UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-002791
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN BRAVMAN IN SUPPORT OF PE-
`TITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264
`(Claims 13-26 and 64-65)
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01749.
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Responses to Arguments Raised by Dr. Flamm ............................................. 6
`A. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman rendered claim 13
`obvious ................................................................................................. 6
`1. Muller in view of Anderson disclosed claim 13,
`limitation [a] ............................................................................... 7
`2. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson and Hinman disclosed
`claim 13, limitation [f] ............................................................. 16
`a)
`Anderson ........................................................................ 16
`b)
`Hinman .......................................................................... 25
`c)
`The combination of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson,
`and Hinman .................................................................... 35
`B. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman and Kikuchi rendered
`claim 17 obvious ................................................................................ 40
`C. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman, alone or further in
`view of Wright rendered claims 19 and 20 obvious .......................... 44
`D. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson and Hinman in view of Moslehi
`’849 rendered claims 24-26 obvious .................................................. 51
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman rendered claim
`13 obvious .......................................................................................... 54
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman rendered
`obvious claims 14–16, 18–23, 64, and 65 .......................................... 55
`G. Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman or Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Muller rendered claim 15
`obvious ............................................................................................... 56
`H. Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman in view of
`Kikuchi rendered claim 17 obvious ................................................... 60
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson and Hinman in view of
`Moslehi ’849 rendered claims 24-26 obvious .................................... 64
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`J.
`
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Muller, and Kikuchi or Kikuchi and
`Matsumura rendered claim 33 obvious .............................................. 67
`III. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 69
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`-ii-
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`
`
`
` My name is John Bravman. I have been retained in the above-1.
`
`referenced inter partes review proceeding by Petitioners to evaluate United States
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 (the “’264 patent”) against certain prior art references, in-
`
`cluding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,063,710, 5,151,871, 5,226,056, 5,605,600, 5,192,849,
`
`and 3,863,049, and Invention Registration No. H1145, as well as the knowledge of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention, including
`
`as demonstrated by various state of the art references. I submitted the Declaration
`
`of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE40,264 in this matter (“Opening Declaration,” Ex. 1006) in connection with
`
`Petitioners’ Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“Peti-
`
`tion”) seeking review of claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent. Since then, the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) has instituted review of all
`
`challenged claims.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Daniel L. Flamm (“Dr. Flamm”) recently filed a Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the Petition (“Response,” Paper No. 13). I have reviewed the
`
`Response and its exhibits. I have also reviewed documents relating to IPR2016-
`
`01510, IPR2016-01512, and IPR2017-01072, which concern claims in the ’264 pa-
`
`tent. I now submit this Reply Declaration in support of Petitioners’ Reply to ad-
`
`dress arguments raised by Dr. Flamm in the Response and in the Declaration of
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Daniel L. Flamm in Support of Patent Owner’s Response (“Flamm Declaration,”
`
`Ex. 2001). As described below, it remains my opinion that each of the challenged
`
`claims is rendered obvious by prior art references that predate the priority date of
`
`the ’264 patent. I am prepared to testify about my opinions expressed in my Open-
`
`ing Declaration and in this Reply Declaration.
`
` My Opening Declaration describes my qualifications, materials I re-
`3.
`
`viewed for this matter, and my opinions on issues such as background relating to
`
`the ’264 patent and the challenged claims, the level of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`technical art at the time of the alleged invention, the priority date of the ’264 pa-
`
`tent, the state of the prior art at the time of the alleged invention, and claim con-
`
`struction issues relating to the ’264 patent. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 2-66 (Ex.
`
`1006)) It is my understanding that the Response does not challenge my qualifica-
`
`tions or my opinions relating to the level of ordinary skill in the relevant technical
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention and the priority date of the ’264 patent. I
`
`also discussed in my Opening Declaration my understanding of the legal standards
`
`relating to invalidity, background relating to prior art references, how the prior art
`
`disclosed what is claimed in the ’264 patent, and why a person or ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention would have combined different prior art
`
`references. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 67-342 (Ex. 1006))
`
` My Opening Declaration expressed my opinion that a person of ordi-
`4.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`nary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would agree with the
`
`Board’s construction of “selected thermal mass” as “thermal mass selected by se-
`
`lecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or
`
`both.” (Opening Declaration at ¶ 63 (Ex. 1006)) The Board subsequently main-
`
`tained its construction. (Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Institution
`
`Decision”) at 10 (Paper No. 9)) I have applied the Board’s construction of that
`
`term in this declaration, as I did in my Opening Declaration.
