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. IPR2017-002801
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN BRAVMAN IN SUPPORT OF PE-
`TITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264
`AND REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`(Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69)
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01750.
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2017-002801
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN BRAVMAN IN SUPPORT OF PE-
`TITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264
`AND REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`(Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69)
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01750.
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Responses to Arguments Raised by Dr. Flamm ............................................. 3
`A.
`The ’264 patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Kadomura ............................................................................................. 4
`C. Matsumura ............................................................................................ 9
`D. Kadomura and Matsumura rendered claims 27 and 51 obvious ........ 13
`E.
`Kikuchi and Matsumura rendered claims 27 and 51 obvious ............ 30
`1.
`Kikuchi and Matsumura disclosed claim 27, limitation
`[a] or rendered it obvious ......................................................... 31
`Kikuchi and Matsumura taught claim 27, limitation [e] .......... 34
`It would have been obvious to combine Kikuchi and
`Matsumura ............................................................................... 37
`III. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`
`
`
` My name is John Bravman. I have been retained in the above-1.
`
`referenced inter partes review proceeding by Petitioners to evaluate United States
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 (the “’264 patent”) against certain prior art references, in-
`
`cluding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,063,710, 5,151,871, 5,226,056, and 5,605,600, as well
`
`as the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported
`
`invention, including as demonstrated by various state of the art references. I sub-
`
`mitted the Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 in this matter (“Opening Declaration,” Ex.
`
`1006) in connection with Petitioners’ Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. RE40,264 (“Petition”) seeking review of claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-
`
`69 of the ’264 patent. Since then, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or
`
`“Board”) has instituted review of all challenged claims.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Daniel L. Flamm (“Dr. Flamm”) recently filed a Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the Petition (“Response,” Paper No. 13). I have reviewed the
`
`Response and its exhibits. I have also reviewed documents relating to IPR2016-
`
`01510, IPR2016-01512, and IPR2017-01072, which concern claims in the ’264 pa-
`
`tent. I now submit this Reply Declaration in support of Petitioners’ Reply to ad-
`
`dress arguments raised by Dr. Flamm in the Response and in the Declaration of
`
`Daniel L. Flamm in Support of Patent Owner’s Response (“Flamm Declaration,”
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001). As described below, it remains my opinion that each of the challenged
`
`claims is rendered obvious by prior art references that predate the priority date of
`
`the ’264 patent. I am prepared to testify about my opinions expressed in my Open-
`
`ing Declaration and in this Reply Declaration.
`
` My Opening Declaration describes my qualifications, materials I re-
`3.
`
`viewed for this matter, and my opinions on issues such as background relating to
`
`the ’264 patent and the challenged claims, the level of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`technical art at the time of the alleged invention, the priority date of the ’264 pa-
`
`tent, the state of the prior art at the time of the alleged invention, and claim con-
`
`struction issues relating to the ’264 patent. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 2-54 (Ex.
`
`1006)) It is my understanding that the Response does not challenge my qualifica-
`
`tions or my opinions relating to the level of ordinary skill in the relevant technical
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention and the priority date of the ’264 patent. I
`
`also discussed in my Opening Declaration my understanding of the legal standards
`
`relating to invalidity, background relating to prior art references, how the prior art
`
`disclosed what is claimed in the ’264 patent, and why a person or ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention would have combined different prior art
`
`references. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 55-305 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`4.
`
`I note that the claims of the ’264 patent are lengthy and recite numer-
`
`ous conventional elements that existed in the prior art and that Dr. Flamm does not
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purport to have invented. The number of references used in combination to chal-
`
`lenge the validity of claims of the ’264 patent is a consequence of Flamm’s deci-
`
`sion to seek claims that recite numerous conventional prior art elements that were
`
`well known at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`II. Responses to Arguments Raised by Dr. Flamm
`
`A. The ’264 patent
`
`
`5.
`
`As noted in my Opening Declaration, the ’264 patent relates to meth-
`
`ods for semiconductor processing where a substrate is processed at two tempera-
`
`tures. (Opening Declaration at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1006)) The ’264 patent purports to de-
`
`scribe a novel method for employing a sequence of wafer processing steps at dif-
`
`ferent temperatures where the temperature is changed while the wafer remains on
`
`the same substrate holder during the processing steps. (’264 patent at Fig. 10,
`
`18:22-26, 18:54-57 (Ex. 1001); Opening Declaration at ¶ 45 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`6.
