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. IPR2017-002821
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 56-63 & 70-71
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via
`a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01752.
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Combinations based on Kadomura and Matsumura rendered claims
`56-63 and 70-71 obvious ................................................................................ 2
`A.
`The prior art taught changing processing temperature within a
`“preselected time [period]” .................................................................. 3
`It would have been obvious to combine Kadomura and
`Matsumura ............................................................................................ 4
`1.
`A skilled person would have combined Kadomura and
`Matsumura ................................................................................. 5
`Flamm does not meaningfully address some of
`Petitioners’ motivations and his arguments on the others
`fail .............................................................................................. 8
`Flamm mischaracterizes Kadomura and Matsumura ......................... 13
`1.
`Kadomura ................................................................................. 13
`2. Matsumura ............................................................................... 15
`Combinations based on Kadomura and Matsumura rendered
`dependent claims 57 and 63 obvious ................................................. 17
`1.
`Claim 57 ................................................................................... 17
`2.
`Claim 63 ................................................................................... 18
`III. Combinations based on Muller, Matsumura, and Wang also rendered
`claims 56-63 and 70-71 obvious ................................................................... 20
`A. A skilled person would have been motivated to combine
`Muller, Matsumura, and Wang to render claim 60 obvious .............. 21
`B. Muller, Matsumura, Wang, and Kikuchi rendered claim 63
`obvious ............................................................................................... 21
`IV. Flamm has waived any arguments unique to other dependent claims ......... 22
`V.
`Flamm’s supporting declaration is entitled to little, if any, weight .............. 22
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 15, 16
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“’264 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,605,600 (“Muller”)
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,226,056 (“Kikuchi”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 (“Kadomura”)
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224 (“’224 application”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Wright, D.R. et al., A Closed Loop Temperature Control System for
`a Low-Temperature Etch Chuck, Advanced Techniques for
`Integrated Processing II, Vol. 1803 (1992), pp. 321–329 (“Wright”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (“’849 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 4,992,391 (“Wang”)
`Fischl, D.S. et al., Etching of Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide Films
`by Chlorine Atoms, J. Electrochemical Soc.: Solid-State Science and
`Technology, Vol. 135, No. 8 (August 1988), pp. 2016-2019
`(“Fischl”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00469, Paper 6 (July
`1, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`(continued)
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v.
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01768, Paper 7 (February 24, 2016)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Fourth Petition, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-
`01768, Paper 1 (August 18, 2015)
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,242,536 (“Schoenborn”)
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (“Hwang”)
`
`Ex. 1019 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`Ex. 1020 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1011
`Ex. 1021 Declaration of Jared Bobrow in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`Ex. 1022 Declaration of Chad Campbell in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`Reply Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 and Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Final Written Decision, Thorley Indus. LLC v. Kolcraft Enter., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00352, Paper 25 (June 1, 2017)
`
`Final Written Decision, inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-
`00560, Paper 21 (July 28, 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel
`L. Flamm, IPR2016-00469, Paper 5 (April 27, 2016)
`
`Final Written Decision, Curt G. Joa, Inc. v. Fameccanica.Data
`S.p.A., IPR2016-00906, Paper 79 (October 11, 2017)
`
`Ex. 1028 Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Kinetic
`Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8
`(September 23, 2014)
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Claims 56-63 and 70-71 of the ’264 patent recite well-known and long-used
`
`semiconductor processing techniques. Having no way to dispute that fact, Patent
`
`Owner (“Flamm”) fails to address most claim limitations in his Response to the
`
`5
`
`Petition. He focuses instead on the requirement in independent claims 56 and 60
`
`for changing processing temperatures “within a preselected time [period].” But, as
`
`with the claims’ other limitations, that approach was not new at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. For example, Matsumura disclosed preselecting temperature
`
`change times as part of process recipes programmed into a computer. As Flamm
`
`10
`
`admits (Paper 13 at 17), the use of preprogrammed recipes was “common
`
`knowledge,” “pervasive,” and “obvious.”
