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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`Claims 13-26 & 64-65
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`II. Mandatory notices .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real party in interest............................................................................. 1
`B.
`Related matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Notice of counsel and service information ........................................... 2
`III. Requirements for inter partes review ............................................................. 4
`A. Ground for standing ............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Identification of challenge .................................................................... 4
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ........................................................................... 5
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 5
`B.
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features ................................................................................................. 7
`The earliest possible priority date for the ’264 patent is
`September 1997 .................................................................................... 9
`V. Overview of the prior art .............................................................................. 10
`A.
`Two-temperature etch processes were well known in the prior
`art ........................................................................................................ 10
`1. Muller (Ex. 1002) ..................................................................... 11
`2. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ............................................................. 13
`3.
`Kadomura (Ex. 1005) ............................................................... 16
`Selecting thermal mass for a substrate holder was a known
`technique ............................................................................................ 17
`1.
`Anderson (Ex. 1011) ................................................................ 18
`2.
`Hinman (Ex. 1010) ................................................................... 19
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................... 19
`Proposed claim constructions ............................................................. 20
`1.
`“Selected thermal mass” .......................................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“The thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for
`a predetermined temperature change within a specific
`interval of time” ....................................................................... 21
`VI. Claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable....................... 22
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 64-65 are obvious
`over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................. 22
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 22
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 37
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 38
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 39
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 40
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 41
`7.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 42
`8.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 43
`9.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 43
`10. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 44
`11. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 45
`Ground 2: Claims 19-20 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Wright ......................................................... 45
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 45
`2.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 47
`Ground 3: Claim 17 is obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 48
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 48
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 48
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ............................................... 51
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 51
`2.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 53
`Ground 5: Claims 13-16, 18-23, 64-65 are obvious over
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................... 54
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 54
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 68
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 68
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 69
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 69
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 70
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 71
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 72
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 72
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 73
`11. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 74
`12. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 74
`Ground 6: Claim 17 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 75
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 75
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 75
`G. Ground 7: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ........................... 77
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 77
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 77
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 79
`3.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 80
`4.
`H. Ground 8: Claim 15 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Muller .......................................................... 81
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 81
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 81
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“’264 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,605,600 (“Muller”)
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,226,056 (“Kikuchi”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 (“Kadomura”)
`
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224 (“’224 application”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Wright, D.R. et al., A Closed Loop Temperature Control System for
`a Low-Temperature Etch Chuck, Advanced Techniques for
`Integrated Processing II, Vol. 1803 (1992), pp. 321–329 (“Wright”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,192,849 (“Moslehi ’849”)
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 3,863,049 (“Hinman”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Statutory Invention Registration No. H1145 (“Anderson”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Incropera, Frank P. et al, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
`Third Edition, 1981 (“Incropera”)
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`(continued)
`
`CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: A Ready-Reference
`Book of Chemical and Physical Data, 71st Edition, CRC Press, Inc.,
`1974 (“CRC Handbook”)
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Paper 7
`(February 24, 2016)
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00468, Paper 6 (June
`30, 2016)
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v.
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 7 (February 24, 2016)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 1 (August 18, 2015)
`
`Ex. 1020 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. regarding Exhibit 1014
`
`Ex. 1021 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1015
`
`Ex. 1022 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`Other Abbreviations and Conventions
`Petitioners
`Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron
`Technology, Inc.
`Daniel Flamm
`
`Patent
`Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Dr. Daniel Flamm sued Petitioners Intel Corporation,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc. for allegedly
`
`infringing U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E. Petitioners request the Board to institute
`
`5
`
`an IPR trial on claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent because prior art that was
`
`not before the examiner during prosecution renders those claims unpatentable.
`
`The ’264 patent is titled “Multi-Temperature Processing.” The challenged
`
`claims all require etching a substrate (such as a semiconductor wafer) at multiple
`
`temperatures and selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder (such as a wafer
`
`10
`
`chuck) to change temperature within a preselected period of time. Several
`
`references that were not previously before the patent office show that multi-
`
`temperature etching and thermal mass selection were known long before the
`
`critical date. The various claims also tack on conventional semiconductor tool
`
`components (temperature sensors and multiple heating elements), but there was
`
`15
`
`nothing unexpected or inventive about those elements either. Each of the
`
`challenged claims is a combination of well-known elements arranged in a
`
`conventional way to produce predictable results. The challenged claims were
`
`obvious.
