two temperatures for profile control in a trench structure
`
`drilled from a single material, which would have nothing to do with selectivity.
`
`Muller is addressing the distinct and separate problem of profile control in contrast
`
`to the ‘264 patent.
`
`As noted, Hinman concerns heating a small cuvette of liquid in a wet—
`
`chemical analysis instrument. Hinman mentions (uses the term) “thermal mass”
`
`for a preheated (e.g. a temperature reservoir) ring that is used to raise the
`
`temperature of liquid in the small cuvette using heat energy already in the ring (e.g.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`the thermal mass is selected for the ring to act as a thermal reservoir). The
`
`objective in Hinman is for the ring to be able to heat the cuvette while its own
`
`temperature stays sufficiently constant, that is, Hinman selects a thermal mass of
`
`the ring that can prevent its temperature from changing yet change the temperature
`
`of the liquid before processing. The thermal mass for the ring is used to prevent
`
`change in temperature of the small cuvette, which is different from changing
`
`temperature in the ‘264 patent.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner would not conclude that a PHOSITA would
`
`have found Hinman pertinent to the problem addressed by the ‘264 patent. Patent
`
`Owner has restated its position on non—analogous art, and respectfully requests the
`
`Board to reconsider its arguments.
`
`12. Still further, from the discussion presented, Hinman taught use of a ring
`
`having a large thermal mass to store energy to maintain the small cuvette at a
`
`constant temperature, in contrast to Anderson that taught modifying the low thermal
`
`mass of a heater for rapidly increasing temperature in a matter of seconds before
`
`processing. A PHOSITA would not combine Hinman and Anderson since such
`
`combination would be inoperative because the large thermal mass taught by Hinman
`
`is in consistent with the low thermal mass of Anderson, and the combination would
`
`be in operable. Anderson and Hinman still lack the teaching of“the thermal mass
`
`of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`9
`specific interval of time during processing.’ Anderson, at best, taught changing
`
`temperature before processing, and Hinman, which does not even mention any
`
`etching process, uses its ring for maintaining the temperature of the cuvette for
`
`chemical analysis,
`
`rather
`
`than the thermal mass of
`
`the substrate holder
`
`is
`
`selected. . .within a specific time interval during processing as required by claim 13.
`
`13. Patent Owner asserts that claims 19 and 20 are not obvious over the combined
`
`disclosures of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Wright. Pet. 45—47.
`
`Claim 19 depends from claim 13 and further requires that the etching temperatures
`
`correspond to substrate holder temperatures, and that the etching temperatures are
`
`in a “known relationship” to the substrate holder temperatures. xx Claim 20
`
`depends from claim 19, and further requires that the etching temperatures are
`
`within 1°C of the substrate holder temperatures.
`
`Wright fails to teach the elements of claims 19 and 20. Wright fails to teach
`
`any “known relationship to the substrate holder temperatures. Wright also fails to
`
`teach that the etching temperatures are within 1 Degree C of the substrate holder
`
`temperatures. That is, Wright has great difficulty in controlling even one wafer
`
`temperature within 1 Degree C (or within 1 Degree C of the chuck temperature
`
`after 20 seconds, let alone changing temperature from one predetermined value to
`
`another while maintaining a correspondence within 1 Degree C. as required by
`
`claim 20). Ex1008 Figures 4, 5, and 6, and accompanying text.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`Petitioner conflates different temperatures and processes in Wright. Figures
`
`4 and 6 show data for the cryogenic polycold polysilicon etch. Figure 5 has data
`
`for a different process: an oxide etch in a different chamber of the machine
`
`(chamber 2) performed at 30 C (by cooling with a circulating methanol chiller).
`
`Wright’s data show large temperature excursions between the wafer holder
`
`temperature and the wafer after plasma is ignited and etching occurs. The
`
`maximum temperature difference is about 3 °C or more in Figure 2, and more than
`
`25 Degrees C in Figure 5. Figure 4 shows a wafer temperature fluctuating between
`
`about ——102C and —105C. with a chuck temperature of about —105.5°C. Figure 5
`
`shows a chuck temperature drifting from about -32.5°C to —30°C while wafer
`
`temperature fluctuates from about —30°C to —5°C, each of which is a much wider
`
`variation than the claimed 1 degree C.
`
`On page 325, 2nd full paragraph, Wright explains, “At this scale the
`
`exponential behaviors of both the heating and cooling ofthe wafer are apparent.”
`
`In other words, Wright shows his wafer temperatures can fall within 1 Degrees C
`
`of the substrate temperatures about 20 seconds after the plasma is extinguished.