`
` My Opening Declaration expressed my opinion that “the thermal mass
`5.
`
`of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time” should be construed as “the material and/or mass of the
`
`substrate holder are chosen in order to effect a predetermined change in substrate
`
`holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second tempera-
`
`ture within a specific time period.” (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 64-66 (Ex. 1006))
`
`The Board subsequently adopted this construction for the purposes of its decision.
`
`(Institution Decision at 11 (Paper No. 9)) In my review of the Response and
`
`Flamm Declaration, I did not see any statements or opinions relating to the con-
`
`struction of this limitation.
`
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the Board’s decision denying institution in IPR2017-
`
`01072, a separate proceeding not involving Petitioners that challenged the same
`
`claims of the ’264 patent as Petitioners have challenged here. I am aware that the
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Board there construed “[the thermal mass of the substrate holder] is selected for a
`
`predetermined temperature change within a specified interval of time during pro-
`
`cessing; the predetermined temperature change comprises the change from the se-
`
`lected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`
`temperature, and the specified time interval comprises the time for changing from
`
`the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate
`
`holder temperature” as meaning that ‘the temperature change from the first sub-
`
`strate holder temperature to the second substrate holder temperature within a speci-
`
`fied interval of time is predetermined, and based on that predetermination, the
`
`thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected.’” (Decision Denying Institution,
`
`IPR2017-01072, at 15-16 (Paper No. 7)) I further understand that the Board stated
`
`that its construction is consistent with the prosecution history:
`
`During the Reissue Proceeding of the ’245 application
`which gave rise to the ’264 patent, Patent Owner amend-
`ed claim 56, which ultimately issued as claim 13, to re-
`place language stating the thermal mass of the substrate
`holder “is selected to allow changing the first substrate
`holder temperature to the second substrate holder tem-
`perature within a selected time period” with the addition-
`al limitations of step [f] recited above. Nov. 20, 2006
`Amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.11, pp. 2–3. (Ex. 3001).
`As a result of this amendment, the Examiner withdrew a
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`§ 102 anticipation rejection over Japanese Publication
`No. 59-076876. May 30, 2007 Final Office Action (Ex.
`3002, 4). The Examiner stated that “[a]pplicant’s point is
`well taken that JP-076876 does not teach selecting a
`thermal mass based on a predetermined temperature
`change and specified interval of time processing, as in
`the context of claim 56.” Id. (emphasis added). The Ex-
`aminer further stated that “[a]lthough such a thermal
`mass may be inherent, there is no teaching to predeter-
`mine a temperature change and interval of time, and
`based on that, to select the thermal mass of the substrate
`holder.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`(Decision Denying Institution, IPR2017-01072, at 14-15 (Paper No. 7)) I agree
`
`with the Board’s claim construction analysis (Decision Denying Institution,
`
`IPR2017-01072, at 11-16 (Paper No. 7)). The Board’s construction is consistent
`
`with the construction I applied in my Opening Declaration and apply in this decla-
`
`ration.
`
`
`7.
`
`I note that the claims of the ’264 patent are lengthy and recite numer-
`
`ous conventional elements that existed in the prior art and that Dr. Flamm does not
`
`purport to have invented. The number of references used in combination to chal-
`
`lenge the validity of claims of the ’264 patent is a consequence of Flamm’s deci-
`
`sion to seek claims that recite numerous conventional prior art elements that were
`
`well known at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`II. Responses to Arguments Raised by Dr. Flamm
`
`A. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman rendered claim 13
`obvious
`
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Flamm argues that the combination of Muller, Matsumura, Ander-
`
`son, and Hinman does not render obvious claim 13. (Response at 2-20 (Paper No.
`
`13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 8-12 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree, for the reasons stated
`
`below and in my Opening Declaration. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 70-75, 79-94,
`
`112-118, 122-130, 168-201 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Flamm focuses on claim 13, limitation [f] (“wherein the thermal
`
`mass of the substrate holder is selected for… changing from the selected first sub-
`
`strate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature”).
`
`(Response at 3-20 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 8-12 (Ex. 2001))
`
`However, Dr. Flamm’s arguments also implicate my analysis of claim 13, limita-
`
`tion [a] (“placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a cham-
`
`ber, the substrate holder having a selected thermal mass”). Therefore I respond be-
`
`low to Dr. Flamm’s arguments in the context of both of these limitations.
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that I impermissibly parsed “interdependent
`10.