`
`20
`
`II. Mandatory notices
`A. Real party in interest
`The real parties in interest are Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`B. Related matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’264 patent against Petitioners and others in
`
`lawsuits (now stayed) in the Northern District of California: Case Nos. 5:16-cv-
`
`5
`
`01578-BLF, 5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-BLF, 5:16-cv-1581-BLF, and 5:16-
`
`cv-02252-BLF. In addition, Lam Research Corporation has filed a declaratory
`
`judgment action against Patent Owner on the ’264 patent (N.D. Cal. Case No.
`
`5:15-cv-01277-BLF) and IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2015-01759;
`
`IPR2015-01764; IPR2015-01766; IPR2015-01768; IPR2016-00468; IPR2016-
`
`10
`
`00469; and IPR2016-00470). Finally, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. has filed
`
`IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2016-01510 and IPR2016-01512).
`
`C. Notice of counsel and service information
`Petitioners’ respective counsel are:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Jonathan McFarland
`Reg. No. 61,109
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`206-359-8000 (phone)
`206-359-9000 (fax)
`Attorney for Intel Corporation
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Chad Campbell
`Pro hac vice to be submitted
`Tyler Bowen
`Reg. No. 60,461
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`2901 N. Central Ave, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012
`602-351-8000 (phone)
`602-648-7000 (fax)
`Attorneys for Intel Corporation
`
`Daniel Keese
`Reg. No. 69,315
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
`Portland, OR 97209
`503-727-2000 (phone)
`503-727-2222 (fax)
`Attorney for Intel Corporation
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Registration No. 73,604
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-802-3237 (phone)
`650-802-3100 (fax)
`Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`Jared Bobrow
`Pro hac vice to be submitted
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-802-3034 (phone)
`650-802-3100 (fax)
`Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`202-626-3600 (phone)
`202-639-9355 (fax)
`Attorney for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.
`
`Nathan Zhang
`Registration No. 71,401
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`650-213-0300 (phone)
`650-213-8158 (fax)
`Attorney for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.
`
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service. All services and communications
`
`to the above attorneys can be sent to: Intel-Flamm-Service-IPR@perkinscoie.com;
`
`micron.flamm.service@weil.com; and WCGlobalFoundries-
`
`FlammTeam@whitecase.com. A Power of Attorney for Petitioners will be filed
`
`5
`
`concurrently with this Petition.
`
`III. Requirements for inter partes review
`A. Ground for standing
`The ’264 patent qualifies for IPR, and Petitioners are not barred.1
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 13-26 and 64-65 should be cancelled as obvious based on:
`
`10
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Patent Owner did not name Petitioners in an infringement complaint until January
`
`15, 2016, and the court did not issue summonses for purposes of service until
`
`January 21, 2016. N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF, Dkts. 50, 58, 60 & 61.
`
`Patent Owner did not serve any Petitioner with the complaint before January 21,
`
`2016.
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 13-16, 18-19,
`21-23, 64-65
`Claims 19-20
`
`Ground References
`1
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman (Exs.
`1002-1003 and 1010-1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, Wright
`(Exs. 1002-1003, 1008 and 1010-1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Kikuchi (Exs. 1002-1004 and 1010-1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Moslehi ’849 (Exs. 1002-1003 and 1009-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman
`(Exs. 1003, 1005 and 1010-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Kikuchi (Exs. 1003-1005 and 1010-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Moslehi ’849 (Exs. 1003, 1005 and 1009-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Muller (Exs. 1002-1003, 1005 and 1010-1011)
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent
`A. The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes
`The ’264 patent issued April 29, 2008 from a reissue application filed May
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claims 24-26
`
`Claims 13-16, 18-23,
`64-65
`Claim 17
`
`Claims 24-26
`
`Claim 15
`
`14, 2003. The sole named inventor is Daniel L. Flamm. The patent discloses
`
`5
`
`processing (e.g., etching) a semiconductor wafer at two different temperatures in a
`
`tool chamber. (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12, 18:54-56.) Specifically, the patent describes
`
`that temperature control system 700, shown in Figure 7 below, heats or cools wafer
`
`chuck 701 (purple) using a heater (red) and fluid (blue) from reservoir 713. (Id.,
`
`15:65-66, 16:3-5.) The control system measures wafer and chuck temperatures
`
`10
`
`“using conventional means” to change temperatures “to pre-determined
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`temperatures within specified time intervals….” (Id., 16:60-67, 18:22-26; Ex.
`
`1006 ¶¶48-55.)
`
`Figure 10 plots changes in temperature against processing time. (Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`5
`
`¶¶56-57.)
