By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2017-0282
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Claims 56-63 & 70-71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent .................................................................. 1
`
`III. The Prior Art .......................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Kadomura .................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Matsumura ................................................................................... 4
`
`IV. Ground 1 ................................................................................................ 5
`
`C. Claim Element 56[b] ................................................................... 5
`
`D. Claim Element 56[e] ................................................................... 6
`
`V. Ground 2 ................................................................................................ 7
`
`VI. Ground 3 ................................................................................................ 8
`
`A. Claim 56 ...................................................................................... 8
`
`B. Claim Element 60[b] ................................................................... 8
`
`C. Claim Element 60[f] .................................................................... 8
`
`VII. Grounds 4 & 5 ....................................................................................... 8
`
`VIII. Ground 6 ................................................................................................ 9
`
`A. Claim Element 56[b] ................................................................... 9
`
`B. Claim Element 56[e] ................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`IX. There Would Be No Motivation to Combine
`Kadomura and Matsumura or Kikuchi and Matsumura ........................ 11
`A. There Would Be No Benefit
`from Such a Combination ........................................................... 11
`B. Matsumura Could Only Come Into Play
`Through Hindsight ...................................................................... 12
`X. Dependent Claims ................................................................................. 13
`
`XI. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................... 13
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................................................................... 14
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`MPEP § 2142 .................................................................................................... 13
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 ............................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the sole inventor and owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel, submits this preliminary
`
`response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 and asks that the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`Board decline to institute inter partes review on the instant petition because the
`
`petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This is not the first challenge to the validity of the ‘264 patent through inter
`
`partes review. Lam Research Corp. sells
`
`tools used
`
`in semiconductor
`
`manufacturing to entities such as the Petitioners and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`Lam filed seven IPRs directed toward the ‘264 patent.1 Lam also commenced an
`
`action in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that neither it nor
`
`its products infringe the ‘264 patent. For its part, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`filed two more petitions for inter partes review2 and Petitioners have now filed a
`
`total of four more petitions directed toward the ‘264 patent. That makes a total of
`
`thirteen petitions for inter partes review directed toward one patent, invented and
`
`owned by an individual, Dr. Daniel Flamm.
`
`The Board either declined to institute or instituted and then terminated, on a
`
`1 IPR2015-01759; IPR2015-01764; IPR2015-01766; IPR2015-01768; IPR2016-
`0468; IPR2016-0469; and IPR2016-0470
`2 IPR2016-01510 and IPR2016-0512.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`joint motion, each of the petitions for inter partes review filed by Lam. The Board
`
`instituted one petition filed by Samsung, IPR2016-1512, but declined to institute
`
`on the other, IPR2016-1510.
`
`The instant petition is directed toward independent claims 56 and 601 and all
`
`of the claims that depend from those claims. The Board should reach the same
`
`conclusion in this petition as it did in IPR2015-01766 and IPR2016-0470, and
`
`should not institute the instant Petition.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent
`
`The invention set forth in the ‘264 patent provides a method “for etching a
`
`substrate,” including “a chamber and a substrate holder.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.)
`
`Multiple etching temperatures are employed; the change being “from a first
`
`temperature to a second temperature within a characteristic time period.” (Id.)
`
`While methods involving the use of various temperatures for manufacturing
`
`semiconductors were known in the art prior to the ‘264 patent, none of the prior art
`
`discloses a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time.
`
`III. The Prior Art
`
`A. Kadomura
`
`Kadomura teaches a cryogenic two-step etching treatment, wherein the
`
`etching is suspended between the first and second etches. During the suspension,
`
`the first etching gas is discharged and is replaced by a second etching gas for the
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`second etching step. (Ex. 1005 at 6:36-44, 8:24-32, 10:4-6.) One of the benefits of
`
`this approach, according to Kadomura, is that the time required to discharge the
`
`first gas and replace and stabilize the second gas can be sufficient to allow
`
`simultaneously changing the substrate temperature for the second etching step:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that, [sic]
`is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more than
`the time required for rapid cooling, the time required for the rapid
`cooling does not constitute a factor of delaying the time required for
`the etching treatment of the specimen W.
`
`(Ex. 1005. at 6:55-62 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7:22-30.)
`
`Kadomura teaches nothing about preselected time interval for changing
`
`temperature. The minimum time interval for the temperature change in Kadomura
`
`is wholly a function of the time it takes to discharge the first gas and introduce the
`
`second gas. Accordingly, there would be no benefit from attempting to shorten the
`
`time change the temperature.