`
`Dr. Flamm acknowledges that methods involving the use of various
`
`temperatures for manufacturing semiconductors were known in the prior art that
`
`predates the ’264 patent. (Response at 2-3 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at
`
`¶ 9 (Ex. 2001)) The Response characterizes the supposed innovation of the ’264
`
`patent as describing temperature changes within a preselected time interval or peri-
`
`od in a manner not previously disclosed in the prior art. (Response at 1-3 (Paper
`
`No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 8-9 (Ex. 2001)) As explained in my Opening
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration and as further explained below, however, it was known in the prior art
`
`to perform multi-temperature semiconductor processes where a substrate’s temper-
`
`ature was changed “within a preselected time [period/interval].”
`
`
`7.
`
`For example, Matsumura disclosed preprogramming a controller with
`
`semiconductor processing recipes that changed substrate temperature within a pre-
`
`selected time period, as explained in my Opening Declaration. (Opening Declara-
`
`tion ¶¶ 127-129, 134 (Ex. 1006); Matsumura at Figs. 8, 9 (Ex. 1003)) And as fur-
`
`ther explained, it would have been obvious to combine Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`to apply Matsumura’s teachings in Kadomura’s system. (Opening Declaration ¶¶
`
`88-92, 130-135 (Ex. 1006))
`
`B. Kadomura
`
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Flamm characterizes Kadomura as being directed to a “cryogenic
`
`etching process.” (Response at 3-6 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 10, 12
`
`(Ex. 2001)) I disagree. In addition, Dr. Flamm does not fully describe the objec-
`
`tives of the system taught in Kadomura.
`
`
`9.
`
`In my Opening Declaration, I discussed Kadomura at length. (E.g.,
`
`Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 58-68, 115-210 (Ex. 1006)) Specifically, I identified
`
`Kadomura’s disclosure of three separate embodiments, each directed to plasma
`
`etching with temperature control, where different portions of films are etched at
`
`different temperatures. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 59-61 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6:1-10:62 (Ex. 1005)) In the first embodiment, Kadomura disclosed processing a
`
`polycide layer by etching a portion of a polysilicon layer at 20ºC, followed by
`
`etching the remaining portion of the polysilicon layer and a silicide layer at -30ºC.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶ 62 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at 6:5-29, 6:63-7:7 (Ex.
`
`1005)) In the second embodiment, Kadomura disclosed etching a silicon dioxide
`
`layer at -20ºC, followed by overetching the remaining silicon dioxide layer
`
`at -50ºC. (Opening Declaration at ¶ 63 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at 8:5-16, 8:51-64
`
`(Ex. 1005)) In a third embodiment, Kadomura disclosed etching a polysilicon lay-
`
`er at -30ºC, followed by an overetching step on the polysilicon layer at 50ºC.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at 9:54-62, 10:17-27 (Ex.
`
`1005)) Kadomura disclosed it was beneficial to quickly change the temperature
`
`between etching steps (within about 30 or 50 seconds) so that the temperature
`
`change occurred within the time period required to exchange the etching gases.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶ 67 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at 6:52-55, 8:40-50, 10:11-16
`
`(Ex. 1005))
`
`10.
