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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 13-26 & 64-65
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01749.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Combinations based on Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman
`rendered claims 13-26 and 64-65 obvious ...................................................... 2
`A.
`The combination of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and
`Hinman taught claim 13, limitation [f] ................................................ 3
`It would have been obvious to combine Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, and Hinman ......................................................................... 4
`Flamm mischaracterizes Anderson and Hinman................................ 10
`1.
`Anderson .................................................................................. 10
`2.
`Hinman ..................................................................................... 13
`Combinations based on Muller rendered dependent claims 17
`and 19-20 obvious .............................................................................. 14
`1.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 14
`2.
`Claims 19-20 ............................................................................ 16
`III. Combinations based on Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and
`Hinman rendered claims 13-26 and 64-65 obvious ...................................... 18
`A.
`It would have been obvious to combine Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, and Hinman ....................................................................... 18
`Combinations based on Kadomura rendered dependent claims
`15 and 17 obvious............................................................................... 19
`1.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 19
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 20
`IV. Claim 33 is obvious over combinations based on Kadomura or
`Kikuchi and Muller ....................................................................................... 21
`Flamm has waived any arguments unique to other dependent claims ......... 21
`V.
`VI. Flamm’s supporting declaration is flawed and entitled to little, if any,
`weight ............................................................................................................ 22
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 24
`-i-
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Application of Mariani,
`177 F.2d 293 (C.C.P.A. 1949) ............................................................................. 8
`
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 7
`
`In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 4
`
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Petitioners’ 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. 1014
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`Incropera, Frank P. et al, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
`Third Edition, 1981 (“Incropera”)
`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
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`(continued)
`
`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. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1021 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1015
`
`Ex. 1022 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Jared Bobrow in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`Ex. 1024 Declaration of Chad Campbell in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`Reply Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 and Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00470, Paper 6 (July
`1, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Intel Corp. et al. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, IPR2017-00280, Paper 2 (December 2, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1028 Declaration of John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review, Intel Corp. et al. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00280, Ex.
`1006 (December 2, 2016)
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`(continued)
`
`Final Written Decision, inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-
`00560, Paper 21 (July 28, 2016)
`
`Final Written Decision, Curt G. Joa, Inc. v. Fameccanica.Data
`S.p.A., IPR2016-00906, Paper 79 (October 11, 2017)
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031 Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Kinetic
`Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8
`(September 23, 2014)
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Final Written Decision, Thorley Indus. LLC v. Kolcraft Enter., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00352, Paper 25 (June 1, 2017)
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Limitation [f] of independent claim 13 requires that “the thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time during processing.” Petitioners have demonstrated that
`
`5
`
`prior art not before the Board in previous IPRs disclosed and rendered obvious
`
`limitation [f] (together with the other claim limitations). Flamm’s Response
`
`falsely accuses Petitioners of taking a “divide-and-conquer piecemeal approach.”
`
`But Petitioners analyzed limitation [f] (and the rest of the claim) as a whole and
`
`showed how the collective teachings of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and
`
`10
`
`Hinman would lead a skilled person to combine those teachings to arrive at claim
`
`13. It is Flamm, not Petitioners, that ignores the combined teachings—improperly
`
`attacking each reference in isolation.
`
`Flamm also fails to address the multiple reasons for combining the
`
`references that Petitioners advanced. He argues instead that Hinman is non-
`
`15
`
`analogous art and that the combination of Anderson and Hinman would have been
`
`inoperative. Both arguments are mistaken and rest on overly-narrow
`
`interpretations of the references and the reasons for combining them that
`
`Petitioners advanced.
`
`For most dependent claims, Flamm does not even address the dependent
`
`20
`
`limitations themselves, relying instead and exclusively on his misplaced attacks on
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`independent claim 13. For the few limitations of dependent claims mentioned in
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`the Response, Flamm’s arguments mischaracterize the references and fail to rebut
`
`Petitioners’ evidence. Finally, although Flamm submitted a supporting declaration,
`
`he is an interested party and his declaration is entitled to little, if any, weight.
`
`5
`
`This Reply is supported by the Reply Declaration of Dr. John Bravman (Ex.
`
`1025) and responds to the arguments made in Flamm’s Response (Paper 13) and
`
`declaration (Ex. 2001).