`
`The objects of Kadomura cryogenic etching process were to attain “high
`
`accuracy and fine fabrication simultaneously, as well as . . . actually putting the
`
`low temperature etching technique into practical use.” (Ex. 1005 at 2:60-64.) By
`
`contrast, one of Dr. Flamm’s primary objectives was to increase throughput: “[the
`
`invention] overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which
`
`throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`damage to a workpiece.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:11-14.) Kadomura’s technique—
`
`exhausting and replacing the gas between etches and employing very cold
`
`temperature—results in relatively long intervals between etches, “about 30 sec.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 6:54, 8:42.) Dr. Flamm’s ‘264 patent, which is explicitly concerned
`
`with increasing throughput, teaches a time interval of “several seconds” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 19:8-12 & Fig. 10), a time reduction of multiple orders of magnitude. Here
`
`again, Kadomura teaches away from the ‘264 patent.
`
`The fact is, as petitioners essentially concede, that Kadomura does not teach
`
`changing substrate temperature “within a preselected time interval. (Pet. at 29.)
`
`The time interval in Kadomura is not selected at all; it is minimally dictated by the
`
`time period required to evacuate the first gas from the vacuum chamber and
`
`introduce and stabilize the flow of the second gas:
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that, [sic]
`is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more than
`the time required for rapid cooling, the time required for the rapid
`cooling does not constitute a factor of delaying the time required for
`the etching treatment of the specimen W.
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 6:55-62; see also id. at 7:19-30 and 8:43-50.)
`
`B. Matsumura
`
`Matsumura’s focus is the preliminary processing steps that are taken to
`
`apply a uniform film of resist onto a wafer prior to illuminating the resist to form a
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`latent image, and developing the resist to create a pattern mask for further
`
`processing. It addressed the problem of controlling the heating and cooling during
`
`the “adhesion and baking processes” for applying the resist to semiconductor
`
`wafers; it does not teach anything about etching.3 (Ex. 1003 at 1:15-20, 4:56-59,
`
`Figs. 1 & 4.) Matsumura’s “resist processing system,” is depicted in the block
`
`diagram Fig. 4 as the box 40. (Id. at 4:56-59 and Fig. 4.) Specifically, it comprises
`
`a “Sender,” 41, for transporting the wafer to the “Adhesion Unit,” 42, which
`
`applies HMDS to the wafer to enhance the adhesion of the resist, the resist is
`
`applied by the “Coating unit,” 43, and then it is baked in the “Baking Unit,” 44.
`
`(Id.) The “Receiver unit,” 45, then forwards the wafer to an “interface (not shown)”
`
`which transfers the wafer to an external “exposure unit (not shown).” (Id. at 5:5-
`
`12 and Fig. 4.) The crux of the solution was to heat the wafer “by means of a
`
`conductive thin film in accordance with the information” in a stored recipe. (Id. at
`
`3:10-11, 2:66-3:16, 3:17-51.)
`
`IV. Ground 1
`
`A. Claim Element 56[b]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 56[b] reads: sensing a
`
`
`3 While Matsumura includes etching in the list of other possible applications for his
`invention, he teaches nothing about etching and strongly suggests that he has not
`used his invention with any type of etching, let alone plasma etching. (Ex. 1003 at
`10:3-7.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`substrate holder temperature.” (Pet. at 28.)
`
`Petitioners invest five pages of their Petition on claim element 56[b],
`
`variously arguing that: it is taught by Kadomura (id. at 28), it is taught by
`
`Matsumura (id. at 29), and finally, “[i]t would have been obvious to use the
`
`temperature sensor in Matsumura to measure and set the temperature of
`
`Kadomura’s substrate holder” (id. at 30).
`
`Looking at Petitioners’ citations, it is clear that Kadomura was measuring
`
`the temperature of the substrate, not the substrate holder (Ex. 1005 at 12:38-48),
`
`and Matsumura was measuring the temperature of the thin film 14, not the
`
`substrate holder (Ex. 1003 at 7:19-20).
`
`B. Claim Element 56[e]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 56[e] reads:
`
`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 49ºC 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
`
`(Pet. at 34.)
`
`There are many reasons why petitioners arguments on 56[e] are deficient,
`
`including at least these two.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`First, since neither Kadomura nor Matsumura teach “sensing a substrate
`
`temperature,” there would be no data to determine whether “the substrate holder is
`
`heated to a temperature operable.”
`
`Second, Petitioners essentially
`
`ignore
`
`the claim
`
`limitation
`
`that
`
`the
`
`temperature change is done “within a preselected time period.” Toward the end of
`
`the discussion, Petitioners turn to an obviousness argument, shedding any teaching
`
`argument.