`
`
`
`I also explained how Kadomura disclosed details of a proposed etch-
`
`ing apparatus in which the in-situ multi-temperature processes would be per-
`
`formed. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 65-66 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at Figs. 4-5,
`
`11:14-12:48 (Ex. 1005)) Specifically, Kadomura disclosed an etching apparatus
`
`that included an electrostatic chuck to support the wafer 12, a thermocouple to
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sense the wafer’s temperature 18, and a feedback controller that included a PID
`
`controller. (Opening Declaration at ¶ 65 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at 11:36-59,
`
`12:37-48 (Ex. 1005)) Kadomura also disclosed that the apparatus had a heater in
`
`the chuck and a cooling system that was used to cool the wafer. (Opening Declara-
`
`tion at ¶ 66 (Ex. 1006); Kadomura at Fig. 4, 11:42-59 (Ex. 1005))
`
`
`11.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Flamm’s statement that Kadomura is directed to a
`
`“cryogenic etching process.” Kadomura does not use the term “cryogenic.” In my
`
`opinion, “cryogenic etching” refers to etching that is performed at extremely low
`
`temperatures. Kadomura cannot be characterized as “cryogenic” because it dis-
`
`closed etching temperatures at about room temperature (20ºC in embodiment 1)
`
`and well above room temperature (50ºC in embodiment 3). Given those disclo-
`
`sures, it would be inaccurate to characterize Kadomura as directed to a “cryogenic
`
`etching process,” and I disagree with Dr. Flamm’s suggestion that a person of or-
`
`dinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have regarded Ka-
`
`domura as limited to “cryogenic” etching.
`
`
`12.
`
`In addition, Dr. Flamm’s description of the objectives of the Kadomu-
`
`ra system is incomplete. Dr. Flamm characterizes the objectives of Kadomura as
`
`attaining “high accuracy and fine fabrication simultaneously, as well as actually
`
`putting the low temperature etching technique into practical use.” (Response at 4-5
`
`(Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 10 (Ex. 2001)) As noted in my Opening
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration, however, Kadomura repeatedly
`
`identifies avoiding decreased
`
`throughput as an objective, including by adjusting temperature change times to en-
`
`sure they occur within the time for an exchange of etchant gases between pro-
`
`cessing steps. (Opening Declaration ¶¶ 79-80, 106-107, 132, 140; Kadomura at
`
`4:46-54 (“Further, since each of the etching treatments is conducted in the identical
`
`processing apparatus, the time for the [sic] changing the specimen temperature be-
`
`tween the steps can be shortened. Accordingly, if the change of the specimen tem-
`
`perature is conducted about within a time required for a series of operations, for
`
`example, interruption of electric discharge or alternation of etching gases between
`
`the steps, dry etching treatment comprising a plurality of steps can be applied
`
`without deteriorating the throughput.”), 5:18-26 (“In addition, since the tempera-
`
`ture of the semiconductor substrate can be changed rapidly in a short period of
`
`time between the steps, the temperature can be changed about within a time re-
`
`quired for a series of operations such as interruption of electric discharge or altera-
`
`tion of etching gases between the steps and, accordingly, the dry etching treatment
`
`comprising a plurality of steps can be conducted rapidly without lowering the
`
`throughput.”), 7:19-30 (“In the dry etching method described above, it is possible
`
`to attain both the high selectivity and ensurance for the anisotropic shape, that is,
`
`fine fabrication at high accuracy and, in addition, the temperature for the specimen
`
`can be changed easily and in a short period of time by conducting each of the steps
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in one identical etching device, so that the temperature can be changed about with-
`
`in a period of time required for a series of operations such as interruption of dis-
`
`charge or alteration of etching gases between the steps and, accordingly, the dry
`
`etching treatment comprising a plurality of steps can be applied rapidly without
`
`lowering the throughput.”), 9:16-20 (“Accordingly, it is possible also in this dry
`
`etching method, to attain both high selectivity and ensurance for the anisotropic
`
`shape, that is, fine fabrication at a high accuracy, and the dry etching treatment
`
`comprising a plurality of steps can be applied without lowering the throughput.”),
`
`10:36-41 (“Accordingly, also in this dry etching method, it is possible to attain
`
`both the high selectivity and ensurance of the anisotropic shape, that is, fine fabri-
`
`cation at a high accuracy like that in the first and the second embodiments, and dry
`
`etching treatment comprising a plurality of steps can be applied without lowering
`
`the throughput.”) (Ex. 1005))
`
` Notwithstanding his incomplete description of the objectives of Ka-
`13.
`
`domura, Dr. Flamm appears to agree that Kadomura was concerned with through-
`
`put, since he states in the Response that “Kadomura, along with the semiconductor
`
`industry in general, was concerned about throughput” (Response at 10 (Paper No.
`
`13)) and points to many of the same portions of Kadomura for support (Response
`
`at 10 n.3 (Paper No. 13)) that I rely upon in support of my opinions above.