`
`Unable to dispute that the combined disclosures of the prior art taught what
`
`is claimed (including temperature changes “within a preselected time [period]”),
`
`Flamm’s Response attacks Petitioners’ motivations for combining the references,
`
`15
`
`arguing that the motivations are missing or conclusory. But the Petition and
`
`supporting expert declaration from Dr. John Bravman identified and explained
`
`multiple motivations to support Petitioners’ proposed prior art combinations.
`
`Flamm simply fails to address many of Petitioners’ identified motivations to
`
`combine, leaving that evidence unrebutted.
`
`20
`
`Flamm also mischaracterizes the prior art’s teachings and mistakenly argues
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`that prior art “teaches away” from the alleged invention because it differs from
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`certain embodiments in the ’264 patent. To the contrary, the references establish
`
`that the claimed techniques were widespread and had well-understood benefits.
`
`Flamm fails to identify any instance where the allegedly inventive approach is
`
`5
`
`criticized, discredited, or discouraged. Finally, while Flamm submitted a
`
`supporting declaration, he is an interested party and his declaration is entitled to
`
`little, if any, weight.
`
`For most dependent claims, Flamm does not even address the dependent
`
`limitations themselves, relying instead and exclusively on his misplaced attacks on
`
`10
`
`independent claims 56 and 60. For the few limitations of dependent claims
`
`mentioned in the Response, Flamm’s arguments mischaracterize the references and
`
`fail to rebut Petitioners’ evidence.
`
`This Reply is supported by the Reply Declaration of Dr. Bravman (Ex. 1023)
`
`and responds to the arguments made in Flamm’s Response (Paper 13) and
`
`15
`
`declaration (Ex. 2001).
`
`II. Combinations based on Kadomura and Matsumura rendered claims 56-
`63 and 70-71 obvious
`
`In response to Petitioners’ evidence that prior art combinations based on
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura rendered claims 56-63 and 70-71 unpatentable as
`
`20
`
`obvious, Flamm primarily focuses on one limitation of independent claims 56 and
`
`60 directed to changing temperature within a “preselected time [period].” (Paper
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`13 at 8; Ex. 2001 ¶10.) Flamm does not dispute that Petitioners’ Kadomura-based
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`prior art combinations disclosed all the other limitations of claims 56 and 60, and
`
`he does not contest that at least Matsumura taught the “preselected time [period]”
`
`limitation.
`
`5
`
`Flamm’s primary argument is that it would not have been obvious to
`
`combine Kadomura and Matsumura. But Flamm’s arguments mischaracterize
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura and misapply the law on whether a prior art reference
`
`“teaches away” from the alleged invention. As Petitioners and Dr. Bravman
`
`demonstrated, there are many reasons why a skilled person would have combined
`
`10
`
`Kadomura and Matsumura.
`
`A. The prior art taught changing processing temperature within a
`“preselected time [period]”
`
`Kadomura disclosed changing temperature in “about 30 sec” or “about 50
`
`sec” as part of its etching process. (Ex. 1005, 6:52-55, 10:11-13; Ex. 1006 ¶143.)
`
`15
`
`Matsumura disclosed semiconductor processing based on “predetermined recipe[s]”
`
`that included temperature change times. (Ex. 1003, 3:1-7, 3:14-16; Paper 2 at 17-
`
`18; Ex. 1006 ¶¶72-74.) Figure 9 below shows an example recipe, including
`
`specific time periods of 20 seconds and 60 seconds for temperature changes, as
`
`shown in red annotations. A control system (CPU and PID controller) applied
`
`20
`
`signals “responsive to inputted recipes and temperature detecting signal[s]” to
`
`execute the preprogrammed recipes. (Ex. 1003, 5:58-63.)
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`Flamm does not dispute that Matsumura disclosed using a “preselected time
`
`[period]” for changing processing temperatures. Indeed, Flamm admits that
`
`Matsumura’s “stored recipe[s]” are the “crux” of the reference’s teachings. (Paper
`
`5
`
`13 at 7; Ex. 2001 ¶12.) Instead, Flamm erroneously argues that Matsumura fails to
`
`teach “anything about etching,” despite Matsumura’s express teaching that its
`
`methods can be applied to etching. (Paper 13 at 6-7.)
