IPR2017‐00279, ‐00280, ‐00281, ‐00282
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`Intel Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`March 7, 2018
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`Intel Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`March 7, 2018
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Obviousness Combinations
`
`Petition
`
`‐279
`
`‐280
`‐281
`
`‐282
`
`All
`
`• Muller, Matsumura, Anderson and Hinman render independent claim 13
`obvious (as does the Kadomura combination)
`• Adding Kikuchi renders claim 17 obvious
`• Adding Wright renders claims 19‐20 obvious
`
`• Kadomura and Matsumura render independent claims 27, 37 and 51
`obvious
`• Kikuchi and Matsumura also render those claims obvious
`
`• Patent owner failed to address Muller, Matsumura and Wang, which
`render independent claims 56 and 60 obvious
`• Adding Kikuchi renders claim 63 obvious
`
`• Most dependent claims are not separately contested
`
`2
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Temperature change and preselected time
`limitations
`
`’264 patent (Ex. 1001), claims 13, 27, 37, 51, 56, 60
`
`3
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Matsumura, like the ’264 patent, relies on
`temperature changes in a preselected time period
`
`’264 patent (Ex. 1001), Fig. 10
`
`Matsumura (Ex. 1003), Fig. 9, 8:56‐62
`‐280 Petition at 6‐7, 14‐15, 32; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶51, 71, 97, 129; ‐280 Reply at 3‐4
`
`4
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Matsumura, like the ’264 patent, relies on
`temperature changes in a preselected time period
`
`Matsumura (Ex. 1003), Fig. 9, 10:3‐7,
`2:60‐65, 10:22‐29
`
`Matsumura (Ex. 1003), 10:3‐7
`
`‐280 Petition at 6‐7, 14‐15, 32‐34; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶51, 70‐71, 129, 133‐134; ‐280 Reply at 3‐4
`
`5
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`No dispute that Matsumura’s preselected time
`and temperature changes were obvious
`
`‐280 PO Resp. at 18‐19
`
`6
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`No dispute that Matsumura’s preselected time
`and temperature changes were obvious
`
`‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶130
`
`‐280 Petition at 33
`
`7
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`’264 patent, petition 1
`IPR2017‐00279
`
`Claim 13 and its dependent claims are obvious
`
`8
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Muller disclosed temperature changes at
`predetermined times for etching
`
`Muller (Ex. 1002), Fig. 4
`
`Muller (Ex. 1002), 5:17‐25, 7:22‐25
`
`‐279 Petition at 11‐12, 27‐29, 36; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶73‐74, 117, 210
`
`9
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Muller and Matsumura
`
`‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶178‐179
`
`‐279 Petition at 27‐29
`
`10
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Muller and Matsumura
`
`Flamm does not contest the combination of Muller with Matsumura’s substrate holder
`temperature sensor or preselected time/temperature change recipes
`
`Muller (Ex. 1002), Fig. 4
`
`‐279 Petition at 11‐15, 27‐29; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶170, 177‐182
`
`11
`
`Matsumura (Ex. 1003), Fig. 5A
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Construction of “thermal mass” limitation
`
`‐279 Institution Decision at 11
`
`12
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Anderson’s low thermal mass
`substrate holder
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011), Title, Fig. 2
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011), Abstract, 6:1‐8, 6:24‐28
`
`‐279 Petition at 18, 23‐24; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶113, 192
`
`13
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Anderson and the ’264 patent encourage
`low thermal mass material adjacent the wafer
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011), Title, Fig. 2, 6:24‐28
`
`’264 patent (Ex. 1001), Fig. 6, 15:43‐48
`
`‐279 Petition at 18, 23‐24; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶51, 58‐59, 113, 192; ‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶¶26, 30, 32‐35
`
`14
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Anderson’s heater dominates the
`combined thermal mass of the heater and chuck
`
`‐279 Reply at 11‐12
`
`15
`
`‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶35
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Anderson’s low thermal mass
`teaching with Muller/Matsumura
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011), Fig. 2
`
`Muller (Ex. 1002), Fig. 4
`
`‐279 Petition at 11, 18; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶113, 170
`
`16
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Anderson with
`Muller/Matsumura
`
`‐279 Reply at 4‐5, 9‐10, 14
`
`17
`
`‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶42
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Thermal mass was a well‐known concept
`
`‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶44
`
`‐279 Petition at 17‐18, 24
`
`18
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Hinman disclosed an example of selecting
`thermal mass to effect temperature changes
`
`‐279 Petition at 33‐34; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶124
`
`Hinman (Ex. 1010), 2:52‐3:6
`
`19
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Hinman with
`Muller/Matsumura and Anderson
`
`‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶128
`
`‐279 Petition at 36‐37
`
`20
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Muller, Matsumura, Anderson
`and Hinman
`
`‐279 Petition at 36‐37
`
`21
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Flamm ignores the multi‐temperature
`change teachings of Muller and Matsumura
`
`‐279 Reply at 3‐5, 12
`
`22
`
`‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶54
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Flamm’s physical incorporation arguments
`against Anderson and Hinman are misplaced
`
`‐279 Reply at 9
`
`23
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Hinman is analogous art
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,1481 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (hinged
`cabinets and piano lids are analogous to laptop computer
`hinges; the problem at issue was “not unique to portable
`computers.”)
