`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 6
`
`Filed: July 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Lam Research Corporation (“Lam”), filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 27–50, 66, and 67 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’264
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm”),
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments
`presented in Flamm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the
`information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Lam would prevail in challenging any of claims
`27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties represent that the ’264 patent is presently at issue in a
`declaratory judgment action captioned Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and in an infringement action
`captioned Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 1:15-cv-00613-
`LY (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`In addition to this Petition, Lam also filed other petitions challenging
`the patentability of certain subsets of claims of the ’264 patent in the
`following cases: (1) Case IPR2015-01759; (2) Case IPR2015-01764; (3)
`Case IPR2015-01766; (4) Case IPR2015-01768; (5) Case IPR2016-00468;
`
`2
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`and (6) Case IPR2016-00469. Pet. 2. To date, another panel of the Board
`has entered a Decision Denying Institution in each of Cases IPR2015-01759
`and IPR2015-01766, and a Decision Granting Institution in each of Cases
`IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768.
`
`B. The ’264 Patent
`
`The ’264 patent, titled “Multi-Temperature Processing,” reissued
`April 29, 2008, from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/439,245 (“the ’245
`application”), filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
`The ’264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776 B1 (“the ’776
`patent”), which issued May 15, 2001, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/151,163 (“the ’163 application”), filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64].
`The ’264 patent is directed to a method “for etching a substrate in the
`manufacture of a device,” where the method “provide[s] different processing
`temperatures during an etching process or the like.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`The apparatus used in the method is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a substrate (product 28, such as a wafer to be etched) on a
`substrate holder (product support chuck or pedestal 18) in a chamber
`
`3
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`(chamber 12 of plasma etch apparatus 10). Id. at 3:24–25, 3:32–33, 3:40–
`41.
`
`Figures 6 and 7, reproduced below, depict a temperature-controlled
`substrate holder and temperature control systems.
`
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7 depict temperature-controlled fluid flowing through
`substrate holder (600, 701), guided by baffles 605, where “[t]he fluid [is]
`used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder.” Ex. 1001,
`14:28–63, 16:5–67. Figure 6 also depicts heating elements 607 underneath
`the substrate holder, where “[t]he heating elements can selectively heat one
`or more zones in a desirable manner.” Id. at 15:10–26. Referring to Figure
`7, the operation of the temperature control system is described as follows:
`The desired fluid temperature is determined by comparing the
`desired wafer or wafer chuck set point temperature to a measured
`wafer or wafer chuck temperature . . . . The heat exchanger, fluid
`flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck,
`etc. should be designed using conventional means to permit the
`
`4
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`heater to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the
`temperature of
`the chuck and wafer
`to predetermined
`temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified
`uniformity limits.
`Id. at 16:36–39, 16:50–67.
`An example of a semiconductor substrate to be patterned is shown in
`Figure 9, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts substrate 901 having a stack of layers including oxide layer
`903, polysilicon layer 905, tungsten silicide layer 907, and photoresist
`masking layer 909 with opening 911, from the treatment method shown in
`Figure 10, reproduced below. Ex. 1001, 17:58–18:57.
`
`5
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts the tungsten silicide layer being etched between
`points B and D at a constant temperature; the polysilicon layer being
`exposed between Points D and E; the polysilicon layer being etched at a
`constant temperature beyond point E; and the resist being ashed beyond
`Point I. Ex. 1001, 18:58–19:64. The plasma’s optical emission at 530
`nanometers is monitored to determine when there is breakthrough to the
`polysilicon layer (Point D) and a lower etch temperature is required to etch
`the polysilicon layer (Point E). Id. at 19:8–24, 19:45–52.
`
`6
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 27 and 37 are the only independent
`
`claims at issue. Independent claim 27 is directed to a method of etching a
`substrate in the manufacture of a device, whereas independent claim 37 is
`directed to a method of processing a substrate during the manufacture of a
`device. Claims 28–36 and 66 directly depend from independent claim 27;
`and claims 38–50 and 67 directly depend from independent claim 37.
`Independent claim 27 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
`reproduced below:
`27. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a
`device, the method comprising:
`heating a substrate holder to a first substrate holder
`temperature with a heat transfer device, the substrate
`holder having at least one temperature sensing unit,
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on the substrate
`holder in a chamber;
`etching a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film at a selected second
`substrate temperature, the selected second substrate
`temperature being different from the selected first
`substrate temperature;
`wherein substrate temperature is changed from the selected
`first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`temperature, using a measured substrate temperature,
`within a preselected time interval for processing, and at
`least the first substrate temperature or the second substrate
`temperature, in single or in combination, is above room
`temperature.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:8–28 (italics omitted).