`
`II. Combinations based on Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman
`rendered claims 13-26 and 64-65 obvious
`
`10
`
`Petitioners’ evidence demonstrated that prior art combinations based on
`
`Muller and Matsumura (together with Anderson, Hinman, and other references)
`
`rendered claims 13-26 and 64-65 obvious. (Paper 2 at 22-54 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm’s Response focuses on a single limitation from independent claim 13, along
`
`with limitations from dependent claims 17 and 19-20. (Paper 13 at 2-24; Ex. 2001
`
`15
`
`¶¶8-15.) For the most part, Flamm attacks the teachings of Anderson and Hinman.
`
`(Paper 13 at 5-20.) As explained below, however, a skilled person would have
`
`combined Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman, and the combination
`
`disclosed the challenged limitation of claim 13. The record also shows why claims
`
`17 and 19-20 would have been obvious. Flamm cannot overcome the prior art.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`A. The combination of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman
`taught claim 13, limitation [f]
`
`Flamm initially argues that Petitioners improperly subdivided claim 13,
`
`limitation [f] while applying the prior art to the claim. (Paper 13 at 2-5.) But as
`
`5
`
`the Petition and Dr. Bravman explained, Anderson and Hinman both taught
`
`selecting thermal mass to obtain a particular temperature change (room
`
`temperature to 100ºC -500ºC in Anderson, 15ºC-20ºC to 25ºC-40ºC in Hinman),
`
`and Hinman taught doing so “within a specific interval of time” (20-40 seconds).
`
`(Paper 2 at 17-19; Ex. 1025 ¶¶15-17, 25-26, 37-39 (citing Ex. 1006).) A skilled
`
`10
`
`person would have used Anderson’s and Hinman’s teachings applying known
`
`principles to select thermal mass when designing a substrate holder for changing
`
`temperatures during processing in the Muller-Matsumura system. (Paper 2 at 33-
`
`36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶37, 43-44, 50-51 (citing Ex. 1006).) The combination of these
`
`references taught limitation [f]. (Paper 2 at 34-35; Ex. 1025 ¶¶37, 43, 51-52.)
`
`15
`
`In arguing otherwise, Flamm refers to a prior IPR where a different
`
`petitioner chopped up interdependent portions of limitation [f] and then attempted
`
`to match prior art to each piece taken out of context. (Paper 13 at 4-5.) In that
`
`proceeding, the Board emphasized that “the thermal mass must be selected in order
`
`to undergo a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`
`20
`
`(for example, a change of 10ºC per minute).” (Ex. 1016 at 17.) Here, Anderson in
`
`view of Hinman disclosed all of those features.
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`And in any case, Petitioners do not repeat the prior petitioner’s error; they
`
`address the entire limitation based on what the prior art combination taught.
`
`Throughout his Response, Flamm argues that neither Anderson nor Hinman alone
`
`taught changing temperature “during processing” as recited in claim 13,
`
`5
`
`limitation [f]. (Paper 13 at 6-15, 20; Ex. 2001 ¶¶8-12.) The proper inquiry,
`
`however, is not whether Anderson or Hinman alone disclosed limitation [f], but
`
`whether their teachings in combination with those in Muller and Matsumura did so.
`
`(Paper 2 at 24 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).) Flamm
`
`does not dispute that Muller and Matsumura disclosed changing temperature
`
`10
`
`during processing. (Ex. 1025 ¶¶52-54.) In fact, he admits that Muller taught
`
`“etching a substrate at two temperatures during processing.” (Paper 13 at 7; Ex.
`
`2001 ¶8.) Thus, the combination of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman
`
`taught claim 13, limitation [f].
`
`15
`
`B.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, and Hinman
`
`Flamm argues that Hinman is not analogous to Muller, Matsumura, and
`
`Anderson, and that combining Anderson and Hinman would not have been
`
`obvious. (Paper 13 at 15-20; Ex. 2001 ¶¶11-12.) As the Petition and Dr. Bravman
`
`described, however, there were many reasons why a skilled person would have
`
`20
`
`combined the teachings of Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman. (Paper 2
`
`at 33-36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶37, 43-44, 50-51 (citing Ex. 1006).) Muller and Matsumura
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`described multi-temperature semiconductor processes and recognized the benefits
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`of rapid temperature changes and high throughput. (Ex. 1002, 1:62-64, 5:17-25,
`
`6:66-7:8; Ex. 1003, 7:50-53, Fig. 9.) Similarly, Anderson taught the importance of
`
`rapid temperature changes and throughput, achieving those aims by selecting a low
`
`5
`
`thermal mass material for its substrate holder. (Ex. 1011, 2:60-65, 6:24-28.) In
`
`light of the teachings of Muller and Matsumura, along with Anderson’s explicit
`
`suggestion that selecting substrate holder thermal mass would have increased
`
`throughput, a skilled person would have been motivated to incorporate Hinman’s
`
`teachings of selecting a specific thermal mass to perform a predetermined
`
`10
`
`temperature change within a preselected time into the Muller-Matsumura system.
