`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: MULTI-TEMPERATURE PROCESSING
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`FOURTH PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................. 3
`
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................. 3
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................... 3
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................... 3
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................... 3
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(a)) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.............................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`Challenges Are Based ........................................................................ 4
`
`IV. THE '264 PATENT ...................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Representative Claim 51 .................................................................... 7
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure ................................................................. 7
`
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching ..................................................... 7
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device ............................ 7
`
`Temperature Sensor ................................................................. 8
`
`Control System ......................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 8
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`Page
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`"portion of the film" and "portions of . . . layer"............................... 9
`
`"preselected time period," "preselected time," and "selected
`period of time" .................................................................................. 11
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................. 12
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 56-58 Are Rendered Obvious by Tegal,
`Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and '485 Wang Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and
`'485 Wang Teaches All the Limitations of Independent
`Claim 56 ................................................................................. 13
`
`Chart for Claim 56 ................................................................. 21
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and
`'485 Wang Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 57
`and 58 ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Chart for Claims 57 and 58 .................................................... 25
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 56, 57, and 58 .......... 25
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 60, 62, 63, and 71 Are Rendered Obvious
`by Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and Fischl Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and
`Fischl Teaches All the Limitations of Claim 60 .................... 30
`
`Chart for Claim 60 ................................................................. 36
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and
`Fischl Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 62, 63,
`and 71 ..................................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Chart for Claims 62, 63, and 71 ............................................. 40
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 60, 62, and 71 .......... 40
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 63 ............................... 42
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 51, 55, and 68 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, and Thomas Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) ................................................................................................ 43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Tegal in View of, Matsumura, Narita, and Thomas
`Teaches All the Limitations of Independent Claim 51 .......... 44
`
`Chart for Claim 51 ................................................................. 46
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, and Thomas
`Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 55 and 68 ................. 47
`
`Chart for Claims 55 and 68 .................................................... 48
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 51, 55, and 68 .......... 48
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 56 and 59 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Tegal, Matsumura, Narita, '391 Wang, Thomas, and '485
`Wang Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, '391 Wang,
`Thomas, and '485 Wang Teaches All the Limitations
`of Independent Claim 56 ........................................................ 49
`
`Chart for Claim 56 ................................................................. 51
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, '391 Wang,
`Thomas, and '485 Wang Teaches All the Limitations
`of Claim 59 ............................................................................. 52
`
`Chart for Claim 59 ................................................................. 53
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 59 ............................... 54
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claim 61 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in View
`of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, Fischl, and Ooshio Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Chart for Claim 61 ................................................................. 56
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 61 ............................... 56
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claim 70 is Rendered Obvious by Tegal in view
`of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, Fischl and Hwang Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Chart for Claim 70 ................................................................. 58
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 70 ............................... 59
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Agilent Techs. Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008 WL 7348188
`(N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008) ......................................................................... 9
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. Patent Owner,
`IPR2012-00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) .......................................................................... 4
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 11
`
`Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir.),
`cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984)........................................................... 17
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................. 2
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 3
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F. 2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................... 17, 24
`
`KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).................................................................................. 2
`
`Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273 (1976)
`(reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976) .......................................................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 5
`
`3454178.40 01
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .......................................................................................... 1, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................... 4, 9, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (the '264 patent)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`European Patent Application Number 90304724.9 (Tegal)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (Matsumura)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,913,790 (Narita)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,680,086 (Thomas)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,219,485 ('485 Wang)
`
`D. S. Fischl, G. W. Rodrigues, and D. W. Hess, Etching of
`Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide Films by Chlorine Atoms
`published in August 1998 by The Journal of Electrochemical
`Society in Vol. 135, No. 8 (Fischl)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,992,391 ('391 Wang)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (Hwang)
`
`Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993
`
`Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1993
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,645,218 (Ooshio)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`Daniel L. Flamm and G. Kenneth Herb, "Plasma Etching
`Technology – An Overview" in Plasma Etching, An Introduction,
`Dennis M. Manos and Daniel L. Flamm, eds. (Academic Press,
`San Diego, 1988)
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner Lam Research Corporation ("Lam" or "Petitioner") respectfully requests
`
`that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71
`
`("challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E ("the '264 patent"), which is
`
`owned by Daniel L. Flamm ("Flamm" or "Patent Owner"), and cancel those claims
`
`because they are unpatentable in view of prior art patents and printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The thirteen claims challenged in this Petition are all directed to a method
`
`for processing a substrate in the manufacture of a semiconductor device.1 In the
`
`method, a substrate is placed on a substrate holder in a chamber. The claims
`
`require sensing the substrate holder temperature and recite control circuits
`
`including a substrate holder control circuit and a substrate control circuit. The
`
`substrate is processed at a first temperature and then at a second temperature.