`
`phrases” in claim 13, limitation [f]. (Response at 4-5 (Paper No. 13)) I disagree.
`
`My Opening Declaration addressed claim 13, limitation [f] with reference to a sin-
`
`gle combination, namely Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman, and showed
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`that combination renders obvious claim 13, limitation [f] as a whole, not as parsed
`
`into portions. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 116-121, 192-201, 281-291 (Ex. 1006))
`
`1. Muller in view of Anderson disclosed claim 13, limitation
`[a]
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that Anderson fails to teach that the thermal mass
`11.
`
`of the substrate holder is selected. (Response at 5-8 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Decla-
`
`ration at ¶ 8 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree. As stated in my Opening Declaration, Muller
`
`in view of Anderson disclosed claim 13, limitation [a] and therefore teaches that
`
`the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected. (Opening Declaration at ¶ 170
`
`(Ex. 1006)) Specifically, Muller disclosed a processing chamber and substrate
`
`holder used for multi-temperature etching. A person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention would have been motivated to combine Muller’s
`
`disclosure with Anderson’s disclosure of selecting a low thermal mass substrate
`
`holder to facilitate rapid temperature change.
`
` Muller disclosed a method of multi-temperature etching in which a
`12.
`
`substrate (wafer) was placed on a substrate holder (chuck) in a plasma etching
`
`chamber. (Muller at 4:38-44 (Ex. 1002)) Muller further disclosed that the sub-
`
`strate had multiple different films, including a TEOS (oxide) layer and a silicon ni-
`
`tride layer. (Muller at 4:12-17 (Ex. 1002)) Muller also disclosed an apparatus for
`
`performing multi-temperature etching as depicted in Figure 4, including a chamber
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(100, in red), an electrostatic chuck (105, highlighted in purple), and a wafer sup-
`
`ported by and attached to the chuck (104, highlighted in green).
`
`
`
`(Muller at Fig. 4, 4:35-42 (Ex. 1002))
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that Anderson did not teach “the thermal mass of
`13.
`
`the substrate holder is selected” because Anderson taught a “low thermal mass
`
`heater” and a substrate holder that is cooled by the latent heat of vaporization of
`
`water in a hollow cavity, neither of which, according to Dr. Flamm, is the claimed
`
`thermal mass of the substrate holder. (Response at 5-7 (Paper No. 13); Flamm
`
`Declaration at ¶ 8 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree.
`
` As discussed in my Opening Declaration, the ’264 patent described
`14.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`using a substrate holder material that has “low thermal mass” and “high conductiv-
`
`ity,” such as a copper substrate with a particular coating. (’264 patent at 15:43-48
`
`(Ex. 1001)) The ’264 patent did not disclose the specific thermal mass for any
`
`substrate holder or for any substrate holder material. (Opening Declaration at
`
`¶¶ 58-59, 171 (Ex. 1006))
`
` Anderson also disclosed selecting a substrate holder having a low
`15.
`
`thermal mass in order to ensure that a particular temperature change occurred in a
`
`particular period of time. (Anderson at Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28 (Ex. 1010);
`
`Opening Declaration at ¶ 172 (Ex. 2001)) Specifically, Anderson disclosed select-
`
`ing a substrate holder having a low thermal mass heater on top of a chuck in order
`
`to ensure that a particular temperature change occurred in a particular period of
`
`time. (Anderson at Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28 (Ex. 1011); Opening Declaration at
`
`¶ 172 (Ex. 2001)) Anderson disclosed changing temperature very quickly, “from
`
`room temperature to an operating temperature of 100º to 500ºC in a matter of sec-
`
`onds, due to the low thermal mass heater employed.” (Anderson at 6:24-28 (Ex.
`
`1011); Opening Declaration at ¶ 172 (Ex. 2001)) Anderson also disclosed various
`
`exemplary materials that could be selected for a low thermal mass heater, depend-
`
`ing on the application, such as tungsten, Ti-Alumina, Pt-Alumina, Ni-Cr, and other
`
`ceramics, metals, and/or cermets. (Anderson at 6:9-17 (Ex. 1011); Opening Decla-
`
`ration at ¶ 172 (Ex. 2001))
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Anderson disclosed that the purpose of selecting a low thermal mass
`16.