`
`(Ex. 1010, 2:53-3:6.) That combination would have increased throughput, stability,
`
`and precision. (Ex 1025 ¶¶51, 54 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm asserts Hinman is not analogous art because it is not (i) reasonably
`
`pertinent to the problem addressed by the alleged invention or (ii) within the same
`
`15
`
`field of endeavor. (Paper 13 at 9, 15-19; Ex. 2001 ¶11.) Flamm is wrong on both
`
`counts. First, as the Board concluded, Hinman and the ’264 patent address the
`
`same problem of controlling temperature to increase throughput. (Paper 9 at 23-
`
`25; Paper 2 at 36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶45, 48 (citing Ex. 1006.) Second, Hinman and the
`
`’264 patent relate to the same field: multi-temperature control in chemical
`
`20
`
`processes. (Paper 2 at 36; Ex. 1025 ¶44 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`The Federal Circuit has interpreted “reasonably pertinent” and “field of
`
`endeavor” broadly, buttressing Petitioners’ arguments. For example, in In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court held that hinged cabinets and
`
`piano lids are analogous to laptop computer hinges, noting the problem at issue
`
`5
`
`was “not unique to portable computers.” Id. at 1481; see also Innovention Toys,
`
`LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (laser chess
`
`computer games reasonably pertinent to a patent claiming a physical board game
`
`that had movable pieces with a laser source because both had the same purpose).
`
`The Federal Circuit similarly upheld a Board decision that a book discussing user
`
`10
`
`interface design and ordering text information was in the same field of endeavor
`
`and reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to ordering of wireless location based
`
`services. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000-02 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). The court explained that “[t]he field of endeavor of a patent is not limited
`
`to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or
`
`15
`
`the particular focus within a given field.” Id. at 1001.
`
`Moreover, even the cases cited by Flamm support the Board’s conclusion
`
`that Hinman is analogous art. (Paper 13 at 16-18.) For example, in In re ICON
`
`Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit took a
`
`broad view of reasonably pertinent art, affirming a finding that a folding bed
`
`20
`
`reference was pertinent to a folding treadmill because they addressed the same
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`problem. Id. at 1380-81 (“Analogous art to Icon’s application, when considering
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`the folding mechanism and gas spring limitation, may come from any area
`
`describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—
`
`such as the folding bed in Teague.”). The other case Flamm cites, In re Bigio, 381
`
`5
`
`F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004), is similar. There, the court upheld a finding that a
`
`toothbrush was analogous art to a hair brush, describing the relevant field as being
`
`“‘hand-held brushes having a handle segment and a bristle substrate segment.’” Id.
`
`at 1325-26.
`
`Although Flamm concedes that increasing throughput was a problem
`
`10
`
`pertinent to the ’264 patent, he nevertheless asserts that the Board erred in finding
`
`that a skilled person would have linked controlling temperature and throughput.
`
`(Paper 13 at 18-19; Ex. 2001 ¶11; Paper 9 at 23-25.) Unlike Flamm’s unsupported
`
`assertion, the Board’s conclusion is supported by Anderson, Muller, and
`
`Matsumura. (Paper 9 at 24; Paper 2 at 36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶23, 27, 47-48 (citing Ex.
`
`15
`
`1006).) That evidence is unrebutted and Flamm has waived any contrary
`
`argument. (Paper 10 at 4.) Flamm also attempts to distinguish the temperature
`
`changes in the ’264 patent from those in Hinman, noting that Hinman taught
`
`selecting the thermal mass of a ring member so that it quickly heated a fluid
`
`sample inside a cuvette. (Paper 13 at 19; Ex. 2001 ¶11.) But those disclosures of
`
`20
`
`controlling temperature using thermal mass to effect rapid temperature changes are
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`directly relevant to the ’264 patent’s goal of increasing throughput by quickly
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`changing etching temperature. (Ex. 1025 ¶48; Ex. 1001, 2:49-56, 3:52-53, 15:41-
`
`45.)