`
`Petitioners’ contention that it would have been obvious to combine
`
`Kadomura with Matsumura (Pet. at 42), does not stand up to scrutiny.
`
`Matsumura’s teaching would be unhelpful to Kadomura because the time interval
`
`between etches in Kadomura is dictated by the time it takes to change the gases.
`
`In this case, since the series of operations described above, that, [sic]
`is a series of operations of interrupting discharge, exhausting
`remaining gases in the diffusion chamber 2 and, further, introducing
`and stabilizing a fresh etching gas take a time equal with or more than
`the time required for rapid cooling, the time required for the rapid
`cooling does not constitute a factor of delaying the time required for
`the etching treatment of the specimen W.
`
`(Ex 1005 at 6:55-62 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7:22-30.)
`
`V. Ground 2
`
`Petitioners rely on the same analysis for independent claim 56 as in Ground
`
`1. (Pet. at 44.) That ground must fail for the same reasons.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`VI. Ground 3
`
`A. Claim 56
`
`Petitioners rely on the same analysis for independent claim 56 as in Ground
`
`1. (Pet. at 44.) That grounds must fail for the same reasons.
`
`B. Claim Element 60[b]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 60[b] reads: “sensing the
`
`substrate holder temperature.” (Pet. at 53.) Petitioners here rely on their earlier
`
`argument on 56[b]. (Pet. at 28-33). Dr. Flamm will rely on his response to claim
`
`element 56[b] above.
`
`C. Claim Element 60[f]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 60[f] reads
`
`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
`
`(Pet. at 55.) Petitioners here primarily rely on their earlier argument on 56[b]. Pet
`
`at 28-33.) Dr. Flamm will rely on his response to claim element 56[b] above.
`
`Wang is added, but nothing is said about any teaching by Wang regarding
`
`preselected time to etch.
`
`VII. Grounds 4 & 5
`
`Petitioners rely on the same analysis for independent claim 60 as in Ground
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`3. (Pet. at 57.) Those Grounds must also fail for the same reasons.
`
`VIII. Ground 6
`
`A. Claim Element 56[b]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 56[b] reads: “sensing a
`
`substrate holder temperature.” (Pet. at 64.)
`
`Petitioners concede that Muller does not teach “sensing a substrate holder
`
`temperature.” (Id.) As in Ground 1, Petitioners contend that Matsumura teaches
`
`that element. As noted above, however, Matsumura was measuring the
`
`temperature of the thin film 14, not the substrate holder. (Ex. 1003 at 7:19-20.)
`
`Hence, Petitioners have not shown any teaching of this element of claim 56.
`
`B. Claim Element 56[e]
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as 56[e] reads:
`
`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
`
`(Pet. at 64.)
`
`Since neither Kadomura nor Matsumura teach “sensing a substrate
`
`temperature,” there would be no data to determine whether “the substrate holder is
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`heated to a temperature operable.”
`
`In addition, there is no showing of “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.”
`
` (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
` These phrases are
`
`“interdependent.” As such, they cannot be treated as separate elements for prior art
`
`purposes.
`
`The Board previously held, in another context, that: “The claim language
`
`requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed into separate
`
`elements met individually.” (Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01759,
`
`Paper No. 7, at 17 (Feb. 24, 2016).)
`
`In that case, the Board denied inter parties review directed toward claim 13
`
`of this very ‘264 patent after criticizing the petitioner there, Lam Research Corp.,
`
`for attempting to improperly split the elements of claim 13 into unreasonably small
`
`phrases to justify its patchwork of prior art references. Specifically, the Board
`
`stated:
`
`In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal mass of
`the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time. The claim language requires
`that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed into
`separate elements met individually. In other words, the thermal mass
`must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time (for example, a change of
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`10°C per minute).
`
`Matsumura teaches nothing about the timing of “etching the first
`silicon-containing layer and the second silicon-containing layer.”
`Muller does not teach this element.
`
`(Id. at 17.)
`
`IX. There Would Be No Motivation to Combine Kadomura and Matsumura
`or Kikuchi and Matsumura
`
`For none of the grounds and for none of the combinations of prior art
`
`references do Petitioners present a case on motivation to combine. Indeed, the
`
`word motivation—in its various forms—appears but once in petitioners ninety
`
`page brief, and it was bare of any supporting reasons for combining. (Pet. at 40.)
`
`There are two reasons why no motivation can be shown.