`
`As set forth below, the claims of the '264 patent are obvious because they
`
`are nothing more than the result of Flamm combining "familiar elements according
`
`1 Claims 13-26, 64, and 65 are challenged in a first IPR, filed concurrently
`
`with this IPR. Claims 27-30, 33, 35-39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51-54, 66, 67, and 69
`
`are challenged in a second IPR, filed concurrently with this IPR. Claims 27, 31,
`
`32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are challenged in a third IPR, filed
`
`concurrently with this IPR.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`to known methods" to "yield predictable results." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`
`
`550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, "when a patent 'simply
`
`arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known
`
`to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement,
`
`the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc., 425
`
`U.S. 273, 282 reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976)). The key question is whether the
`
`alleged improvement "is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions." Id. As set forth below, the answer to this
`
`question is "no" for the '264 patent because, well before the purported invention,
`
`processing a substrate in a chamber at a first temperature and then at a second
`
`temperature was well known. Patents and printed publications predating the
`
`purported invention also disclosed chambers having elements such as temperature
`
`sensors for substrate holders and substrates as well as control systems for
`
`accurately and quickly controlling the temperature of a substrate holder or a
`
`substrate during processing.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the teachings of these references to practice the method of the challenged claims.
`
`Notably, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference
`
`. . . ." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Rather, "obviousness
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`focuses on what the combined teachings would have suggested." In re Mouttet,
`
`
`
`686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-party in interest for this Petition is Lam Research Corporation.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The '264 patent is presently at issue in the declaratory judgment action Lam
`
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and in
`
`the infringement action Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case 1:15-cv-613 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel: Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`
`Backup Counsel: Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707)
`
`Address: Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Tel: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at LamFlammIPR@irell.com.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`fees required for this Petition, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a),
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`referencing Docket No. 153405-0053(264IPR), and for any other required fees.
`
`
`
`F. Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the '264 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the '264 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner has filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of the
`
`claims of the '264 patent, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-
`
`01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner has not filed a declaratory judgment action for
`
`invalidity of the claims of the '264 patent. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd. Patent Owner, IPR2012-00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162, at *5
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013). Flamm has not yet filed an answer asserting
`
`counterclaims for infringement of the '264 patent in the N.D. Cal. action.
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) and §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner
`
`challenges claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71 of the '264 patent. Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 51, 55-63, 68,
`
`70, and 71 of the '264 patent based on the grounds detailed below.
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenges
`Are Based
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the '264 patent
`
`is requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`'264 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): European Patent Application Number
`
`
`
`90304724.9 to Lachenbruch et al. ("Tegal," Ex. 1002) filed on May 1, 1990 by
`
`Tegal Corp. and published on Nov. 28, 1990 as Publication No. 0399676A1; U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 5,151,871 to Matsumura et al. ("Matsumura," Ex. 1003) issued on Sept.
`
`29, 1992; U.S. Pat. No. 4,913,790 to Narita et al. ("Narita," Ex. 1004) issued on
`
`April 3, 1990; U.S. Pat. No. 4,680,086 to Thomas et al. ("Thomas," Ex. 1005)
`
`issued on July 14, 1987; U.S. Pat. No. 5,219,485 to Wang et al. ("'485 Wang," Ex.
`
`1006) issued on Jun. 15, 1993; D. S. Fischl, G. W. Rodrigues, and D. W. Hess,
`
`Etching of Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide Films by Chlorine Atoms ("Fischl," Ex.
`
`1007) published in August 1998 by The Journal of Electrochemical Society in Vol.
`
`135, No. 8; U.S. Pat. No. 4,992,391 to Wang et al. ("'391 Wang," Ex. 1008) issued
`
`on Feb. 12, 1991; U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,856 to Hwang et al. ("Hwang," Ex. 1009)
`
`issued on Dec. 29, 1992; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,645,218 to Ooshio et al. ("Ooshio,"
`
`Ex. 1013) issued on Feb. 24, 1987.