`
`Flamm also argues that “improving etch selectivity” was a problem
`
`5
`
`addressed by the alleged invention and that “selectivity” was “not found in either
`
`Muller or Hinman.” (Paper 13 at 18; Ex. 2001 ¶11.) But claim 13 says nothing
`
`about “selectivity,” much less improving it. Flamm conjures up that problem in an
`
`attempt to circumvent the prior art. Even so, Muller addressed selectivity. (Ex.
`
`1002, 6:27-46 (“[I]ncreases in the applied RF power may be limited in order to
`
`10
`
`achieve or maintain a desired selectivity.”); Ex. 1025 ¶¶46-47 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`
`
`Furthermore, even if Hinman were not analogous art, the Board should
`
`consider its application of well-known scientific principles regarding thermal mass
`
`to designing heating objects. Application of Mariani, 177 F.2d 293, 295-96
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1949) (“[T]he particular patents were cited as being illustrative of the
`
`15
`
`adaptation of well known scientific principles to practical uses.”) (citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`Flamm’s remaining arguments regarding Petitioners’ Muller-based
`
`combinations similarly miss the mark. Flamm argues that combining Anderson
`
`and Hinman would have been inoperative because Hinman taught a ring member
`
`20
`
`with a larger thermal mass than the fluid sample it heated while Anderson
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`disclosed a low thermal mass heater. (Paper 13 at 19-20; Ex. 2001 ¶12.) But
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Flamm misstates Petitioners’ position. Petitioners are not arguing that Hinman’s
`
`ring member should be directly incorporated into Anderson or any other reference,
`
`as Flamm suggests. Instead, particularly in view of Anderson’s teaching that
`
`5
`
`selecting thermal mass is important for quick temperature changes in
`
`semiconductor processing, a skilled person would have applied Hinman’s
`
`teachings of selecting thermal mass for a predetermined temperature change within
`
`a preselected time period to the Muller-Matsumura system. (Paper 2 at 33-36; Ex.
`
`1025 ¶¶49-51, 53 (citing Ex. 1006).) A skilled person would have found Hinman’s
`
`10
`
`detailed description of how to select a thermal mass for a specific temperature
`
`change time useful for increasing throughput, stability, and precision in the
`
`semiconductor context. (Ex. 1025 at ¶¶43-44, 49-51, 54 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm argues that “Anderson has nothing to do with etching a substrate at
`
`two temperatures during processing, as taught by Muller,” and that Muller’s chuck
`
`15
`
`requires cathode-based cooling while Anderson used spraying liquid to cool.
`
`(Paper 13 at 7-8; Ex. 2001 ¶8.) But those arguments are red herrings. Petitioners
`
`have not argued in favor of combining the features of Anderson and Muller that
`
`Flamm identifies. Nor would those features have prevented applying Anderson’s
`
`thermal mass teachings in Muller’s system. (Ex. 1025 ¶¶21-23 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`20
`
`Petitioners’ evidence that a skilled person would have applied Anderson’s
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`teachings regarding thermal mass and its effect on temperature change times to
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Muller’s system is thus unrebutted. (Paper 2 at 33-36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶44, 48, 53
`
`(citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Similarly, Flamm argues that Anderson “suggests away” from what is
`
`5
`
`claimed in limitation [f] because Anderson taught “heating or cooling a chuck
`
`before beginning a single constant temperature process.” (Paper 13 at 8; Ex. 2001
`
`¶9.) Once again, however, Flamm identifies no disclosures from Anderson that
`
`would have steered a skilled person away from applying the reference’s teachings
`
`regarding the relevance of thermal mass to temperature changes during multi-
`
`10
`
`temperature semiconductor processing. (Ex. 1025 ¶¶25-27, 52-54 (citing Ex.
`
`1006).)
`
`Flamm mischaracterizes Anderson and Hinman
`
`C.
`In attacking Petitioners’ Muller-based combinations, Flamm makes several
`
`inaccurate statements about Anderson and Hinman.