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`The ’264 patent further describes selecting the thermal mass of a substrate
`
`holder (e.g., chuck) “to facilitate” changing the substrate (e.g., wafer) temperature
`
`and “allow[ing] for a change from a first temperature to a second temperature
`
`within a characteristic time period to process a film.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:51-
`
`5
`
`56.) Yet, the ’264 specification does not provide any specific examples of
`
`selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder so that a wafer changes between
`
`two selected temperatures within a specific time period. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶58-59.) Nor
`
`does the ’264 patent identify the precise thermal mass of any particular chuck
`
`materials, other than suggesting use of a “low thermal mass” material such as
`
`10
`
`copper. (Ex. 1001, 15:43-48.) As the patent acknowledges, “[o]f course, the type
`
`of surface used depends upon the application.” (Id., 15:47-48.)
`
`B.
`
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features
`
`Independent method claim 13 recites etching a substrate at two different
`
`15
`
`substrate holder temperatures. The method requires the following steps for
`
`carrying out a two-temperature etch:
`
`• placing a substrate with a film on a substrate holder in a chamber,
`
`• setting the substrate holder to a first temperature with a heat transfer
`
`device,
`
`20
`
`• etching a first portion of a film at the first temperature,
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`• using the heat transfer device to change the substrate holder’s
`
`temperature, and
`
`• etching a second portion of a film at the second temperature.
`
`The claim includes one additional requirement. The substrate holder has a
`
`5
`
`“selected thermal mass” to change between the two selected temperatures within a
`
`“specific interval of time during processing.” (Ex. 1006 ¶¶26-27.)
`
`The claims that depend from claim 13 recite minor, conventional variations
`
`to the above general process:
`
`• etching different materials (14);
`
`10
`
`• “in-situ” temperature change (15);
`
`• etching in a “substantially constant plasma environment” (16);
`
`• etching using radiation (17);
`
`• etching using ion bombardment (18);
`
`• correspondence between wafer and chuck temperatures (19-22);
`
`15
`
`• using an electrostatic chuck with certain heating and cooling
`
`capabilities (23-26);
`
`• using a “control circuit” to change chuck temperature (64); and
`
`• reaching a second chuck temperature “at approximately a selected
`
`time” (65).
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`C. The earliest possible priority date for the ’264 patent is September
`1997
`
`For purposes of this Petition, September 11, 1997 is the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the challenged claims. Although the ’264 patent also recites a
`
`5
`
`priority claim to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224, filed on December 4,
`
`1995 (Ex. 1007), the claimed subject matter is not supported by the ’224
`
`application.2
`
`For example, claim 13 requires that the “thermal mass of the substrate holder
`
`is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of
`
`10
`
`time during processing.” Yet, the ’224 application did not use the term “thermal
`
`mass,” much less describe or teach selecting the thermal mass of a chuck or doing
`
`so to change temperature “within a specific interval of time.” (Ex. 1006 ¶¶30-31.)
`
`Nor did the ’224 application disclose changing chuck temperature from a first to a
`
`second temperature within a preselected interval of time. (Id. ¶31.)
`
`
`
` 2
`
` The Board analyzed the priority of claims 13-26 and 64-65 in a prior IPR. The
`
`Board found that those claims were not entitled to a priority date before September
`
`11, 1997. (Ex. 1017, 10-12.) Although unimportant to this petition, Petitioners do
`
`not concede that the claims are entitled to priority as of September 11, 1997.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`V. Overview of the prior art
`A. Two-temperature etch processes were well known in the prior art
`Alone or in combination, Muller, Kadomura, Matsumura, and Kikuchi
`
`disclosed the two-temperature etching processes recited in independent claim 13
`
`5
`
`and the minor variations in its dependents. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶34, 38-39, 137.)
`
`In particular, the references disclosed controlling temperature changes (Ex.