`
`In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380-
`81 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (folding bed reference was pertinent to a
`folding treadmill because they addressed the same problem;
`“Analogous art to Icon’s application, when considering
`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.”)
`
`‐279 Reply at 6‐7
`
`24
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Hinman is analogous art—especially
`in view of Anderson
`
`‐279 Institution Decision at 24
`
`25
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Hinman is analogous art
`
`‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶44
`
`‐279 Reply at 5
`
`26
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279, ‐282: Combining Kikuchi’s infrared heat
`lamp (claims 17, 63)
`
`Kikuchi (Ex. 1004), Fig. 1
`
`‐282 Petition at 21, 58‐60, 88‐90; ‐282 Bravman Decl. ¶¶113, 117, 205‐206
`
`Gat (Ex. 1012), Fig. 1
`
`27
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: The law on “teaching away”
`
`A reference that “merely expresses a general preference for
`an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or
`otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed
`invention does not teach away.
`
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
`does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
`alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
`discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in
`the ’198 application.
`
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`28
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Wright’s teachings about substrate
`holder and wafer temperature (claims 19, 20)
`
`‐279 Petition at 14‐15, 46‐47; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶161, 224
`
`Wright (Ex. 1008) at 321, 324, 326
`
`29
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Combining Wright’s teachings about substrate
`holder and wafer temperature (claims 19, 20)
`
`‐279 Petition at 46‐47, 70‐72; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶163, 167, 228
`
`30
`
`Wright (Ex. 1008), Fig. 4
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Thermal coupling of the substrate holder and
`wafer in the ’264 patent and Muller (claims 19, 20)
`
`Muller (Ex. 1002), Fig. 4, 4:38‐43
`
`‐279 Petition at 11, 41, 43‐44; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶¶170, 219, 311
`
`31
`
`’264 patent (Ex. 1001), Fig. 1, 3:53‐60
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Thermal coupling of the substrate holder and
`wafer in the ’264 patent and Muller (claims 19, 20)
`
`‐279 Petition at 41‐42; ‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶220
`
`‐279 Bravman Decl. ¶219
`
`32
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐279: Thermal coupling of the substrate holder and
`wafer in the ’264 patent and Muller (claims 19, 20)
`
`‐279 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶67
`
`‐279 Reply at 16‐17
`
`33
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`’264 patent, petitions 2 and 3
`IPR2017‐00280, ‐281
`
`Claims 27, 37 and 51 and their dependent claims are obvious
`
`34
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Kadomura disclosed a tool for multi‐
`temperature etching
`
`‐280 Petition at 11‐12, 44‐45; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶65‐66, 117, 149
`
`35
`
`Kadomura (Ex. 1005), Fig. 4
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`
`Kadomura (Ex. 1005), 6:30‐35, 4:49‐54
`
`‐280 Petition at 29‐30; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶125, 132
`
`36
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281, ‐282: Combining Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`Flamm’s arguments
`Petitioners’ responses
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Temperature change time in Kadomura is
`irrelevant so long as it is shorter than gas
`exchange time. Dr. Bravman does not
`explain why using Matsumura’s recipes
`would have increased throughput.
`Matsumura’s recipes would have been
`useless for reducing temperature change
`time.
`
`‐280 PO Resp. at 8‐13; ‐281 PO Resp. at 8‐12;
`‐282 PO Resp. at 8‐13
`
`Petitioners’ additional motivations are
`conclusory.