`
`15
`
`Anderson
`
`1.
`Flamm argues that, in Anderson, the term “thermal mass” “means something
`
`completely different from that in the ’264 patent.” (Paper 13 at 5; Ex. 2001 ¶8.)
`
`Contrary to Flamm’s unexplained argument, Anderson uses “thermal mass” in the
`
`same way the ’264 patent does: according to the term’s well-established meaning
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`in fields related to materials science, chemistry, and physics, including
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`semiconductor processing. (Ex. 1025 ¶18 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm also argues that Anderson did not disclose selecting the thermal mass
`
`of a substrate holder because it disclosed selecting the thermal mass of a heater that
`
`5
`
`is part of the substrate holder. (Paper 13 at 11-14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶8, 10.) That is a
`
`distinction without a difference. Anderson disclosed using a “low thermal mass”
`
`heater on the upper surface of a chuck to ensure rapid temperature changes. (Ex.
`
`1011, Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28; Paper 2 at 34; Ex. 1025 ¶¶16-17 (citing Ex.
`
`1006).) The substrate (wafer) sits on the heater, which is part of the substrate
`
`10
`
`holder. (Ex. 1025 ¶35.) As Dr. Bravman explains, the thermal mass of the heater
`
`affected the thermal mass of the substrate holder. (Id.) Accordingly, Anderson
`
`taught selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder. Furthermore, as the Board
`
`noted, Anderson’s disclosure of selecting thermal mass mirrors the ’264 patent’s
`
`disclosure. (Paper 9 at 22-23; Ex. 1025 ¶¶29-35 (citing Ex. 1006).) Just like
`
`15
`
`Anderson’s heater, the substrate holder in the ’264 patent had an “upper surface”
`
`“made using a low thermal mass” material. (Ex. 1001, 15:40-48; Ex. 2001 ¶10.)
`
`Flamm suggests that “[i]t is also not reasonable to conclude … that modifying the
`
`thermal mass of the heater substantially affects the overall thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder.” (Paper 13 at 12; Ex. 2001 ¶10.) But that argument is belied by
`
`20
`
`the ’264 patent’s disclosure, as well as Dr. Bravman’s explanation for why the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`opposite is true. (Ex. 1025 ¶¶29-35 (citing Ex. 1006).) As the Board has
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`recognized, the ’264 patent specifically describes selecting the thermal mass of a
`
`substrate holder in only one way—by selecting the thermal mass of the top surface,
`
`as opposed to the entire holder. (Paper 9 at 22-23; Ex. 1025 ¶¶30, 32.)
`
`5
`
`Flamm attacks some of Anderson’s disclosures cited by Petitioners for not
`
`expressly using the term “thermal mass.” (Paper 13 at 5-6; Ex. 2001 ¶8.) But
`
`those passages reinforce that Anderson sought to quickly raise wafer temperature,
`
`an objective achieved by using the low thermal mass heater described later on in
`
`the reference. (Ex. 1011, Abstract, 2:60-65, 6:24-28; Paper 2 at 18; Ex. 1025 ¶19.)
`
`10
`
`Flamm further criticizes Anderson as allegedly not teaching “changing a
`
`wafer temperature during processing as [required/claimed] by the ’264 patent.”
`
`(Paper 13 at 6, 12-13; Ex. 2001 ¶8.) But Petitioners relied on other references as
`
`teaching that feature. (Paper 2 at 25, 32, 36-37; Ex. 1025 ¶¶52-53 (citing Ex.
`
`1006).) Petitioners relied on Anderson for its teachings that selecting low thermal
`
`15
`
`mass facilitates rapid temperature change and higher throughput in semiconductor
`
`processing. (Paper 2 at 23-25, 34-35; Ex. 1025 ¶¶48, 53-54 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm also argues that Anderson is incompatible with the ’264 patent based
`
`on thermal expansion coefficients of particular materials disclosed in each. (Paper
`
`13 at 14; Ex. 2001 ¶10.) Once again, however, Petitioners did not advocate bodily
`
`20
`
`incorporation of Anderson’s chuck materials in the Muller-Matsumura system, and
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`claim 13 does not require any particular materials or thermal expansion
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`coefficients. (Ex. 1025 ¶36.) The materials described in Anderson do not alter its
`
`teachings of selecting substrate holder thermal mass to facilitate rapid temperature
`
`changes.