`
`B.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`
`10
`
`Ignoring the evidence cited in the Petition and Dr. Bravman’s opening
`
`declaration (Ex. 1006), Flamm argues that Petitioners have failed to establish any
`
`motivation for combining Kadomura and Matsumura. (Paper 13 at 8-18.) And
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`while Flamm admits that Matsumura’s teachings were well known (id. at 17), he
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`incorrectly asserts they did not apply to etching processes, ignoring Matsumura’s
`
`disclosure to the contrary. (Ex. 1003, 10:3-7.) Flamm selectively attacks a subset
`
`of Petitioners’ proposed motivations, but his arguments are unsupported. He also
`
`5
`
`ignores Petitioners’ other identified motivations. Flamm has thus waived any
`
`substantive challenges to those motivations. (Paper 10 at 4.)
`
`1.
`
`A skilled person would have combined Kadomura and
`Matsumura
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Bravman described several reasons why a skilled person
`
`10
`
`would have combined the teachings of Kadomura and Matsumura. To begin, a
`
`skilled person would have incorporated Matsumura’s predetermined recipe
`
`approach, including preselected times for temperature changes, into Kadomura’s
`
`system. (Paper 2 at 39-42; Ex. 1023 ¶27 (citing Ex. 1006).) The motivations for
`
`that modification would have been to:
`
`15
`
`• increase efficiency, control, accuracy, reliability, and predictability;
`
`• ensure that temperature change time was less than gas exchange time;
`
`and
`
`• avoid potential decreases in throughput.
`
`(Ex. 1023 ¶27 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Furthermore, a skilled person would have incorporated Matsumura’s
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor into Kadomura’s processing system. The
`
`motivations for making that change would have been to:
`
`• allow a tool operator to confirm that Kadomura’s stage reached a
`
`5
`
`selected temperature;
`
`• increase control of temperature change and processing times; and
`
`• improve precision, measurement accuracy, and efficiency.
`
`(Paper 2 at 31-33; Ex. 1023 ¶26 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Despite the evidence, Flamm erroneously argues that Petitioners failed to
`
`10
`
`articulate any motivation to combine Kadomura and Matsumura. (Paper 13 at 13-
`
`15.) As explained above, that is untrue.
`
`Flamm also generally attacks the combination, asserting that Matsumura is
`
`“in a different field of art” and, without explanation, that its recipes “would have
`
`been useless” for plasma etching (as in Kadomura). (Id. at 17; Ex. 2001 ¶16.) Not
`
`15
`
`so. Matsumura expressly taught that its techniques “can also be applied to any of
`
`the ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing processes.” (Ex. 1003, 10:3-7
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1023 ¶¶15-20 (citing Ex. 1006).) Flamm has no contrary
`
`evidence.
`
`Flamm further asserts that “the only thing in Matsumura that is not
`
`20
`
`mentioned by Kadomura is using a computer or microcontroller to effectuate a
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`process.” (Paper 13 at 16; Ex. 2001 ¶16.) Flamm then acknowledges that digital
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`control of semiconductor processing steps (as in Matsumura) was obvious at the
`
`time of the alleged invention:
`
`5
`
`No PHOSITA would have considered Matsumura for this at least
`since this type of automation was common knowledge at the time and
`its implementation in production worthy processing equipment was
`pervasive and obvious.
`
`(Paper 13 at 17 (emphasis added).)
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Bravman agree that the use of preprogrammed recipes
`
`10
`
`was obvious at the time of the alleged invention. (Paper 2 at 39-41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶18,
`
`38 (citing Ex. 1006).) If anything, Flamm’s argument shows that Kadomura alone
`
`rendered this limitation obvious. Petitioners included Matsumura in their petition
`
`because Flamm previously successfully argued in a different IPR that Kadomura
`
`alone did not teach the “preselected time” limitation. (Ex. 1014, 15-17; Ex. 1026,
`
`15
`
`5.) Flamm now admits, however, that Matsumura’s automated process control,
`
`such as preselecting temperature change times, was obvious. In any case, Flamm’s
`
`admission that this type of automation was “pervasive and obvious” further
`
`supports that a skilled person would have been motivated to combine Matsumura’s
`
`preprogrammed recipe approach with Kadomura’s system. (Ex. 1023 ¶38.)