`
`
`14.
`
`In discussing Kadomura, Dr. Flamm states that Kadomura’s tempera-
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ture change time of, for example, “about 30” seconds is “relatively long” and
`
`“teaches away” from the ’264 patent because the patent describes a time interval of
`
`“several seconds” that is “an order of magnitude shorter than anything in Kadomu-
`
`ra.” (Response at 5 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 10 (Ex. 2001)) I disa-
`
`gree. Claims 27 and 51 of the ’264 patent and their dependent claims do not re-
`
`quire any specific length for the recited “preselected time [period/interval]” for
`
`temperature change. For that reason, the length of Kadomura’s temperature
`
`change periods is immaterial to claims 27 and 51 and their dependent claims.
`
`C. Matsumura
`
` Dr. Flamm argues that Matsumura “does not teach anything about
`15.
`
`etching” and thus “teaches away” from the invention of the ’264 patent. (Response
`
`at 6-7 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 11 (Ex. 2001)) I disagree because,
`
`as discussed in my Opening Declaration, Matsumura disclosed that its processing
`
`techniques can be applied to etching and ashing processes. (Opening Declaration
`
`¶¶ 70, 77, 110 (Ex. 1006); Matsumura at 10:3-7 (Ex. 1003))
`
`
`16.
`
`In my Opening Declaration, I discussed Matsumura’s disclosures.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 69-74 (Ex. 1006)) Specifically, Matsumura disclosed a
`
`temperature control system for semiconductor processing that included a computer
`
`programmed to control temperature, processing time, and temperature change time.
`
`(Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 71-72 (Ex. 1006); Matsumura at Abstract, Figs. 5A, 8-9
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003)) Matsumura further taught a system that included a thermometer, a
`
`temperature sensor for a wafer stage, and a CPU to control the heating and cooling
`
`system, where the control system could take input from a user regarding heating
`
`and other conditions of the system. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 72-73 (Ex. 1006);
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 5:32-63, 5:67-6:9 (Ex. 1003))
`
` Although Dr. Flamm argues Matsumura’s disclosure is not sufficient,
`17.
`
`he does not explain his contention that “Matsumura does not teach anything about
`
`etching.” (Response at 6 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 11) Indeed,
`
`Matsumura expressly teaches applying its techniques to etching. (Matsumura at
`
`10:3-7 (Ex. 1003)) Based on Matsumura’s disclosure, it would have been obvious
`
`to use Matsumura’s preprogrammed recipe approach in an etching process. (Open-
`
`ing Declaration ¶¶ 70, 77 (Ex. 1006); Matsumura at 10:3-7 (Ex. 1003))
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inven-
`18.
`
`tion would have known how to use the recipes and control circuits disclosed by
`
`Matsumura in common processing techniques, such as etching, and been motivated
`
`to implement those techniques. As explained in my Opening Declaration, using
`
`control apparatuses and programmed recipes was well known in the prior art, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have
`
`understood that using programmed recipes and a control system, such as the one
`
`disclosed by Matsumura, would have improved a process by ensuring higher
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`throughput and increasing efficiency, control, accuracy, reliability, and predictabil-
`
`ity. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 79, 130, 133-135 (Ex. 1006)) As noted in Matsu-
`
`mura, its preprogrammed recipe approach for controlling temperature, processing
`
`time, and temperature change time resulted in more accurate and reliable control of
`
`processing temperatures. (Matsumura at 10:22-27 (“Further, when the semicon-
`
`ductor devices of same kind are to be heated and cooled, their thermal history
`
`curve can be controlled accurately same [sic] at their heating and cooling times,
`
`thereby enhancing their reliability. Particularly, their thermal history curve can be
`
`made accurately same.”) (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration at ¶ 134 (Ex. 1006))
`
`These benefits would have applied to using preprogrammed recipes in etching,
`
`which was a widely known and commonly used processing technique at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. There is nothing about an etching process that is incompati-
`
`ble with Matsumura’s techniques.
`
` Dr. Flamm states that Matsumura “strongly suggests” its approach had
`19.