`
`Each of the above references qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) because each was published or issued more than one year prior to the
`
`earliest priority date recited by the '264 patent, Dec. 4, 1995. The references in this
`
`Petition were not before the Examiner during the prosecution of the '264 patent or
`
`its parent applications. The Petition does not present the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously presented during the prosecution of the '264
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`patent or its parent applications. Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged
`
`
`
`claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71 under the following statutory grounds:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Claims
`56-58,
`
`60, 62, 63, 71
`
`51, 55, 68
`
`59
`
`61
`
`70
`
`References(s)
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`1
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, and '485 Wang
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, and Fischl
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`and Thomas
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`'391 Wang, Thomas, and '485 Wang
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, Fischl, and Ooshio
`§ 103(a) Tegal in view of Matsumura, Narita,
`Thomas, Fischl, and Hwang
`
`6
`
`Section VII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
`
`declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D. Ex. 1010.
`
`IV. THE '264 PATENT
`The '264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776 ("the '776 patent"),
`
`which issued from an application filed on Sept. 10, 1998, which itself is a
`
`continuation-in-part of another application filed on Dec. 4, 1995 and claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed Sept. 11, 1997. Ex. 1001-1. No matter
`
`which of these dates Flamm may rely on as the priority date of the '264 patent, the
`
`references relied upon in this Petition are prior art to the '264 patent because they
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`all predate Dec. 4, 1995, the earliest priority date recited by the '264 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Representative Claim 51
`The crux of the alleged invention of the '264 patent is the straightforward
`
`and well-known method of placing a substrate on a substrate holder in a chamber
`
`and processing the substrate at different temperatures. See, e.g., Ex. 1010 ¶ 40.
`
`Claim 51 recites a method comprising the steps of (a) "placing the substrate on a
`
`substrate holder;" (b) "sensing a substrate holder temperature;" (c) "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 (d) "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." Ex. 1001, 24:43-51. The
`
`claim recites "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." Id. at 24:55-58.
`
`B.
`
`The '264 Patent Disclosure
`1. Multi-Temperature Etching
`The '264 patent discloses, a "multi-stage etching processes . . . using
`
`differing temperatures." Id. at 2:10-12. Etching may take place at a "first
`
`temperature" and then at a "second temperature." Id. at 2:53-56; Ex. 1010 ¶ 41.
`
`Substrate Holder and Heat Transfer Device
`
`2.
` The '264 patent discloses a temperature control system (Fig. 7), which "can
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`be used to heat and/or cool the wafer chuck or substrate holder 701." Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`16:3-5. The substrate holder is coupled to a fluid reservoir in the system. Id. at
`
`16:5-8. "[F]luid can be used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate
`
`holder." Id. at 14:62-63. The fluid "traverses through the substrate holder" and
`
`"[t]he fluid temperature selectively transfers energy in the form of heat to the wafer
`
`holder to a desirable temperature." Id. at 16:11-16. The fluid is heated with an
`
`electric heater but "can also be cooled using a heat exchanger." Id. at 16:33-36,
`
`16:20-21; Ex. 1010 ¶ 42.
`
`Temperature Sensor
`
`3.
`The '264 patent discloses sensing the substrate holder temperature. Ex.
`
`1001, 15:51-53 ("temperature sensing unit can be any suitable unit that is capable
`
`of being adapted to the upper surface of the substrate holder."); Ex. 1010 ¶ 43.
`
`Control System
`
`4.
`The '264 patent discloses controlling the temperature of the fluid by using
`
`both the measured substrate (or substrate holder) temperature and the desired
`
`temperature to determine the amount of power that should be supplied to the heater
`
`to heat the fluid. Ex. 1001, 16:33-46; Ex. 1010 ¶ 44.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ("PHOSITA") would generally
`
`have had either (i) a Bachelor's degree in engineering, physics, chemistry,
`
`materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields, or (ii) a Master's degree in
`
`
`
`engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field and two or
`
`three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related
`
`fields. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 27-30.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, the challenged claims must be given their
`
`"broadest reasonable construction" in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because of this rule, for the purpose of
`
`this inter partes review, Petitioner has employed the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the challenged claims throughout this Petition. The broadest
`
`reasonable construction of claim terms, of course, will often be quite different from
`
`the construction those terms would receive in district court claim construction
`
`proceedings. See Agilent Techs. Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008
`
`WL 7348188, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3), the following subsections explain the proper construction of
`
`particular claim terms at issue for purposes of this review. Ex. 1010 ¶ 50.
`
`"portion of the film" and "portions of . . . layer"
`
`A.