`
`When the plasma is active there is a large temperature difference outside of the
`
`claimed 1 degree range.
`
`Additionally, a PHOSITA would not combine Wright with any of the other
`
`cited art. That is, Wright is directed to controlling a cryogenic coolant temperature
`
`14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017—00279
`
`that always removes heat from the substrate holder. Wright’s substrate holders
`
`never heat a substrate (e.g. it only cools the substrate). Accordingly, Wright
`
`addresses a problem that is different than the object of the ‘264, and also different
`
`from the respective objectives of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman.
`
`14. Patent Owner asserts that claim 17 is not obvious over the combined disclosures
`
`of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi. Claim 17 depends from
`
`claim 13 and further requires that the etching of at least one of the portions of the
`
`film comprises radiation. Kikuchi teaches away Muller’s process by using its
`
`infrared lamps to heat a wafer [Pet 48 (citing EX. 1004, 725—31)] for an etching
`
`process.
`
`In particular, Kikuchi relates to an “etching process,” as opposed to a deep
`
`trench silicon etching process of Muller. Ex. 1002 Abstract. Additionally, Kikuchi
`
`teaches “a plurality of supports, which may be movably disposed within a vacuum
`
`treatment chamber for moving the substrate away from a source of heat and for
`
`moving the substrate into contact with the heating source.” Ex.1002 Abstract.
`
`Kikuchi takes affirmative measures to teach away from Muller’s source of heat,
`
`which is its chuck, would not be combined with Kikuchi’s infrared lamps since it
`
`would defeat the purpose of either Kikuchi or Muller according to a PHOSITA.
`
`Based upon the earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the combination of the
`
`cited art including Kikuchi still fails to teach claim 17.
`
`15. Patent Owner asserts that claims 24—26 are not obvious over the combined
`
`15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR20‘17—00279
`
`disclosures of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi. These claims
`
`are directed to certain aspects of the substrate holder, such as fluid passages or
`
`heating elements. Based upon the earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the
`
`combination of the cited art including Moslehi fails to teach claims 24—26.
`
`16. Patent Owner asserts that claims 14—16, 18—23, 64, and 65 are non-obvious
`
`over the combined disclosures of Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman.
`
`Petition’s contentions are similar to those provided in its grounds involving Muller,
`
`Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman, except that in place ofMuller’s etch chamber
`
`Petitioners rely on the etch chamber of Kadomura. Given this and based upon the
`
`earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the combination of the cited art
`
`including replacing Muller with Kadomura fails to teach claims 14-16, 18-23, 64,
`
`and 65.
`
`17. Patent Owner asserts that claim 17 is non-obvious over the combined
`
`disclosures of Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi. For the
`
`same reasons that Kikuchi fails to teach claim 17 with Muller, Kikuchi has the
`
`same problems with Kadomura. That is Kikuchi relates to an “etching process,” as
`
`opposed to a deep trench silicon etching process of Muller. Ex. 1002 Abstract.
`
`Additionally, Kikuchi takes affirmative measures to teach away from M uller’s
`
`source of heat, which is its chuck, would not be combined with Kikuchi’s infrared
`
`lamps since it would defeat the purpose of either Kikuchi or Muller according to a
`
`16
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`PHOSITA. Based upon the earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the
`
`combination of the cited art including Kikuchi still fails to teach claim 17.
`
`18. Patent Owner asserts that claims 24—26 are not obvious over the
`
`combined disclosures of Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi.
`
`Based upon the earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the combination of the
`
`cited art including Moslehi and replacement of Muller by Kadomura fails to teach
`
`claims 24—26.
`
`19. Patent Owner asserts that claim 15 is not obvious over the combined
`
`disclosures of Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Muller. Claim 15
`
`depends from claim 13, and further requires that the change from the first substrate
`
`holder temperature to the second substrate holder temperature is an in—situ process
`
`during the first portion etching and second portion etching.
`
`A PHOSITA would not combine Kadomura, which teaches exhausting the
`
`etching gas between etching steps, and changing the temperature during the time
`
`used to exhaust the gas, with the continuous process of Muller. Muller relates to a
`
`deep trench etching process, which would be compromised and not work, if
`
`combined with the multi—step process of Kadomura.
`
`Additionally, based upon the earlier arguments associated with claim 13, the
`
`combination of the cited art including Muller now (for teaching in-situ) and
`
`replacement of Muller by Kadomura fails to teach claim 15.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017—00279
`
`20. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on this 20th day of September, 2017
`
`/'
`
`7 W
`
`K
`
`Daniel L. Flamm
`
`18
`
`
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