`
`20
`
`Flamm further argues that whether Kadomura included a control circuit for
`
`implementing processing recipes (as taught in Matsumura) is not relevant. (Paper
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`13 at 16-17.) But controllers and preprogrammed recipes are centrally relevant to
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`the proposed combination, and Flamm admits elsewhere in his Response that “the
`
`use of ‘predetermined recipes’” “is relevant to the matter at hand.” (Id. at 12-13.)
`
`A programmable computer or processor is also relevant. As Matsumura taught, a
`
`5
`
`computer or processor stored and executed preprogrammed recipes. (Ex. 1003,
`
`5:58-6:13.) Those recipes included temperature changes preselected to occur
`
`within specific times, as recited in claims 56 and 60. Kadomura taught using a
`
`control system with a PID controller, and it would have been obvious to program
`
`that controller with predetermined recipes as taught in Matsumura. (Ex. 1023 ¶¶25,
`
`10
`
`27 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`2.
`
`Flamm does not meaningfully address some of Petitioners’
`motivations and his arguments on the others fail
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Bravman described at least the following motivations for
`
`combining Kadomura and Matsumura: increased throughput, control, accuracy,
`
`15
`
`efficiency, predictability, and reliability. (Paper 2 at 31-33, 39-41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶18,
`
`26-27, 33, 36-39, 43 (citing Ex. 1006).) Flamm never addresses efficiency and
`
`predictability in his Response, except to characterize those motivations as
`
`conclusory while failing to rebut the substance of Petitioners’ arguments or Dr.
`
`Bravman’s detailed opinions. He has therefore waived any challenge to those two
`
`20
`
`motivations. (Paper 10 at 4.)
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Flamm’s arguments for the remaining motivations (increased throughput,
`
`control, accuracy, and reliability) are unavailing. Flamm argues that adding
`
`Matsumura’s predetermined recipe approach to Kadomura’s system would not
`
`have affected throughput. In doing so, Flamm assumes that the time for etching
`
`5
`
`gas exchange between steps in Kadomura’s system was always longer than the
`
`time for temperature change. (Paper 13 at 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13.) Flamm then asserts
`
`that gas exchange time is the sole limiting factor on throughput and that
`
`temperature change time is irrelevant. (Id.) Flamm is wrong on both counts.
`
`Kadomura taught that changing processing temperature in less time than the
`
`10
`
`gas exchange period was possible (though not required) and beneficial because it
`
`avoided lowering throughput. (Ex. 1023 ¶¶29-30 (citing Ex. 1006); Ex. 1005,
`
`5:18-26, 7:19-30.) Kadomura further described its temperature change times in
`
`approximate terms. (Paper 2 at 13, 36, 40; Ex. 1023 ¶¶30-31 (citing Ex. 1006); Ex.
`
`1005, 6:52-55 (“about 30 sec”), 10:11-13 (“about 50 sec”).) With that context, a
`
`15
`
`skilled person would have been motivated to use Matsumura’s accurate
`
`preprogrammed recipe approach with Kadomura’s system. (Paper 2 at 40-41; Ex.
`
`1023 ¶¶30-31 (citing Ex. 1006).) As Flamm notes, temperature change time avoids
`
`a decrease in throughput only if that time is equal to or less than the gas exchange
`
`time. (Paper 13 at 8-9, 13.) A skilled person would have recognized that use of
`
`20
`
`Matsumura’s accurate preprogrammed recipe approach in combination with the
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Kadomura system would help ensure that condition is satisfied by preprogramming
`
`an exact selected temperature change time equal to or less than the gas exchange
`
`time. (Paper 2 at 40-41; Ex. 1023 ¶31 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm also argues that even if temperature change time were longer than
`
`5
`
`gas exchange time, a skilled person would have shortened temperature change time
`
`instead of using Matsumura’s predetermined recipe approach. (Paper 13 at 10; Ex.