`
`‐280 PO Resp. at 11‐17; ‐281 PO Resp. at 11‐16;
`‐282 PO Resp. at 12‐15
`
`• As explained in the Petition and by Dr.
`Bravman, using Matsumura’s recipe
`approach and programmed temperature
`change times would have ensured those
`times were shorter than gas exchange
`times.
`
`‐280 Reply at 5, 9‐10; ‐281 Reply at 5, 9‐10;
`‐282 Reply at 5, 9‐10
`
`• As explained in the Petition and by Dr.
`Bravman, using recipes would have
`increased control, accuracy, efficiency,
`predictability and reliability. Flamm does
`not substantively address efficiency and
`predictability.
`
`‐280 Reply at 8, 10‐12; ‐281 Reply at 8, 10‐12;
`‐282 Reply at 8, 10‐12
`
`37
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`
`‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶130, 133
`
`‐280 Petition at 33‐34
`
`38
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`
`‐280 Reply at 8
`
`39
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Kikuchi disclosed a multi‐
`temperature etching tool
`
`Kikuchi (Ex. 1004), Fig. 11
`
`‐280 Petition at 16‐18; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶213‐214
`
`40
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`Kikuchi (Ex. 1004), Abstract, 2:40‐44, 8:8‐14
`‐280 Petition at 10, 59‐60; ‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶83‐86
`
`41
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶¶97, 228
`
`‐280 Petition at 69‐70
`
`42
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`Flamm’s arguments
`The references do not teach heating a
`substrate holder to a first temperature.
`‐280 PO Resp. at 19‐20; ‐281 PO Resp. at 17‐19
`
`Petitioners did not cover measured or
`predetermined wafer temperatures or
`change within a preselected time.
`‐280 PO Resp. at 21; ‐281 PO Resp. at 19
`
`Petitioners did not provide any
`motivations to combine.
`‐280 PO Resp. at 21; ‐281 PO Resp. at 19‐20
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioners’ responses
`Flamm does not address replacing
`Kikuchi’s hot plate with Matsumura’s
`heating/cooling stage.
`‐280 Reply at 18, 22; ‐281 Reply at 18, 21‐22
`• Claims 27, 37 and 51 don’t have
`Flamm’s fictitious requirements.
`‐280 Reply at 19; ‐281 Reply at 19‐20
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Kikuchi uses predetermined wafer
`temperatures and changes in 5 or 10
`seconds. Matsumura’s recipes change
`within a preselected time.
`‐280 Reply at 17‐21; ‐281 Reply at 17‐21
`
`Petitioners identified increased
`throughput, control, accuracy, efficiency,
`predictability and reliability.
`‐280 Reply at 21‐22; ‐281 Reply at 21‐22
`
`43
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`‐280 Bravman Decl. ¶95
`
`‐280 Petition at 61‐62
`
`44
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐280, ‐281: Combining Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`‐280 Reply at 21‐22
`
`45
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`’264 patent, petition 4
`IPR2017‐00282
`
`Claims 56 and 60 and their dependent claims are obvious
`
`46
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐282: Combining Muller, Matsumura and Wang
`
`‐282 Reply at 21
`
`47
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`’264 patent, petitions 1‐4
`IPR2017‐00279, ‐280, ‐281, ‐282
`
`Flamm’s failure to contest dependent claims
`
`48
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Flamm does not separately contest 44 of the 53
`dependent claims
`
`’264 dependent claims
`
`Citation
`
`14, 16, 18, 21‐26, 64‐65
`
`‐279 PO Resp. at 20‐28; ‐279 Reply at 21‐22
`
`28‐32, 34‐36, 52‐55, 66, 68‐69
`
`‐280 PO Resp. at 22‐23; ‐280 Reply at 23
`
`38‐46, 49‐50, 67
`
`58‐59, 61‐62, 70‐71
`
`‐281 PO Resp. at 22‐23; ‐281 Reply at 25‐26
`
`‐282 PO Resp. at 20‐22; ‐282 Reply at 22
`
`49
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Flamm does not separately contest 44 dependent
`claims in the ’264 patent
`
`Independent claims
`
`13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
`21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
`37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
`45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
`53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
`61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
`69 70 71
`
`50
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`For dependent claims 15, 19‐20 and 57, Flamm
`contests one but not both of Petitioners’ grounds
`
`’264
`claims
`
`Uncontested
`ground
`
`Contested
`ground
`
`Citation
`
`15
`
`19‐20
`
`57
`
`Muller as primary
`reference
`
`Kadomura as primary
`reference
`
`‐279 PO Resp. at 20‐27; ‐279
`Reply at 21‐22
`
`Kadomura as
`primary reference
`
`Muller as primary
`reference
`
`‐279 PO Resp. at 20‐27; ‐279
`Reply at 21‐22
`
`Muller as primary
`reference
`
`Kadomura as primary
`reference
`
`‐282 PO Resp. at 20‐22; ‐282
`Reply at 22
`
`51
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Flamm contests claims 33, 47 and 48 without
`addressing the merits
`
`’264 claims
`
`Citation (and argument)
`
`33
`
`47, 48
`
`‐279 PO Resp. at 27 (urges claim limitation, “remote
`plasma,” which does not exist); ‐279 Reply at 21
`
`‐281 PO Resp. at 21‐23 (no substantive argument); ‐281
`Reply at 22‐26
`
`52
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Flamm contests dependent claims 17 and 63 but
`ignores Petitioners’ proposed motivations