`
`substrate holder was to allow for rapidly changing the substrate holder temperature
`
`to bring the substrate holder to a desired temperature as quickly as possible. (An-
`
`derson at Abstract (“An insulated heater provides for heating the wafer to its de-
`
`sired operating point as rapidly as possible in order to bring the wafer to its operat-
`
`ing point before [processing] occurs.”); 2:60-65 (“For maximum throughput of the
`
`tool in certain high energy processes, such as plasma processes, it is imperative
`
`that the wafer be brought up to its operating temperature as quickly as possi-
`
`ble . . . .”); 6:24-28 (“In practice, the preferred embodiment is capable of heating
`
`the chuck 11 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);
`
`Opening Declaration at ¶ 173 (Ex. 2001))
`
` As also discussed in my Opening Declaration regarding the state of
`17.
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention, it was well known at the time, and dis-
`
`closed by Anderson, to select the thermal mass for a low thermal mass substrate
`
`holder in order to ensure rapid changes of the substrate holder temperature and, ac-
`
`cordingly, the wafer temperature. (Anderson at Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28 (Ex.
`
`1011); Moslehi ’849 at Title, 3:32-34, 4:44-48, 4:55-57, 9:58-60, 11:58-60 (Ex.
`
`1009); Opening Declaration at ¶ 174 (Ex. 2001)) It was further well known in the
`
`art that an object’s thermal mass could be calculated and thus selected by multiply-
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`ing a selected material’s specific heat constant by the selected mass of the material
`
`in the object. (Hinman at 2:66-3:3 (Ex. 1010); CRC at 12-103 to 12-108 (Ex.
`
`1015); Opening Declaration at ¶ 172 (Ex. 2001))
`
` Dr. Flamm states that “the term ‘thermal mass’ in Anderson means
`18.
`
`something completely different from that in the ’264 patent.” (Response at 5 (Pa-
`
`per No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 8 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree. As explained in my
`
`Opening Declaration, “thermal mass” was a well-known term and concept before
`
`the filing of the ’264 patent. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 44-47, 200 (Ex. 1006))
`
`The specification of the ’264 patent provides no indication that the inventor in-
`
`tended the term “thermal mass” to have a special meaning different from the well-
`
`established meaning in fields related to materials science, chemistry, and physics,
`
`including the fields of semiconductor processing and design of semiconductor pro-
`
`cessing tools and chemical processing and analysis. Dr. Flamm does not explain
`
`why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have understood the meaning of the term in the ’264 patent to be different
`
`from its conventional use in the Anderson and Hinman references. It is my opinion
`
`that the term “thermal mass” has the same meaning in Anderson, Hinman, and the
`
`’264 patent.
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that two portions of Anderson’s disclosure relied
`19.
`
`upon in my Opening Declaration, specifically the Abstract and 2:60-65, do not
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`teach anything about the thermal mass of the substrate holder. (Response at 5-6
`
`(Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 8 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree. The first portion
`
`states, “[a]n insulated heater provides for heating the wafer to its desired operating
`
`point as rapidly as possible in order to bring the wafer to its operating point before
`
`plasma etching or deposition occurs.” (Anderson at Abstract (Ex. 1011)) The sec-
`
`ond portion states, “For maximum throughput of the tool in certain high energy
`
`processes, such as plasma processes, it is imperative that the wafer be brought up
`
`to its operating temperature as quickly as possible and once the operating tempera-
`
`ture has been reached, to remove the process generated heat from the wafer in a
`
`controlled manner.” Each portion taught the objective of raising the temperature of
`
`a wafer to its operating point quickly, and the Abstract disclosed that an electrical-
`
`ly insulated heater on the upper surface of a chuck is the structure responsible for
`
`meeting that objective.
`
` Moreover, elsewhere the specification taught that the insulated heater
`20.
`
`has a low thermal mass for the purpose of heating the chuck rapidly to its operating
`
`temperature: “In practice, the preferred embodiment is capable of heating the
`
`chuck 11 from room temperature to an operating temperature of 100º to 500ºC in a
`
`matter of seconds, due to the low thermal mass heater employed.” (Anderson at
`
`6:24-28 (Ex. 1011)) Therefore, Anderson’s disclosure makes clear that the por-
`
`tions of Anderson cited above relate to Anderson’s low thermal mass heater, which
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`is positioned on the upper surface of Anderson’s chuck and is capable of heating
`
`the chuck over 400°C in a matter of seconds. (Anderson at 5:56-67, Fig. 2 (Ex.
`
`1011)) Furthermore, Anderson’s low thermal mass insulated heater included the
`
`surface that made contact with the wafer and is therefore an integral part of the
`
`structure that holds the substrate during processing. (Anderson at 5:56-59 (Ex.