`
`1002, Abstract; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:8-13; Ex. 1005, Title, Abstract) through
`
`heating (Ex. 1004, 7:25-34; Ex. 1005, 11:42-47) and cooling (Ex. 1002, 4:51-5:25;
`
`Ex. 1003, 6:20-32; Ex. 1005, 11:42-59), and rapid temperature changes to
`
`10
`
`minimize potential processing delays (Ex. 1002, 5:17-26, 6:66-7:8; Ex. 1003, 7:50-
`
`53, Figs. 8-9; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 7:62-8:14; Ex. 1005, 5:18-25). The references
`
`disclosed etching tools with sensors to measure temperatures and regulate
`
`temperature changes. (Ex. 1003, 6:20-32; Ex. 1005, 12:37-48; Ex. 1008 at 321
`
`(“The system employs an optical fluorescence probe on the chuck (a second probe
`
`15
`
`monitors the wafer temperature as well)….”).) The references also disclosed using
`
`processing recipes to pre-program systems to process wafers at particular times or
`
`temperatures and to change temperatures within preselected times. (Ex. 1003, 3:1-
`
`16, 5:58-6:2, 7:19-32, 8:25-35, 8:56-68, Figs. 8-9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶34-40, 79-84.) It
`
`was also known in the art to select an object’s thermal mass to change between two
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`selected temperatures within a specific time interval. (Ex. 1011, 6:24-28; Ex. 1010,
`
`2:53-3:6; Ex. 1006 ¶¶41-47.)
`
`1. Muller (Ex. 1002)
`Muller issued in February 1997. Like the ’264 patent, Muller disclosed
`
`5
`
`etching a wafer at two sequential temperatures in a chamber. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶71, 74.)
`
`Muller disclosed etching surface layers on a wafer and deep trenches into the wafer
`
`while varying wafer temperature using an electrostatic chuck and coolant
`
`circulating through a cathode. (Ex. 1002, 1:7-12, 1:44-55, 4:51-63.) Figure 4
`
`below is annotated to highlight the wafer 104 (green), electrostatic chuck 105
`
`10
`
`(purple), and cathode 106 (blue).
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Muller taught performing an initial etch at 125ºC or 145ºC. (Id., 3:45-52,
`
`3:56-66.) Then, the gas pressure underneath the chuck was changed to adjust the
`
`chuck temperature and increase wafer temperature by 50ºC in “several seconds”
`
`during etching. (Id., 4:64-5:25, 5:41-48.) Due to the 50ºC increase, Muller’s
`
`5
`
`second etching step was performed at 175ºC (e.g., 125ºC plus 50ºC) or 195ºC (e.g.,
`
`145ºC plus 50ºC). (Id., 5:17-25, 5:41-48; Ex. 1006 ¶73-74.) The two etching
`
`temperature examples corresponded to different coolant temperatures––(a) with
`
`coolant at 10ºC, etch steps 1 and 2 were at 125ºC (step 1) and 175ºC (step 2),
`
`respectively; and (b) with coolant at 30ºC, etch steps 1 and 2 were at 145ºC (step 1)
`
`10
`
`and 195ºC (step 2), respectively. (Id., 5:17-25, 5:41-48; Fig. 3.)
`
`As shown below in Figure 6C, Muller taught that etching at lower
`
`temperatures produced sloped sidewalls in mask openings and deep trenches, while
`
`etching at higher temperatures produced more vertical sidewalls. (Id., 3:34-52,
`
`6:3-10, Figs. 1-2, Ex. 1006 ¶74.)
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`2. Matsumura (Ex. 1003)
`Like Muller, Matsumura (issued September 1992) disclosed multi-
`
`
`
`temperature wafer processing in a chamber. Additionally, Matsumura disclosed
`
`5
`
`the well-known practice of using recipes to preselect process parameters such as
`
`temperatures and temperature change times. Matsumura also disclosed using a
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor with processing recipes. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶80-83.)
`
`As in annotated Figure 5A below, Matsumura taught a processing tool with a
`
`thermometer 24 and sensor 25 (yellow) for measuring the temperature of wafer
`
`10
`
`holding stage 12 (purple); control system 20 (orange) for managing temperature
`
`changes; thin heat conducting film 14 (red) in stage 12 to heat wafer W (green);
`
`and cooling system 23 (blue) to cool the wafer. (Ex. 1003, 5:60-63, 5:68-6:2, 8:18-
`
`35.)
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Substrate temperature sensors, like Matsumura’s, were well known in the
`
`prior art. For example, Wright (published 1992) disclosed using two separate
`
`sensors to measure the temperature of the wafer and the wafer holder (chuck). (Ex.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`1008, 321 (“The system employs an optical fluorescence probe on the chuck (a
`
`second probe monitors the wafer temperature as well)….”), Fig. 6.)
`
`Likewise, using recipes to preselect temperature changes and other
`
`processing conditions was well known in semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`5
`
`Matsumura’s control system 20 followed “predetermined recipe[s]” that specified
`
`temperatures, processing times, and temperature change times. (Ex. 1003, 3:1-7,
`
`3:14-16.) Matsumura’s Figure 9 below charts a sample recipe with multiple
`
`preselected processing temperatures (y-axis) and temperature change times (x-axis).