`
`’264 claims
`17
`
`Citation
`
`‐279 PO Resp. at 23‐25; ‐279 Reply at 14‐16, 20
`
`63
`
`‐282 PO Resp. at 21‐22; ‐282 Reply at 18‐22
`
`53
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`’264 patent
`
`Independent claim language
`
`54
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 13
`
`13. A method of etching a substrate in the manufacture of a device, the method comprising
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a chamber, the substrate
`holder having a selected thermal mass;
`setting the substrate holder to a selected first substrate holder temperature with a heat
`transfer device;
`etching a first portion of the film while the substrate holder is at the selected first substrate
`holder temperature;
`with the heat transfer device, changing the substrate holder temperature from the
`selected first substrate holder temperature to a selected second substrate holder
`temperature; and
`etching a second portion of the film while the substrate holder is at the selected second
`substrate holder temperature;
`wherein the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing; the
`predetermined temperature change comprises the change from the selected 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.
`
`55
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27
`
`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.
`
`56
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 37
`
`37. A method of processing a substrate during the manufacture of a device, the method comprising:
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder within a chamber of a plasma
`discharge apparatus, the plasma discharge apparatus comprising: a substrate temperature control
`system comprising a substrate temperature sensor and a substrate temperature control circuit
`operable to adjust the substrate temperature to a predetermined substrate temperature value with a
`first heat transfer process; and a substrate holder temperature control system comprising a substrate
`holder temperature sensor and a substrate holder temperature control circuit operable to adjust the
`substrate holder temperature to a predetermined substrate holder temperature value with a second
`heat transfer process;
`performing a first film treatment of a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate temperature;
`with the substrate temperature control circuit, changing from the selected first substrate temperature
`to a selected second substrate temperature, the selected second substrate temperature being
`different from the selected first substrate temperature; and
`performing a second film treatment of a second portion of the film at the selected second substrate
`temperature;
`wherein the substrate holder is heated above room temperature during at least one of the first or the
`second film treatments, and the substrate temperature control circuit is operable to change the
`substrate temperature from the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`temperature within a preselected time period to process the film.
`
`57
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 51
`
`51. A method of processing a substrate in the manufacture of a device, the method comprising
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a processing chamber; the
`processing chamber comprising the substrate holder, a substrate control circuit operable to
`adjust the substrate temperature, a substrate holder temperature sensor, and a substrate
`holder control circuit operable to maintain the substrate holder temperature;
`
`performing a first etching of a first portion of the film at a selected first substrate temperature;
`
`performing a second etching of a second portion of the film at a selected second substrate
`temperature, the second temperature being different from the first temperature;
`wherein at least one of the film portions is etched while heat is being transferred to the
`substrate holder with the substrate holder control circuit; and
`the substrate temperature control circuit effectuates the change from the first substrate
`temperature to the second substrate temperature within a preselected time period.
`
`58
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 56
`
`56. A method for processing layers which are included in a stack of
`layers positioned on a substrate, the method comprising:
`placing the substrate on a substrate holder;
`
`sensing a substrate holder temperature,
`etching at least a portion of a first silicon‐containing layer in a chamber while the
`substrate is maintained at a selected first substrate temperature; and
`etching at least a portion of a second silicon‐containing layer in the chamber while the
`substrate is maintained at a selected second substrate temperature;
`
`wherein the substrate holder is heated to a temperature operable to maintain at least
`one of the selected first and the selected second substrate temperatures above 49° C.,
`and
`the substrate temperature is changed from the first substrate temperature to the second
`substrate temperature with a control circuit operable to effectuate the changing within a
`preselected time period that is less than the overall process time associated with the
`etching the first silicon‐containing layer and the second silicon containing layer.