`
`7
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Lam relies upon the following prior art references:
`Inventor1 or
`Patent or
`Relevant Dates
`Applicant
`Publication No.
`Wang (“Wang
`U.S. Patent No.
`’485”)
`5,219,485
`Kawamura
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,892,207
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,063,710
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0 272 140
`A2
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0 399 676
`A1
`
`Kadomura
`
`Wang (“EP
`Wang”)
`
`Tegal
`
`issued June 15, 1993,
`filed Oct. 17, 1991
`issued Apr. 6, 1999,
`filed Nov. 27, 1996
`issued May 16, 2000,
`filed Feb. 21, 1997
`published June 22, 1988,
`filed Dec. 18, 1987
`
`published Nov. 28, 1990,
`filed May 1, 1990
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1003
`
`1005
`
`1002
`
`1006
`
`1004
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Lam challenges claims 27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent based on
`
`the asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set forth in the table
`below. Pet. 13–60.
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`References
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura § 103(a) 27–29, 31–46, 50, 66,
`and 67
`§ 103(a) 30 and 49
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`and Tegal
`Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang
`
`§ 103(a) 37, 47, and 48
`
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`8
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As an initial matter, we determine the proper standard of construction
`to apply. The term of a patent grant begins on the date on which the patent
`issues and ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for
`the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a
`specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section
`120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such
`application was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2002). The earliest patent
`application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for
`the ’264 patent, was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term
`extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than
`December 4, 2015.
`Because, on this record, we conclude that the term of the ’264 patent
`expired prior to the filing of the Petition, for purposes of this Decision we
`construe the claims of the ’264 patent under the standard applicable to
`expired patents. For claims of an expired patent, our claim interpretation is
`similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (en banc)). There is, however, a
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`9
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`The parties do not propose constructions for any claim terms recited
`in the challenged claims of the ’264 patent. See generally Pet. 12–14,
`Prelim. Resp. 1–16. Because there is no dispute between the parties
`regarding claim construction, we need not construe explicitly any claim term
`of the ’264 patent at this time. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those
`claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`B. Priority Date for the Challenged Claims of the ’264 Patent
`As explained previously, the ’264 patent reissued from the ’245
`
`application, filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [21], [22]. The ’245
`application is a reissue of the ’776 patent, which issued May 15, 2001, from
`the ’163 application, which was filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64]. The
`’163 application is a continuation-in-part of the following two applications:
`(1) the U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/058,650 (“the ’650 provisional
`application”), filed on September 11, 1997; and (2) U.S. Patent Application
`No. 08/567,224 (“the ’224 application”), filed on December 4, 1995. Id. at
`[60], [63], 1:11–15.
`
`Lam contends that Flamm may only claim the benefit of the filing
`date of the ’650 provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997, because
`this is the earliest filed application in the priority chain that includes
`sufficient written description support for certain limitations recited in the
`challenged claims. Pet. 4. Relying upon the testimony of its Declarant Dr.
`Joseph L. Cecchi, Lam explains how the ’224 application fails to disclose
`
`10
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 27
`and 37. Id. at 8–12 (citing Ex. 1008, 45, 46, 53–65, 2 Figs. 1–9; Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 37–44). Consequently, Lam asserts that, because the ’224 application
`does not provide sufficient written description support for these limitations,
`the challenged claims only are entitled to the priority date of the ’650
`provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Id. at 12. Flamm does not
`present arguments as to whether the ’264 patent is entitled to claim a priority
`date earlier than September 11, 1997.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded by Lam’s argument that the ’224
`application does not provide sufficient written description support for
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 27
`and 37. For purposes of this Decision, Lam has presented sufficient
`evidence indicating that the challenged claims of the ’264 patent only are
`entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of the ’650 provisional
`application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Consequently, on this record, it
`
`
`2 All references to the page numbers in the ’224 application refer to page
`numbers inserted by Lam at the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`11
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`appears that both Kadomura and Kawamura qualify as prior art to the
`challenged claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura
`
`Lam contends that claims 27–29, 31–46, 50, 66, and 67 are
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`and Kawamura. Pet. 15–52. Lam explains how this proffered combination
`purportedly teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or
`modify the references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of
`Dr. Cecchi to support its positions. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–122. On this record, we
`are not persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time
`interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and similarly recited in
`independent claim 37.
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura, and then we address the parties’
`contentions with respect to independent claims 27 and 37.
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`12
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art;3 and (4) when in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this
`asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in
`mind.