`
`2001 ¶14.) Flamm then argues that Dr. Bravman did not explain how the
`
`combination of Kadomura and Matsumura would have increased throughput or
`
`why ensuring an exact temperature change time would have been beneficial.
`
`10
`
`(Paper 13 at 10-11.) The record contradicts those arguments. Petitioners and Dr.
`
`Bravman explained that using a predetermined temperature change time (as taught
`
`in Matsumura) would have ensured that the temperature change time in Kadomura
`
`did not exceed gas exchange time, thus avoiding decreased throughput. (Paper 2 at
`
`40-41; Ex. 1023 ¶31 (citing Ex. 1006).) And contrary to Flamm’s representation
`
`15
`
`(Paper 13 at 11), the Petition relied on Dr. Bravman’s explanation of the
`
`throughput benefit. (Paper 2 at 39-40 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶148-152).)
`
`Flamm asserts that Petitioners and Dr. Bravman’s additional motivations to
`
`combine Kadomura and Matsumura (relating to control, efficiency, accuracy,
`
`predictability, and reliability) are conclusory and not linked to the use of
`
`20
`
`predetermined recipes. (Paper 13 at 12-15.) The record shows otherwise. (Paper
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`2 at 39-41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶18, 27, 33-41 (citing Ex. 1006).) Tellingly, Flamm does
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`not mention, let alone contest, Dr. Bravman’s supporting testimony for any of
`
`these motivations. (Paper 13 at 12-13.) Instead, Flamm briefly addresses just
`
`three motivations: accuracy, control, and reliability. (Id. at 14-15.)
`
`5
`
`Flamm first asserts that Petitioners do not explain why using Matsumura’s
`
`recipe approach would have improved accuracy, noting that Kadomura describes
`
`fine temperature control. (Id. at 14-15.) As Petitioners explained, however,
`
`Matsumura’s recipe approach would have increased accuracy by allowing a
`
`chipmaker to input preprogrammed processing times and temperature change times
`
`10
`
`(in addition to processing temperatures) for Kadomura’s processes. (Paper 2 at 39-
`
`40; Ex. 1023 ¶¶33-34 (citing Ex. 1006).) That approach would have improved
`
`Kadomura by accurately controlling temperature change times based on precise
`
`preprogrammed values, not approximate ones. (Ex. 1023 ¶34 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Matsumura itself described that its techniques resulted in better accuracy. (Ex.
`
`15
`
`1003, 10:22-29.)
`
`Flamm criticizes Petitioners’ control and reliability motivations as
`
`conclusory. (Paper 13 at 15.) But Flamm does not substantively address the
`
`explanations provided in the Petition or Dr. Bravman’s declaration relating to those
`
`motivations. (Paper 2 at 39-41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶34-35, 39-41 (citing Ex. 1006).) Dr.
`
`20
`
`Bravman explained that using Matsumura’s preprogrammed recipe approach, as
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`was standard in the industry, would have allowed tight control of process
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`parameters such as processing temperatures. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶146-148, 151-152.) Dr.
`
`Bravman further described that Matsumura’s techniques would have increased
`
`reliability by programming process recipes to occur with selected characteristics,
`
`5
`
`including processing temperatures and time periods. (Id. ¶¶146-148, 150-152.)
`
`Flamm further asserts that Matsumura’s disclosure about increased accuracy,
`
`control, and reliability is not relevant because it relates to thermal history curves,
`
`not predetermined recipes. (Paper 13 at 15.) Matsumura explains, however, that a
`
`recipe is a reproduction of a thermal history curve: “A recipe shown in Fig. 9 is
`
`10
`
`inputted into the PID controller 203 by the keyboard 20a. Points P10 to P19 are
`
`set in the recipe so as to surely reproduce the thermal history curve of the wafer
`
`W.” (Ex. 1003, 8:56-59 (emphasis added); Ex. 1023 ¶40 (citing Ex. 1006).) And
`
`Flamm recognizes elsewhere that Matsumura’s techniques for “controlling heating
`
`and cooling” “improved quality and reproducibility.” (Paper 13 at 6; Ex. 2001
`
`15
`
`¶12.)