`
`1011))
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that Anderson did not teach the thermal mass of a
`21.
`
`substrate holder as claimed because Anderson taught maintaining the temperature
`
`of a wafer by drawing off plasma-induced heat using the latent heat of vaporization
`
`of water in the chuck and that latent heat of vaporization is not thermal mass. (Re-
`
`sponse at 5-7, 12-13 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 8, 10 (Ex. 2001))
`
`Although latent heat of vaporization is not thermal mass, I otherwise disagree with
`
`Dr. Flamm because Anderson also disclosed a substrate holder having a thermal
`
`mass as disclosed and claimed in the ’264 patent. As explained in my Opening
`
`Declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have been motivated to combine a substrate holder having a selected (low)
`
`thermal mass, as taught by Anderson, with the apparatus for and methods of multi-
`
`temperature etching disclosed in Muller in view of Matsumura because a low
`
`thermal mass substrate holder would have ensured rapid temperature changes.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶ 175 (Ex. 1006)) Thus, the teachings of Anderson that a
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill would have combined with Muller and Matsumura are the
`
`teachings of selecting a low thermal mass substrate holder discussed in detail
`
`above—a low thermal mass insulated heater on the upper surface of the chuck that
`
`is capable of heating the chuck very rapidly.
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that the purpose of Anderson was to “effectuate an
`22.
`
`extreme temperature change before doing any processing” using a liquid spray,
`
`suggesting that Anderson’s teachings are not relevant to claim 13 of the ’264 pa-
`
`tent because the temperature change occurred before a processing step rather than
`
`between processing steps. (Response at 6-8, 12-13 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Decla-
`
`ration at ¶¶ 8, 10 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree. Dr. Flamm focuses narrowly on one par-
`
`ticular aspect of Anderson’s disclosure that he contends is not relevant to the ’264
`
`patent while omitting stated goals of Anderson’s disclosure that are relevant. As
`
`described above, Anderson’s teachings of selecting a low thermal mass heater and
`
`substrate holder are relevant to claim 13. Dr. Flamm acknowledges that Anderson
`
`taught a low thermal mass chuck for quick temperature changes. (Response at 6,
`
`12 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 8, 10 (Ex. 2001)) Accordingly, a per-
`
`son of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have
`
`looked to Anderson for teachings on how to use a low thermal mass chuck to effect
`
`rapid temperature changes during processing. That Anderson also disclosed a
`
`mechanism of cooling the wafer through the latent heat of vaporization does not
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`diminish the relevance of Anderson to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
` Dr. Flamm also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`23.
`
`time of the alleged invention would not have combined Anderson and Muller be-
`
`cause they performed different processes and their chuck structures and cooling
`
`mechanisms are different. (Response at 7-8 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at
`
`¶ 8 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have been motivated to combine the teaching of a sub-
`
`strate holder having a selected (low) thermal mass with the apparatus for and
`
`methods of multi-temperature etching disclosed in Muller in view of Matsumura
`
`because a low thermal mass substrate holder would have ensured rapid temperature
`
`changes. Muller disclosed the importance of maximizing throughput and ensuring
`
`rapid temperature changes. (Muller at 1:62-64, 5:17-25, 6:66-7:8 (Ex. 1002);
`
`Opening Declaration at ¶ 175 (Ex. 1006)) Anderson also disclosed the importance
`
`of rapid temperature changes to maximize throughput. (Anderson at 2:60-65 (Ex.
`
`1011)) Matsumura further taught controlling the “heat curve of temperature-
`
`raising and lowering periods,” resulting in an increase in “the throughput of wa-
`
`fers.” (Matsumura at 7:50-53 (Ex. 1003)) A person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention would have understood that selecting a low ther-
`
`mal mass material for a substrate holder to use in the apparatus and methods of
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Muller in view of Matsumura would have ensured rapid temperature changes and
`
`desired throughput for the multi-temperature etching methods of Muller in view of
`
`Matsumura.
`
`2. Muller, Matsumura, Anderson and Hinman disclosed claim
`13, limitation [f]
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that Dr. Flamm argues that Anderson and Hinman did
`
`not teach that thermal mass is selected “for a predetermined temperature change
`
`within a specific interval of time during processing.” Dr. Flamm asserts that An-
`
`derson taught initially heating or cooling a substrate holder prior to processing and
`
`Hinman is “non-analogous art having nothing to do with semiconductor pro-
`
`cessing” and “devoid of any relevance.” (Response at 8-11 (Paper No. 13); Flamm
`
`Declaration at ¶ 9 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree for the reasons described below.