`
`2. Kadomura Overview
`
`Kadomura generally relates to a dry etching method used primarily for
`the production of semiconductor devices and, in particular, to a dry etching
`method and apparatus that provides compatibility for anisotropic fabrication
`and high selectivity. Ex. 1002, 1:6–10. According to Kadomura, one
`objective of the disclosed dry etching method is to apply an etching
`treatment that includes a plurality of steps to a specimen within the same
`processing apparatus, wherein the temperature of the specimen is changed
`between etching in a first step and etching in a second step. Id. at 2:65–3:5.
`Because the disclosed dry etching method conducts each of the etching
`treatments in the same processing apparatus, the time for changing the
`specimen temperature between the steps may be shortened. Id. at 4:46–49.
`Moreover, by conducting the change of specimen temperature within a short
`period of time, dry etching treatment may be applied without deteriorating
`the throughput. Id. at 4:49–54.
`
`
`3 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Cecchi, Lam offers an assessment as to
`the level of skill in the art. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 27–30). Flamm does
`not challenge this assessment of the level of skill in the art or propose an
`alternative. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we
`accept the assessment offered by Lam and Dr. Cecchi.
`
`13
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Kadomura discloses three embodiments, each of which applies its dry
`etching method in a different manner. Ex. 1002, 5:44–56, Figs. 1A–1C, 2A–
`2C, 3A–3C. Of particular importance to this case is the first embodiment
`discussed in relation to Figures 1A–1C. This embodiment applies the dry
`etching method to a method of fabricating a W polycide using a two-step
`etching treatment. Id. at 6:1–7:18. The main etching in the first step is
`applied at a normal temperature (20ºCelsius (“C”)), whereas the overetching
`in the second step is applied at a much cooler temperature (-30ºC). Id. at
`6:17–28, 6:63–7:7 According to Kadomura, it is possible in this
`embodiment to attain both high selectivity and assurance for the anisotropic
`shape, as well as change the temperature of the specimen in a short period of
`time, by conducting each of the steps in the same etching device. Id. at
`7:19–23.
`
`3. Wang ’485 Overview
`
`Wang ’485 generally relates to a process for etching conductive layers
`used in semiconductor integrated circuits and, in particular, to a method for
`etching metal silicides, polycrystalline silicon, and composite silicide-
`polysilicon structures, as well as reactive plasma gas chemistry for use in
`such methods. Ex. 1003, 1:13–19. Of particular importance to this case are
`Figures 20 and 21, reproduced below, that depict the effect of hexode
`temperature on polysilicon etch rate and on molybdenum silicide etch rate
`for etching gases that are devoid of and contain a small volume percentage
`of additive gas, respectively. Id. at 6:1–5.
`
`14
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`Figures 20 and 21 each show an increase of silicide etch rates over a range
`from 45ºC to 75ºC for the substrate holder temperature. Id. at 10:14–30.
`
`4. Kawamura Overview
`
`Kawamura generally relates to a treatment unit and, in particular, to a
`temperature control apparatus for controlling the temperature of a support
`for a substance to be treated, such as a semiconductor wafer. Ex. 1005, 1:6–
`10. According to Kawamura, the treatment unit includes at least one
`temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the support. Id. at
`1:47–51.
`
`5. Claims 27 and 37
`
`Our analysis focuses on the following limitation recited in
`
`independent claim 27, and similarly recited in independent claim 37: “[the]
`substrate temperature is changed from the selected first substrate
`temperature to the selected second substrate temperature . . . within a
`preselected time interval for processing . . . .” Ex. 1001, 22:22–28
`(emphasis added), 23:15–21. We view the parties’ arguments regarding “a
`preselected time interval/period” as dispositive to Lam’s Petition.
`In its Petition, Lam relies on Kadomura’s first embodiment,
`particularly its disclosure of adjusting the temperature of the specimen
`
`15
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`between etching steps in a short time period of about thirty (30) seconds, to
`teach “a preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and
`similarly recited in independent claim 37. Pet. 20–21, 26 (citing Ex. 1002,
`6:18–55, 7:19–30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 77); see also id. at 39, 41 (arguing the same).
`In response, Flamm contends that neither Kadomura nor any other prior art
`cited by Lam teaches this particular limitation required by independent
`claims 27 and 37. Prelim. Resp. 7; see also id. at 9 (arguing the same).
`Flamm argues that, although Kadomura discloses a short time period of
`about 30 seconds, there is no disclosure in Kadomura that this time period
`was selected at all. Id. at 7. Instead, Flam asserts that this time period
`disclosed in Kadomura is dictated by the time that it takes to discharge the
`first gas prior to introducing and stabilizing the second gas. Id. at 7–8
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:55–62, 7:19–30, 8:43–50).
`We agree with Flamm that Lam does not account properly for “a
`preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27, and similarly
`recited in independent claim 37. Kadomura discloses that, in its first
`embodiment, the temperature of the specimen is cooled rapidly between
`etching steps “within a short period of time of about 30 [seconds].”