`
`Matsumura expressly taught that its recipe-based temperature control techniques
`
`10
`
`applied to etching processes. (Id., 10:3-7.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`3. Kadomura (Ex. 1005)
`Kadomura (filed February 1997) also disclosed a multi-temperature etching
`
`process. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶95-105.) As in annotated Figure 4 below, Kadomura
`
`disclosed an etching tool with a heater in wafer holder stage 12 (purple), a chiller
`
`5
`
`17 (blue) for cooling stage 12, a thermometer 18 (yellow) for measuring wafer
`
`temperature, and a control device 25 (orange) for controlling the temperature of
`
`wafer W (green) based on temperature measurements from thermometer 18. (Ex.
`
`1005, 11:36-59, 12:37-48.) Kadomura adjusted the wafer’s temperature by
`
`changing the temperature of stage 12. (Id., 3:23-49.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Kadomura disclosed several specific examples of multi-temperature etch
`
`processes, including etching wafers at and above room temperature (20ºC, 50ºC)
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`and changing etching temperature within about 30 or 50 seconds. (Id., 6:18-7:7,
`
`7:58-8:64, 9:33-10:27.)
`
`B.
`
`Selecting thermal mass for a substrate holder was a known
`technique
`
`5
`
`Choosing a material with a thermal mass that provides for specific
`
`temperature changes within specific time periods was also known in the prior art.
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶¶41-47.) In semiconductor processing, it was known that thermal mass
`
`is relevant to chuck design and affects the time needed to change temperature. For
`
`example, Moslehi ’849 taught using a “low thermal mass” chuck for rapid heating
`
`10
`
`and cooling to maximize “throughput.” (Ex. 1009, Title, 3:32-34, 4:44-48, 4:55-57,
`
`9:58-60, 11:58-60.) Moslehi ’849 also explained that the chuck’s thermal mass
`
`should be large enough to change temperature evenly. (Id., 10:3-7.) As another
`
`example, Anderson taught using a low thermal mass substrate holder that changed
`
`from room temperature to 100ºC-500ºC in “a matter of seconds.” (Ex. 1011, 6:23-
`
`15
`
`27.)
`
`Additionally, the basic thermal mass equation (mass x specific heat) was
`
`well known in the art, and the specific heats of various materials were known and
`
`widely available to skilled artisans. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶44-46 (citing Ex. 1010 & Ex.
`
`1015).) It was further known to preselect the mass or material of an object so that
`
`20
`
`it changed from one selected temperature to another within a given time period.
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Hinman selected an aluminum ring with a thermal mass of 230 for that purpose.
`
`(Ex. 1010, 2:53-3:1.)
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011)
`
`1.
`Anderson (published March 1993) disclosed selecting a low thermal mass
`
`5
`
`substrate holder to quickly change a semiconductor wafer’s temperature for
`
`processing. (Ex. 1011, Abstract, 2:60-65; Ex. 1006 ¶¶112-115.) Anderson’s
`
`preferred embodiment changed “from room temperature to an operating
`
`temperature of 100º to 500ºC in a matter of seconds, due to the low thermal mass
`
`heater employed.” (Ex. 1011, 6:24-28 (emphasis added).) Annotated Figure 2
`
`10
`
`below illustrates wafer 20 (green) on a substrate holder including heater 15 (red)
`
`and chuck 11 (purple circle).
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of '264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`2. Hinman (Ex. 1010)
`Hinman (issued 1975) disclosed preselecting the thermal mass of a material
`
`in a chemical analyzer’s “temperature control system” to effectuate predetermined
`
`temperature changes within a specific time interval. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶123-127.) The
`
`5
`
`device used a metal ring to change the temperature of liquids in a preselected time
`
`for performing chemical reactions. (Ex. 1010, Abstract, 1:5-29.) Hinman taught
`
`that the thermal mass of the metal ring should be selected to be 5 to 20 times that
`
`of the sample being heated in order to change the sample temperature from 15ºC-
`
`20ºC to 25ºC-40ºC within 20-40 seconds. (Id., 2:53-63.) As an example, Hinman
`
`10
`
`described selecting aluminum with a thermal mass of 230 for the ring, calculating
`
`the thermal mass by multiplying 1,000 grams of aluminum by 0.23, the specific
`
`heat of aluminum. (Id., 2:63-3:1.)
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the alleged invention of the ’264
`
`15
`
`patent (“skilled person”) would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in chemical
`
`engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics,
`
`chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in
`
`chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`20
`
`physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in
`
`-