`
`not been used “with any type of etching.” (Response at 6 n.2 (Paper No. 13)) As
`
`explained above, however, Matsumura expressly teaches that its techniques were
`
`applicable to etching processes. Given the common knowledge and widespread
`
`use of preprogrammed recipes, it was not necessary for Matsumura to provide a
`
`detailed explanation of how to implement its techniques in an etching process. It
`
`would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the alleged invention to follow Matsumura’s suggestion to obtain the benefits
`
`that the reference describes in an etching context.
`
` Although Dr. Flamm asserts that Matsumura “does not teach anything
`20.
`
`about etching” (Response at 6 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶ 11), he does
`
`not offer any reasoning or explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention would not have been able to utilize Matsumu-
`
`ra’s techniques in etching processes. In particular, he does not identify any fea-
`
`tures of etching processes or distinctions between heating and etching techniques
`
`that would have precluded a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the al-
`
`leged invention from applying Matsumura’s techniques to etching processes, as
`
`Matsumura itself explicitly states would have been done. In addition, Dr. Flamm
`
`recognizes that Matsumura’s automated approach using a controller to carry out
`
`programmed process steps (recipes) was common knowledge in the prior art, obvi-
`
`ous, and widely implemented. (Response at 12-13, 18-19 (Paper No. 13); Flamm
`
`Declaration at ¶ 14 (Ex. 2001))
`
`
`21.
`
`I also disagree with Dr. Flamm’s description of Matsumura as disclos-
`
`ing only “a single predetermined temperature.” (Response at 7 (Paper No. 13);
`
`Flamm Declaration at ¶ 11 (Ex. 2001)) Matsumura taught preprogrammed recipes
`
`that include processing steps at multiple predetermined temperatures. For exam-
`
`ple, Matsumura taught an embodiment with two predetermined temperatures of
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`90ºC and 140ºC with a predetermined temperature change time of 20 seconds, as
`
`reflected below in Matsumura’s Figure 9. (Matsumura at 8:62-68 (“In the case of
`
`this recipe, the heating speed at a first step is 70º C. per minute, the temperature to
`
`be held at a first step is 90º C. the heating speed at a second step is 150º C. per mi-
`
`nute, the temperature to be held at a second step is 140º C. and the cooling speed is
`
`2º C. The time during which the temperature is held at the first and second steps,
`
`respectively, is 30 seconds.”) (Ex. 1003))
`
`
`D. Kadomura and Matsumura rendered claims 27 and 51 obvious
`
` Dr. Flamm states that it would not have been obvious to combine Ka-
`22.
`
`domura with Matsumura. I disagree with Dr. Flamm because, as explained below
`
`and in my Opening Declaration, there were many reasons why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine Kadomura and Matsumura. (Opening Declaration ¶¶ 88-92, 130-135 (Ex.
`
`1006))
`
` Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the al-
`23.
`
`leged invention would have been motivated to incorporate Matsumura’s explicit
`
`disclosure of a substrate holder temperature sensor into Kadomura’s processing
`
`tool and would have further been motivated to incorporate Matsumura’s disclosure
`
`of an apparatus and method for programming time-temperature recipes into the
`
`controller disclosed in Kadomura. (Opening Declaration ¶¶ 88-92, 130-135 (Ex.
`
`1006))
`
`24.
`
` Claim 27, limitation [a] requires a “substrate holder having at least
`
`one temperature sensing unit.” Claim 51, limitation [b] requires a “substrate hold-
`
`er temperature sensor.” As explained in my Opening Declaration, Kadomura
`
`taught a substrate holder in the form of stage 12 “for supporting and fixing the
`
`specimen W [wafer],” as shown in the annotated version of Kadomura’s Figure 4
`
`below (top). (Kadomura at 11:36-42 (Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 117, 175
`
`(Ex. 1006)) Stage 12 has an electrostatic chuck having a heater (not shown in an-
`
`notated Figure 4 below but represented by a red line). (Kadomura at 6:30-35,
`
`7:38-47, 8:17-23, 10:7-10, 11:42-47 (Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration ¶ 117 (Ex.