`The challenged claims of the '264 patent include limitations that recite
`
`etching a "portion" of a film, or variants thereof. The claim terms are "portion of
`
`the film" as recited by claims 51 and 68 and "portion of . . . layer" as recited by
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`claims 56, 59, and 60. In all of these claims, "portion" is used according to its
`
`
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Claim 51 recites "a substrate having a film thereon,"
`
`"performing a first etching of a first portion of the film," and "performing a second
`
`etching of a second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 24:6, 24:14-19. Consistent
`
`with this usage, a PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of the purported
`
`invention of the '264 patent, that the broadest reasonable construction of the
`
`claimed term, "portion," means part of the film or layer. Ex. 1010 ¶ 51.
`
`This understanding is consistent with dictionaries of the time. For example,
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary defines "portion" as "[a] section or quantity
`
`within a larger thing; a part of a whole." Ex. 1011-3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 52. Additionally,
`
`the '264 patent specification does not use the term "portion" with respect to a film
`
`or layer, and does not express any intent to redefine the term.
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation further supports construing "portion" to
`
`mean part of the film. For example, independent claim 51 recites "performing a
`
`first etching of a first portion of the film" and "performing a second etching of a
`
`second portion of the film." Ex. 1001, 24:14-19. Dependent claim 68 adds the
`
`limitation "wherein the second portion of the film comprises a material
`
`composition different from the first portion of the film." Id. at 26:21-23.
`
`Consequently, where the claims simply recite a first portion and a second portion
`
`(as in independent claim 51), these portions can have the same material
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`composition. This is because dependent claim 68 explicitly provides that the first
`
`
`
`and second portions must have different material compositions. See, e.g., Curtiss-
`
`Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`("'[C]laim differentiation' refers to the presumption that an independent claim
`
`should not be construed as requiring a limitation added by a dependent claim.").
`
`In sum, under the broadest reasonable construction of the claimed terms,
`
`"portion of the film" means part of the film and "portion of . . . layer" means part
`
`of the layer. Ex. 1010 ¶ 53.
`
`B.
`
`"preselected time period," "preselected time," and "selected
`period of time"
`
`The challenged claims of the '264 patent include limitations that recite
`
`making a temperature change within a preselected time period, or variants thereof.
`
`The claim terms are "preselected time period" as recited by claims 51, 55, and 56,
`
`"preselected time" as recited by claim 60, and "selected period of time" as recited
`
`by claim 61. The claims use these terms consistent with their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings. Nothing in the claims suggests otherwise and none of these terms
`
`appear in the '264 patent specification. Ex. 1010 ¶ 54. The dictionaries of the time
`
`define "preselect" as "to choose in advance usu[ally] on the basis of a particular
`
`criterion." Ex. 1012-3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54.
`
`In sum, a PHOSITA would have understood, at the time of the purported
`
`invention of the '264 patent, that the broadest reasonable construction of these
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`claimed terms are the following: "preselected time period" means a time period
`
`
`
`that has been selected in advance, "preselected time" means a time that has been
`
`selected in advance, and "selected period of time" means a period of time that has
`
`been selected. Ex. 1010 ¶ 55.
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE '264 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 51, 55-63, 68, 70, and 71 are unpatentable on the following grounds.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), Petitioner provides in the following claim
`
`charts a detailed comparison of the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`specifying where each element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 56-58 Are Rendered Obvious by Tegal,
`Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and '485 Wang Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`
`Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita teach a chamber, substrate holder, and control
`
`circuit for setting the substrate holder to first and second temperatures to process a
`
`substrate. Tegal teaches the process of etching a first portion of a silicon
`
`containing layer (oxide) at a selected first temperature (80°C) and etching a second
`
`portion of a silicon containing layer (oxide) at a selected second temperature
`
`(40°C). Thomas teaches a substrate with a stack of layers including a silicide layer
`
`and a polysilicon layer. Thomas in view of '485 Wang teaches the process of
`
`etching the silicide layer at a selected first temperature (above 49°C) and then
`
`etching the polysilicon layer at a selected second temperature (5°C). As discussed
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Intel Corp. et al. Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
` Petition 4
`below, the substrate taught by Tegal can be replaced with the substrate taught by
`
`
`
`Thomas. The silicide and polysilicon etch steps taught by Thomas in view of '485
`
`Wang can be performed on this substrate and can be performed in the chamber
`
`taught by the combination of Tegal, Matsumura, and Narita. Ex. 1010 ¶ 57.
`
`1.
`
`Tegal in View of Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and '485
`Wang Teaches All the