`
`A. There Would Be No Benefit from Such a Combination
`
`The primary object of Kadomura was to attain high selectivity and accuracy
`
`while “actually putting the low temperature etching technique into practical use.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 2:58-64.) “[T]he foregoing object can be attained,” according to
`
`Kadomura, by using his two step etching process, wherein the temperature of the
`
`specimen is changed between “the one step and the succeeding step.” (Id. at 2:65-
`
`3:5.) After the first step the first gas is exhausted and replaced by a second gas, in
`
`“a time equal with or more than the time required” to change the temperature. (Id.
`
`at 6:55-62.) As the skilled artisan would recognize, this is the essence of
`
`Kadomura’s invention. (See Ex. 1005 at 12:53-67.)
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`What motivation would there be to try to incorporate Matsumura’s baking
`
`recipes in Kadomura? No time would be saved between the two etching steps, as
`
`Kadomura repeatedly teaches. (Ex. 1005 at 6:55-62, 8:43-50, 10:11-16.)
`
`Petitioners’ discussion of motivation (Pet. at 28-30, 39) contain a lot of words, but
`
`no “articulated reasoning.” The fact is, given Kadomura’s principal object and his
`
`solution, a skilled artisan would learn nothing from Matsumura that would be of
`
`any practical benefit to Kadomura.
`
`B. Matsumura Could Only Come Into Play Through Hindsight
`As the Board held in denying Lam Research Corp.’s petition in IPR2015-
`01766:
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to
`combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
`mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.”)). As explained in KSR, “a patent
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in
`the prior art.” Id.
`(Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01766, Paper No. 7 (Feb. 24, 2016).)
`Petitioners’ attempt to rely on the solution to the problem rather than the
`problem itself, as discussed above, is impermissible hindsight. As expounded in
`the MPEP: “the examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`the hypothetical ‘person of ordinary skill in the art’ when the invention was
`
`unknown and just before it was made.” MPEP § 2142. Obviously, at that point,
`
`before the invention was made, the skilled artisan would know only the problem,
`not the solution. Therefore, Petitioners’ reliance on Matsumura’s temperature
`recipes for use in the adhesion unit and the baking unit for applying a uniform
`resist on a substrate is impermissible hindsight. The MPEP further admonishes:
`“Knowledge of applicant’s disclosure must be put aside in reaching this
`determination,” and “impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal
`conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.”
`MPEP § 2142.
`This is precisely what petitioners are not doing. Again, the problem—just
`before the invention was made—was how to increase etching throughput while
`maintaining selectivity. The only way that adhesion and baking temperature
`recipes enter the fray is by having “[k]nowledge of applicant’s disclosure,” which
`“must be put aside in reaching this determination.”
`
`X. Dependent Claims
`As shown above, Petitioners fail to show any basis to invalidate claims 56
`and 60, the only independent claims challenged in this Petition. As a matter of law,
`
`the petition should also be denied as to all of the claims that depend from those
`
`claims. Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`1987) (“A fortiori, dependent claim 3 was nonobvious (and novel) because it
`
`contained all of the limitations of claim 1 plus a further limitation.”); Kimberly
`
`Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“We
`
`need consider no other claim because if the invention of claim 1 would not have
`
`been obvious the same is true as to the remaining dependent claims.”); see also
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 (“If an independent claim is nonobvious under § 103, then any
`
`claim depending therefrom is nonobvious.” (citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988))).
`
`XI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition should be denied.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies that the
`
`
`
`
`
`word count for the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`totals 3,145, excluding the cover page, signature block, and parts exempted by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(d).
`
`This word count was made by using the word count function tool in
`
`Microsoft Word software Version 2010.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Date: March 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 SEVENTH
`
`PETITION was served by electronic mail on this day, March 14, 2017, on the
`
`David M. Tennant
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 626-3600
`
`Nathan Zhang
`nathan.zhang@whitecase.com
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 213-0300
`
`WCGlobalFoundries-
`FlammTeam@whitecase.com
`
`Counsel for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.
`
`following individuals:
`
`
`Jonathan McFarland
`JMcfarland@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Ave., Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 359-8000
`
`Daniel Keese
`DKeese@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
`Portland, OR 97209
`(503) 727-2000
`
`Chad S. Campbell
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`Tyler Bowen
`TBowen@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`2901 North Central Ave., Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Intel-Flamm-Service-
`IPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`Counsel for Intel Corporation
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2017-00282
`
`
`
`
`
`Jared Bobrow
`Jared.bobrow@weil.com
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Jeremy.lang@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3000
`
`Micron.flamm.service@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557/
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`