`
`1006)) Matsumura similarly disclosed a heater, conductive thin film 14, which
`
`was attached to thermal sensor 25 and part of stage 12. (Matsumura at 5:34-35,
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5:42-45, 6:2-4 (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 120, 176 (Ex. 1006)) Sensor 25
`
`detected the temperature of thin film 14 in stage 12. (Matsumura at 7:19-21 (Ex.
`
`1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 120, 176 (Ex. 1006)) Sensor 25 (highlighted in yel-
`
`low), stage 12 (highlighted in purple), and conductive thin film 14 (highlighted in
`
`red), are shown in the annotated version of Matsumura’s Figure 5A below (bot-
`
`tom).
`
`(Kadomura at Fig. 4 (Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration at ¶ 117 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Matsumura at Fig. 5A (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration at ¶ 120 (Ex. 1006))
`
` Claim 27, limitation [e] requires “chang[ing] from the selected first
`25.
`
`substrate temperature to the selected second substrate temperature, using a meas-
`
`ured substrate temperature, within a preselected time interval for processing.”
`
`Claim 51, limitation [f] requires that “the substrate temperature control circuit ef-
`
`fectuates the change from the first substrate temperature to the second substrate
`
`temperature within a preselected time period.” As I explained in my Opening Dec-
`
`laration, the combination of Matsumura and Kadomura taught these limitations.
`
`(Opening Declaration ¶¶ 125-135, 183 (Ex. 1006)) Kadomura taught several ex-
`
`amples of temperature changes. (Kadomura at 6:18-29, 6:52-55, 6:63-7:7, 8:5-16,
`
`8:51-64, 9:54-62, 10:7-27 (Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 62-64, 118 (Ex.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1006)) Kadomura also disclosed a feedback control device 25 with a PID control-
`
`ler that detected the substrate’s temperature with thermometer 18 and used that in-
`
`formation to adjust the “detected temperature” of the wafer to match a “predeter-
`
`mined temperature,” for example 20ºC, -30ºC, or 50ºC. (Kadomura at 12:38-48
`
`(Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 132, 160, 175, 183 (Ex. 1006)) Control device
`
`25 (highlighted in orange) and thermometer 18 (highlighted in yellow) are shown
`
`in the annotated version of Kadomura’s Figure 4 below (top). Matsumura taught a
`
`semiconductor processing method based on “predetermined recipe[s]” that were
`
`used to heat or cool a substrate to or from a predetermined temperature over a
`
`“predetermined period of time.” (Matsumura at 3:1-7, Figs. 8 & 9 (Ex. 1003);
`
`Opening Declaration ¶¶ 97, 127-129, 134, 183 (Ex. 1006)) A control system 20
`
`with a CPU and PID controller responded to “inputted recipes and temperature de-
`
`tecting signal[s]” to ensure proper execution of the recipes. (Matsumura at 5:60-63
`
`(Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 127-129, 134 (Ex. 1006)) Control system 20
`
`(highlighted in orange) is shown below in the annotated version of Matsumura’s
`
`Figure 5A below (bottom).
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Kadomura at Fig. 4 (Ex. 1005); Opening Declaration at ¶ 125 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`
`(Matsumura at Fig. 5A (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration at ¶ 128 (Ex. 1006))
`
` As described in my Opening Declaration, a person of ordinary skill in
`26.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention would have incorporated Matsumura’s
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor into Kadomura’s processing system because,
`
`for example:
`
`• Kadomura disclosed setting and changing the temperature of stage 12
`
`and it would have been obvious to use a sensor to measure the stage
`
`temperature and to confirm that the selected temperature had been
`
`reached, recognizing that measuring the substrate holder temperature
`
`was a known technique. (Kadomura at 3:23-49 (Ex. 1005); Matsumu-
`
`ra at 5:42-45, 6:2-4, 7:19-21 (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 76,
`
`121 (Ex. 1006))
`
`• Both Kadomura and Matsumura disclosed PID controllers that adjust-
`
`ed substrate holder temperature based on detected temperatures, and
`
`Matsumura’s approach would have added the ability to control tem-
`
`perature change times and processing times. (Kadomura at 12:37-48
`
`(Ex. 1005); Matsumura at 2:21-57, 5:58-6:2, 6:35-7:53, 8:29-31 (Ex.