`
`a) Anderson
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that Anderson did not teach that the thermal mass is
`25.
`
`selected “for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`
`during processing” and “suggests away” from that limitation because Anderson
`
`taught initially heating or cooling a chuck prior to processing. (Response at 8 (Pa-
`
`per No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 9 (Ex. 1006)) This argument does not square-
`
`ly address my opinion regarding the teachings of Anderson. I did not state that
`
`Anderson by itself teaches that “thermal mass … is selected for a predetermined
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.” I stated
`
`that Anderson teaches selecting a substrate holder having a low thermal mass heat-
`
`er on the upper surface of the chuck in order to ensure that a particular temperature
`
`change occurred in a particular period of time. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 172,
`
`192 (Ex. 1006)) Anderson taught to select a low thermal mass substrate holder
`
`material for rapid temperature changes, but (like the ’264 patent) Anderson did not
`
`identify the specific thermal mass of the substrate holder, nor did it show the math
`
`used to calculate the specific thermal mass or temperature change or time interval.
`
`(Anderson at Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28 (Ex. 1011); Opening Declaration at ¶ 199
`
`(Ex. 1006)) I further stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention would have been motivated to combine a substrate holder
`
`having a selected (low) thermal mass such as that disclosed by Anderson with the
`
`apparatus for and methods of multi-temperature etching disclosed in Muller in
`
`view of Matsumura because a low thermal mass substrate holder would have en-
`
`sured rapid temperature changes. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 173-74, 193 (Ex.
`
`1006))
`
` As stated in my Opening Declaration and as discussed above, Ander-
`26.
`
`son disclosed selecting a substrate holder designed to have “low thermal mass” in
`
`order to facilitate rapid temperature changes. (Opening Declaration ¶¶ 172-74,
`
`192-94 (Ex. 1006)) Anderson disclosed selecting a substrate holder having a low
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`thermal mass heater on the upper surface of the chuck in order to ensure that a par-
`
`ticular temperature change occurred in a particular period of time. (Anderson at
`
`Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28 (Ex. 1011)) Anderson disclosed changing “from room
`
`temperature to an operating temperature of 100º to 500ºC in a matter of seconds,
`
`due to the low thermal mass heater employed.” (Anderson at 6:24-28 (Ex. 1011))
`
`Anderson also disclosed various exemplary materials that could be selected for a
`
`low thermal mass heater, depending on the application, such as tungsten, Ti-
`
`Alumina, Pt-Alumina, Ni-Cr, and other ceramics, metals, and/or cermets. (Ander-
`
`son at 6:9-17 (Ex. 1011)) As stated in my Opening Declaration, Anderson includ-
`
`ed a comparably detailed disclosure regarding selecting the thermal mass of a sub-
`
`strate holder for a specific temperature change and time period as compared to the
`
`specification of the ’264 patent. Similar to Anderson, the ’264 patent does not dis-
`
`close a specific thermal mass for a substrate holder or any method to calculate a
`
`desired thermal mass and suggests choosing a low thermal mass material such as
`
`one of the exemplary materials listed (e.g., copper). (See ’264 patent at 15:43-48
`
`(Ex. 1001); (Opening Declaration ¶ 192 (Ex. 1006)))
`
`27.
`
` As also stated in my Opening Declaration and as discussed above with
`
`regard to claim 13, limitation [a], it would have been obvious in view of Anderson
`
`to select a low thermal mass substrate holder, including by selecting a material
`
`having a low specific heat, and to incorporate that substrate holder into the combi-
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1025
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`

`

`
`
`
`nation of Muller in view of Matsumura. (Opening Declaration ¶ 194 (Ex. 1006))
`
`Doing so would have allowed for rapid temperature changes and maximized
`
`throughput, as desired in Muller, by enabling rapid temperature changes of 100ºC
`
`to 500ºC in only a few seconds. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention would have found it obvious to incorporate a low thermal
`
`mass substrate holder, including because both Muller and Anderson disclosed the
`
`importance of rapid temperature changes and maximizing throughput in semicon-
`
`ductor processing. (Muller at 1:62-64, 5:17-25, 6:66-7:8 (Ex. 1002); Anderson at
`
`2:60-65 (Ex. 1011)) Anderson disclosed accomplishing rapid temperature changes
`
`specifically due to the