`
`59
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 60
`
`60. A method for manufacturing a device comprising an integrated circuit, the method
`comprising:
`transferring a substrate comprising a stack of layers including a silicide layer into a
`chamber, the chamber comprising a substrate holder;
`sensing the substrate holder temperature;
`heating the substrate holder with a substrate holder control circuit and a heating device
`to maintain the substrate holder at a temperature that is operable to effectuate a
`substrate temperature above room temperature while processing the substrate;
`processing the substrate on the substrate holder at a first substrate temperature; and
`processing the substrate on the substrate holder at a second substrate temperature to
`etch at least a portion of the silicide layer;
`wherein the first substrate temperature is different from the second substrate
`temperature and the first substrate temperature is changed to the second substrate
`temperature with a substrate temperature control circuit within a preselected time to
`etch the silicide layer.
`
`60
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Additional Support
`’264 patent, petition 3
`IPR2017‐00281
`
`Claims 37, 47 and 48 are obvious
`
`61
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Moslehi ’824 disclosed a tool for plasma‐
`enhanced deposition and etching
`
`Moslehi ’824 (Ex. 1010), 10:34‐39
`
`‐281 Petition at 81‐83, 93; ‐281 Bravman Decl. ¶¶115, 132, 279, 300
`
`62
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Moslehi ’824 disclosed a tool for plasma‐
`enhanced deposition and etching
`
`‐281 Petition at 20‐21, 81‐83, 85‐86; ‐281 Bravman Decl. ¶¶115‐117, 282‐283
`
`63
`
`Moslehi ’824 (Ex. 1010), Fig. 3
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Oka disclosed a recipe for a multi‐
`temperature plasma deposition process
`
`‐281 Petition at 23, 82, 87‐89; ‐281 Bravman Decl. ¶¶126‐127, 278, 285
`
`64
`
`Oka (Ex. 1011), 20:28‐34, 20:52‐56, 23:52‐55
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Combining Moslehi ’824 and Oka
`
`‐281 Petition at 82‐83
`
`‐281 Bravman Decl. ¶¶132‐133
`
`65
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Combining Moslehi ’824 and Oka
`
`‐281 Bravman Decl. ¶133
`
`‐281 Petition at 89
`
`66
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`‐281: Combining Moslehi ’824 and Oka
`
`‐281 Bravman Reply Decl. ¶65
`
`‐281 Reply at 23‐24
`
`67
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`Flamm’s Declarations
`
`68
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`PO’s “declarations” should be given no weight
`
`• Dr. Flamm has a personal interest in the outcome of these proceedings.
`Curt G. Joa, Inc. v. Fameccanica.Data S.p.A., IPR2016‐00906, Paper 79 at 2 n.1 (Oct. 11, 2017);
`‐279 Reply at 22; ‐280 Reply at 23‐24; ‐281 Reply at 26; ‐282 Reply at 22‐23
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Each “declaration” fails to establish the basis of Dr. Flamm’s opinions.
`‐279 Reply at 23; ‐280 Reply at 24; ‐281 Reply at 26‐27; ‐282 Reply at 23‐24
`
`Each “declaration” parrots attorney arguments provided in the Patent Owner Response.
`‐279 Reply at 23‐24; ‐280 Reply at 24‐25; ‐281 Reply at 27‐28; ‐282 Reply at 24
`
`Each “declaration” is incomplete and leaves much of Dr. Bravman’s testimony unrebutted.
`‐279 Reply at 24; ‐280 Reply at 25; ‐281 Reply at 28; ‐282 Reply at 24‐25
`
`69
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`“Declarations” parrot attorney arguments
`
`‐281 PO Response
`
`‐281 Flamm Decl.
`
`‐281 PO Resp. at 16‐17
`
`‐281 Flamm Decl. ¶14
`
`See also, e.g., ‐279 PO Resp. at 5‐6; ‐279 Flamm Decl. ¶8; ‐280 PO Resp. at 18‐19; ‐280 Flamm Decl. ¶14; ‐282 PO Resp. at 6‐8; ‐282 Flamm Decl. ¶12
`
`70
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1029
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