`
`5
`
`2. Hinman
`Flamm argues that Hinman is irrelevant because it has “nothing at all in
`
`common with the ’264 patent.” (Paper 13 at 9; Ex. 2001 ¶9.) Flamm does not
`
`dispute, however, that Hinman taught selecting the thermal mass of a ring member
`
`to effect a predetermined change in temperature of a fluid sample within a specific
`
`10
`
`amount of time. (Paper 13 at 9-10; Ex. 2001 ¶¶9, 11.) The concept of selecting
`
`thermal mass to effect predetermined temperature changes within specific time
`
`periods is centrally relevant to claim 13, limitation [f].
`
`Flamm nonetheless argues that Hinman is “remote” from the ’264 patent
`
`because Hinman taught selecting a ring member’s thermal mass to “indirectly”
`
`15
`
`change the temperature of a fluid sample (not to directly change the temperature a
`
`substrate holder) and disclosed a single processing temperature (not multiple
`
`processing temperatures). (Paper 13 at 9-11, 14-15; Ex. 2001 ¶9.) But Petitioners
`
`are not suggesting, as Flamm seems to argue, that a skilled person would have
`
`physically incorporated the ring member and liquid sample from Hinman into the
`
`20
`
`Muller-Matsumura system. Rather, Petitioners are relying on the combination of
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Anderson’s teachings about selecting substrate holder thermal mass to effect quick
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`temperature changes with the concepts taught and scientific principles applied in
`
`Hinman regarding selecting thermal mass and changing temperature within a
`
`specific time period. As explained by Petitioners and Dr. Bravman, a skilled
`
`5
`
`person would have used Hinman’s thermal mass teachings in the combined system
`
`of Muller and Matsumura, especially given Anderson’s recognition of throughput
`
`advantages stemming from selecting substrate holder thermal mass. (Ex. 1011,
`
`2:60-65, 6:24-28; Paper 2 at 34-36; Ex. 1025 ¶¶37, 42, 48, 53 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`10
`
`D. Combinations based on Muller rendered dependent claims 17 and
`19-20 obvious
`1.
`Flamm argues that claim 17 is not obvious because Kikuchi “teaches away”
`
`Claim 17
`
`from a combination with Muller. (Paper 13 at 23-24; Ex. 2001 ¶14.) In particular,
`
`Flamm states Kikuchi relates to an “[ashing/etching] process,” while Muller
`
`15
`
`described a “deep trench silicon … process.” (Paper 13 at 23; Ex. 2001 ¶14.)
`
`Flamm also points to an embodiment in Kikuchi where the wafer is held away
`
`from a heat source by pins, claiming that Kikuchi’s source of heat “defeat[s] the
`
`purpose” of Muller’s chuck. (Paper 13 at 23; Ex. 2001 ¶14.) Flamm is mistaken.
`
`As the Petition and Dr. Bravman explained, a skilled person would have
`
`20
`
`added Kikuchi’s heat lamps to Muller’s system to accelerate the pace of heating
`
`and to increase throughput and flexibility. (Paper 2 at 48-50; Ex. 1025 ¶¶57, 62
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`(citing Ex. 1006).) Once again, Flamm attacks the references individually, failing
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`to address Petitioners’ stated motivations and the references’ combined teachings,
`
`thus waiving any arguments opposing them. (Paper 10 at 4.) In addition, Flamm’s
`
`first argument actually supports Petitioners’ combination of references because it
`
`5
`
`reinforces that Muller and Kikuchi relate to the same general technology—multi-
`
`temperature etching processes. (Ex. 1025 ¶59 (citing Ex. 1006).) Flamm’s second
`
`argument relies on the fact that Muller taught using a substrate holder (not heat
`
`lamps) to vary temperature (Paper 13 at 23; Ex. 1002, 4:64-5:10, 6:15-19, 6:54-58),
`
`but that fails to address Petitioners’ evidence that a skilled person would have been
`
`10
`
`motivated to incorporate heat lamps to obtain the benefits of the combination. (Ex.
`
`1025 ¶¶57, 62 (citing Ex. 1006).) Indeed, Kikuchi also taught using a heated
`
`substrate holder, and the prior art included examples of systems using both heat
`
`lamps and substrate holders to vary temperature. (Ex. 1004, A