`
`Flamm also faults Petitioners’ combination of Kadomura, Matusmura, and
`
`Wang for claim 60 because Wang does not disclose changing processing
`
`temperature “within a preselected time [period].” (Paper 13 at 18-19; Ex. 2001
`
`¶15.) But Petitioners have never argued that Wang taught the “preselected time
`
`20
`
`[period]” limitation; instead, they rely on Matsumura as having disclosed that
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`limitation. (Paper 2 at 36-39; Ex. 1023 ¶¶43, 46 (citing Ex. 1006).) Further,
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Flamm argues that Petitioners “make[] no attempt of [sic] establish a motive for
`
`combining Kadomura, Matsumura, and Wang.” (Paper 13 at 19.) As described in
`
`the Petition and by Dr. Bravman, however, a skilled person would have been
`
`5
`
`motivated to combine Kadomura, Matsumura, and Wang for many reasons. (Paper
`
`2 at 50-51; Ex. 1023 ¶¶42-46 (citing Ex. 1006).) The resulting combination
`
`disclosed each limitation of claim 60. (Paper 2 at 52-55.)
`
`Flamm mischaracterizes Kadomura and Matsumura
`
`C.
`In trying to undermine the combination of Kadomura and Matsumura,
`
`10
`
`Flamm describes those two references in ways that are inaccurate or incomplete.
`
`1. Kadomura
`Flamm argues there would have been no benefit to using preselected time
`
`periods for temperature changes. (Paper 13 at 3-6.) As discussed above (at 9-10),
`
`that argument rests on a faulty assumption. A skilled person would have used
`
`15
`
`Matsumura’s preprogrammed recipe approach to help ensure that the temperature
`
`change was accomplished within the gas exchange time. (Paper 2 at 40-41; Ex.
`
`1023 ¶¶30-36 (citing Ex. 1006).)
`
`Flamm further describes Kadomura as relating to a “cryogenic etching
`
`process” that is allegedly different from the above-room-temperature processing
`
`20
`
`disclosed in Matsumura. (Paper 13 at 3-5; Ex. 2001 ¶11.) But, like Matsumura,
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Kadomura disclosed processing temperatures at and above room temperature, such
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`as 20ºC and 50ºC, well above temperatures that could even arguably be considered
`
`“cryogenic.” (Ex. 1005, 6:5-29,10:17-27; Ex. 1003, Fig. 9; Ex. 1023 ¶¶8-9, 11
`
`(citing Ex. 1006).) Accordingly, it is not accurate to suggest that Kadomura is
`
`5
`
`confined to “cryogenic” etching. (Ex. 1023 ¶11.)
`
`Flamm also characterizes the objectives of Kadomura’s etching as focused
`
`on attaining high accuracy and fine fabrication and applying low temperature
`
`etching. (Paper 13 at 5.) Flamm concedes in passing elsewhere, however, that
`
`Kadomura, like the rest of the semiconductor industry, was “concerned about
`
`10
`
`throughput.” (Id. at 10.) Indeed, Kadomura repeatedly emphasizes the importance
`
`of throughput. (Ex. 1005, 4:46-54, 5:18-26, 7:19-30, 9:16-20, 10:36-41; Paper 2 at
`
`32, 41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶12-13 (citing Ex. 1006).) That emphasis on throughput
`
`supports Petitioners’ proposed combination of Kadomura and Matsumura.
`
`Flamm also argues that Kadomura “teaches away” from the ’264 patent
`
`15
`
`because Kadomura’s temperature change times (e.g., “about 30 sec”) are
`
`“relatively long” as compared to those of “several seconds” in the patent. (Paper
`
`13 at 5.) That difference is irrelevant because claims 56 and 60 do not require any
`
`particular length of time for a temperature change. (Ex. 1023 ¶14.) Moreover,
`
`Flamm misuses the phrase “teaching away,” which has a specific meaning in
`
`20
`
`patent law. The phrase applies when a prior art reference discredits, criticizes, or
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`otherwise discourages investigation into the alleged invention. Meiresonne v.