`
`1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 39, 65, 74, 76, 80, 119, 128, 132-135,
`
`176-177, 183 (Ex. 1006))
`
`• Measuring the substrate holder temperature in Kadomura’s system (as
`
`taught in Matsumura) would have provided greater precision and in-
`
`sight into the effectiveness of heat transfer between the substrate and
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the substrate holder, allowed for more accurate measurements during
`
`the temperature changes in Kadomura rather than using a correlation-
`
`based method, and provided useful data for analyzing how to acceler-
`
`ate temperature change times, increase throughput, and increase effi-
`
`ciency. (Kadomura at 3:19-22, 5:18-26, 11:48-51 (Ex. 1005); Open-
`
`ing Declaration ¶¶ 78-79, 121 (Ex. 1006))
`
` As further described in my Opening Declaration, a person of ordinary
`27.
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have been motivated to
`
`incorporate Matsumura’s control and predetermined recipe techniques into the ap-
`
`paratus disclosed by Kadomura because, for example:
`
`• Using programmed recipes to control temperature, processing time,
`
`and temperature change time would have increased efficiency, con-
`
`trol, accuracy, reliability, and predictability. (Matsumura at 10:22-29
`
`(Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 80, 130, 133-135 (Ex. 1006))
`
`• Programming Kadomura’s control device 25, which included a PID
`
`controller, to use predetermined recipes like those disclosed in
`
`Matsumura would have helped ensure that the temperature change
`
`time in Kadomura would have reliably and consistently occurred more
`
`quickly than the time required for gas exchange. (Opening Declara-
`
`tion ¶¶ 80, 133-135 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Using Matsumura’s preprogrammed recipe approach for controlling
`
`temperature, processing time, and temperature change time would
`
`have helped achieve Kadomura’s goal of increased throughput and se-
`
`lectivity. (Kadomura at 6:52-62, 7:19-30, 10:11-16 (Ex. 1005);
`
`Matsumura at Fig. 5A, 6:4-9 (Ex. 1003); Opening Declaration ¶¶ 80,
`
`133 (Ex. 1006))
`
`
`28.
`
`In addition, Kadomura and Matsumura contain similar and overlap-
`
`ping disclosures relating to semiconductor processing. (Opening Declaration ¶¶
`
`77, 131 (Ex. 1006))
`
` Dr. Flamm asserts that Kadomura’s system would not have benefited
`29.
`
`from a combination with Matsumura. (Response at 8-14 (Paper No. 13); Flamm
`
`Declaration at ¶¶ 10, 12-14 (Ex. 2001)) Dr. Flamm states that my Opening Decla-
`
`ration fails to explain “how Matsumura’s ‘preprogrammed recipes’ could possibly
`
`increase throughput in Kadomura” or why implementing an exact temperature
`
`change would have been beneficial in Kadomura’s system. (Response at 10 (Paper
`
`No. 13)) As explained in my Opening Declaration, however, the combination of
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura would have achieved the goal of increased throughput
`
`and benefited Kadomura in several other ways. (Opening Declaration at ¶¶ 80,
`
`130, 133-135 (Ex. 1006))
`
`30.
`
` Dr. Flamm’s argument is based on the mistaken assumption that
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`Intel, Exhibit 1023
`Intel v. Flamm, IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`throughput is irrelevant to Kadomura. Dr. Flamm asserts that Kadomura taught a
`
`temperature change time that must necessarily be shorter than a gas exchange time
`
`so that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would not have used Matsumura’s preprogrammed recipe approach for controlling
`
`temperature, processing time, and temperature change time to implement a prese-
`
`lected time period for temperature change in Kadomura’s system. (Response at 3-
`
`5, 8-9, 11-12 (Paper No. 13); Flamm Declaration at ¶¶ 10, 12 (Ex. 2001)) Dr.
`
`Flamm’s assumption about Kadomura is incorrect. Kadomura did not teach that
`
`the time required for temperature change in that system was always less than the
`
`time required for the exchange of etchant gases. Kadomura taught that ensuring
`
`that the time required for temperature change in that system was less than the time
`
`required for the exchange of etchant gases was beneficial because etching would
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