`Ex. 1002, 6:52–55. Kadomura further discloses that, by conducting the
`etching steps in the same etching device, the temperature of the specimen
`may be adjusted in “a short period of time.” Id. at 7:22–24. Lam, however,
`does not direct us to, nor can we find, a disclosure in Kadomura indicating
`that its control device may pre-select the time period for adjusting the
`temperature of the specimen between etching steps. In other words,
`Kadomura is silent with respect to the control device adjusting the
`
`16
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`temperature of the specimen between etching steps to a certain temperature
`within a pre-selected time period.
`We also do not find Dr. Cecchi’s supporting testimony on this
`particular issue to be persuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 77. Dr. Cecchi’s analysis
`essentially repeats the arguments advanced in the Petition, and does not
`explain adequately how Kadomura’s short time period of about 30 seconds
`amounts to “a preselected time interval,” as recited in independent claim 27,
`and similarly recited in independent claim 37. For these reasons, we do not
`credit his testimony that the combined teachings of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`and Kawamura properly account for all the limitations recited in
`independent claims 27 and 37.
`In summary, based on the record before us, Lam has not demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that independent
`claims 27 and 37 would have been obvious over the combination of
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`6. Claim 28, 29, 31–36, 38–46, 50, 66, and 67
`
`By virtue of their dependency, each of claims 28, 29, 31–36, 38–46,
`50, 66, and 67 include the same limitations as one of independent claims 27
`and 37. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
`independent claims 27 and 37, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that dependent claims 28, 29,
`31–36, 38–46, 50, 66, and 67 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`17
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`D. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang
`
`Lam contends that claims 37, 47, and 48 are unpatentable under
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`Pet. 54–60. Lam explains how this proffered combination purportedly
`teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or modify the
`references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Cecchi to
`support its positions. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 126–38. On this record, we are not
`persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time period,” as
`recited in independent claim 37.
`EP Wang generally relates to method for performing single and in-situ
`multiple integrated circuit processing steps, including thermal chemical
`vapor deposition, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (“PECVD”),
`reactor self-cleaning, film etchback, and modification of profile or other film
`property by sputtering. Ex. 1006, 1:4–10. In the context of discussing a
`preferred planarization process, EP Wang discloses a substrate having a film
`thereon. Id. at 30:14–17. EP Wang also discloses forming a conformal
`silicon dioxide coating with thermal chemical vapor deposition performed
`by heating a wafer to a temperature of 200ºC to 500ºC, as well as forming a
`layer of silicon dioxide with PECVD performed by heating the wafer to a
`temperature of 300ºC to 500ºC. Id. at 26:38–27:17, 29:54–30:4, 30:18–36.
`1. Claim 37
`As explained previously, independent claim 37 is similar to
`independent claim 27 in that it recites, in relevant part, “the substrate
`temperature control circuit is operable to change the substrate temperature
`from the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`
`18
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`temperature within a preselected time period to process the film.” Ex. 1001,
`23:15–21 (emphasis added). Lam relies upon essentially the same
`contentions with respect to independent claims 27 and 37 discussed above in
`the context of the asserted ground based on Kadomura, Wang ’485, and
`Kawamura to support its assertion that this particular limitation recited in
`independent claim 37 would have been taught by Kadomura. Compare Pet.
`20, 26, 39, 41 with id. at 56–57. For the same reasons discussed above, Lam
`does not account properly for “a preselected time period,” as recited in
`independent 37. Based on the record before us, Lam has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that independent
`claim 37 would have been obvious over the combination of Kadomura,
`Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`
`2. Claim 47 and 48
`
`By virtue of their dependency, claims 47 and 48 each include the
`same limitations as independent claim 37. Therefore, for the same reasons
`discussed above with respect to independent claim 37, Lam has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that
`dependent claims 47 and 48 would have been obvious over the combination
`of Kadomura, Kawamura, and EP Wang.
`
`E. Remaining Ground
`
`Lam also contends that claims 30 and 49 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and
`Tegal. Pet. 53–54. By virtue of their dependency, each of claims 30 and 49
`include the same limitations as one of independent claims 27 and 37. As
`applied by Lam, Tegal does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined
`
`19
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`teachings of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura identified above.
`Consequently, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
`prevail on its assertion that claims 30 and 49 would have been obvious over
`the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Tegal.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking into account the arguments presented in Flamm’s Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does
`not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Lam will prevail in
`challenging any of claims 27–50, 66, and 67 of the ’264 patent as
`unpatentable under § 103(a).
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is
`DENIED and no trial is instituted.
`
`20
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00470
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel K. Lu
`Irell & Manella LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`slu@irell.com
`LamFlammIPR@irell.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`21
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1026
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00279
`
`