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks
`
`omitted). That concept has no application here because nothing in Kadomura
`
`discredits, criticizes, or discourages changing temperature in a “preselected time
`
`5
`
`[period]” as recited in claims 56 and 60. To the contrary, Kadomura reinforces
`
`that specific temperature change times would have been beneficial to avoid
`
`lowering throughput. (Paper 2 at 40-41; Ex. 1023 ¶¶12-13, 29-31 (citing Ex. 1006);
`
`Ex. 1005, 5:18-26, 7:19-30.)
`
`2. Matsumura
`In trying to distinguish Matsumura from Kadomura and the ’264 patent,
`
`10
`
`Flamm argues the reference “does not teach anything about etching.” (Paper 13 at
`
`6-7.) Matsumura expressly refutes that position. (Ex. 1003, 10:3-7; Ex. 1023 ¶¶15,
`
`17 (citing Ex. 1006).) A skilled person would have known how to apply
`
`Matsumura’s process control and recipe techniques in an etching process. (Ex.
`
`15
`
`1023 ¶¶18-20.) A skilled person would have looked to Matsumura because it
`
`provided a detailed example of how to apply those techniques. (Id. ¶¶17-18, 38.)
`
`In contrast, Flamm never provides any reasoning for why a skilled person would
`
`not have used Matsumura’s techniques in plasma etching.
`
`Flamm also suggests that Matsumura disclosed only “a single predetermined
`
`20
`
`temperature.” (Paper 13 at 7.) That is incorrect. The embodiment reflected in
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Figure 9 below shows two different preselected processing temperatures in that
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`recipe: 90ºC and 140ºC. (Ex. 1003, Fig. 9; Ex. 1023 ¶21.)
`
`
`
`As with Kadomura, Flamm argues that Matsumura “teaches away from the
`
`5
`
`invention” of the ’264 patent. As support for that argument, Flamm notes that
`
`Matsumura describes adhesion and baking processes. (Paper 13 at 6-8.) Flamm
`
`again misapplies the phrase “teaching away.” He has not identified any teachings
`
`in Matsumura that discredit, criticize, or discourage the alleged invention of claims
`
`56 and 60 or the “preselected time [period]” limitation at issue. Meiresonne, 849
`
`10
`
`F.3d at 1382. In fact, as noted above (at 3-4), Matsumura taught changing
`
`temperature within a preselected time period.
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`D. Combinations based on Kadomura and Matsumura rendered
`dependent claims 57 and 63 obvious
`1.
`Flamm asserts that claim 57 would not have been obvious because a skilled
`
`Claim 57
`
`5
`
`person would not have combined Kadomura (which taught discontinuing etching
`
`between steps to allow for exchange of etching gas) with Muller (which taught
`
`continuously etching while changing temperature between steps). (Paper 13 at 20-
`
`21; Ex. 2001 ¶17.) Flamm states that the combination would have “compromised”
`
`and rendered “inoperable” Muller’s etching process for deep trenches, mask
`
`10
`
`openings, and contact holes. (Paper 13 at 20-21; Ex. 2001 ¶17.)
`
`As an initial matter, Flamm never explains how or why the combination
`
`would have comprised or rendered Muller’s process inoperable. (Paper 13 at 20-
`
`21; Ex. 2001 ¶17.) Additionally, Flamm does not mention, much less dispute, the
`
`motivations to combine described in the Petition and by Dr. Bravman, including
`
`15
`
`(i) using Muller’s backpressure cooling technique to shorten temperature change
`
`times and increase throughput, and (ii) using Muller’s deep trench, mask opening,
`
`and contact hole etching technique in Kadomura’s system to expand its capabilities.
`
`(Paper 2 at 45-48; Ex. 1023 ¶¶47-52 (citing Ex. 1006).) Those motivations stand
`
`unrebutted.
`
`20
`
`In any event, the combination of Kadomura and Muller would not have been
`
`incompatible, as Flamm suggests. (Ex. 1023 ¶¶53-54 (citing Ex. 1006).) The
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`sidewall shaping described in Muller was caused by varying etching temperature,
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00282, Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`not by continuously etching between processing steps. (Ex. 1002, 5:17-20, 5:36-48,
`
`6:3-10, 7:18-22.) When combining Muller with Kadomura, a skilled person would
`
`have a