UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,
`AND GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Issued: January 27, 1998
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: PROCESS OPTIMIZATION IN
`GAS PHASE DRY ETCHING
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID B. GRAVES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003 p.1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,
`AND GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Issued: January 27, 1998
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: PROCESS OPTIMIZATION IN
`GAS PHASE DRY ETCHING
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID B. GRAVES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003 p.1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, David B. Graves, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my views regarding technical issues in
`
`connection with the above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,711,849 (“the 849 Patent”). I have also have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion on whether claims 1-29 of the 849 Patent are valid in light of the prior art
`
`in Grounds 1 and 2 and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. It is my opinion that claims 1-29 are invalid for the
`
`reasons set forth in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`3.
`I am currently a Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
`
`at the University of California, Berkeley. I was the Lam Research Distinguished
`
`Professor in Semiconductor Processing 2011-16. I have been a full professor since
`
`1997. I was an Associate Professor from 1997-1997, and an Assistant Professor
`
`from 1986-1991. My prior employment also includes being a computer process
`
`control engineer for Standard Oil of California from 1978-1981. I have also
`
`provided research support for a number of major semiconductor manufacturing and
`
`processing companies.
`
`2
`
`Ex.1003 p.2
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`4.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of
`
`Minnesota in 1986. I also received my Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering
`
`from the University of Arizona in 1981, and my Bachelor’s degree in Chemical
`
`Engineering from the University of Arizona in 1978.
`
`5.
`
`I have significant research experience in many issues relating to
`
`semiconductor devices and their processing, including thin film etching and
`
`deposition in semiconductor manufacturing, plasma chemistry and plasma
`
`processing for semiconductors, modeling and simulation of low temperature
`
`nonequilibrium plasmas, plasma-surface
`
`interactions and plasma-surface
`
`chemistry, nanofeature profile evolution simulation, molecular dynamics of
`
`plasma-surface interactions, particles and photons in plasmas, optical and mass
`
`spectroscopy in low temperature plasmas, and microplasmas. I have published
`
`over two hundred peer-reviewed papers and given many presentations on these
`
`topics.
`
`6.
`
`I have taught courses in solid state device processing, process control,
`
`transport processes, and mathematical methods at the undergraduate and graduate
`
`level. I have supervised the research of approximately 50 students and scholars in
`
`the area of semiconductor plasma processing and manufacturing as part of their
`
`work for their PhDs as well as post-doctoral work.
`
`3
`
`Ex.1003 p.3
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`7. My curriculum vitae (CV) (Ex.1004) includes additional details about
`
`my experience and professional background.
`
`8.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard hourly rate of
`
`$400 in connection with this proceeding. My compensation is in no way contingent
`
`upon my performance or the outcome of this case.
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked my technical opinions regarding the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates to the 849
`
`Patent and other reference documents. I have also been asked to provide my
`
`technical opinions on concepts discussed in the 849 Patent and other reference
`
`documents, as well as my technical opinions on how these concepts relate to
`
`several claim limitations of the 849 Patent in the context of the specification.
`
`Finally, I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding whether claims 1-29 of
`
`the 849 Patent are invalid in light of the prior art in Ground 1, viewing that art
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`10.
`
`In reaching the opinions stated herein, I have considered the 849
`
`Patent, its prosecution history, and the Exhibits to the Petition. I have also drawn,
`
`as appropriate upon my own education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`personal and professional experience.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex.1003 p.4
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`11. My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law. I
`
`understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that the 849 Patent has expired. Accordingly, in my
`
`analysis, all claim terms have been accorded their plain and ordinary meaning, as
`
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the
`
`specification and file history of the 849 Patent.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim if
`
`each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., if the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious.” I
`
`understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all
`
`elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim
`
`obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the
`
`claim and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time would have had
`
`reason to combine the prior art. I understand that this reason to combine need not
`
`be explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of a
`
`5
`
`Ex.1003 p.5
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. I
`
`also understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton,
`
`but is a person having ordinary creativity. I further understand that one or more
`
`pieces of prior art that disclose fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may
`
`render a patent claim obvious if including the missing element would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (e.g., the missing element
`
`represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior art or a reconfiguration of
`
`a known system).
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made. I
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge available to
`
`one of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in order to avoid
`
`impermissible hindsight. I further understand that the obviousness inquiry assumes
`
`that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of all
`
`relevant references available at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary rationales
`
`that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered those
`
`rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
`
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`6
`
`Ex.1003 p.6
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`predictable results;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (methods or products)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the effort was
`
`“obvious to try”;
`
`
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations on
`
`the work for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art;
`
`
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior
`
`art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`7
`
`Ex.1003 p.7
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`17.
`
`I appreciate that secondary considerations may be considered, if
`
`present, as part of the overall obviousness analysis. Such considerations do not
`
`appear to be present here. For example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have never heard anyone offer praise for the 849 Patent, nor am I
`
`aware of any commercial success attributable to the 849 Patent.
`
`I am unaware of any copying of the alleged invention of the 849
`
`Patent.
`
`I am unaware of any use to which the owner of the 849 Patent has put
`
`the patent except to assert it in litigation.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`18.
`I provide in this section a brief description of certain concepts of the
`
`849 Patent that are relevant to my opinions.
`
`A. Chemical Reaction Engineering Overview
`19. The discipline of Chemical Engineering began in the late 19th century
`
`when physicists, industrial chemists and mechanical engineers began to tackle the
`
`challenges of designing large-scale chemical plants. Chemical engineering has its
`
`origins in designing factories and equipment that safely and profitably transformed
`
`raw materials like crude oil and natural gas into valuable products like gasoline and
`
`fertilizers. Over many decades, chemical engineers developed general analytical
`
`methods that are applied to design essentially any industrial chemical process.
`
`8
`
`Ex.1003 p.8
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`20.
`
`It was recognized near the beginning of the semiconductor industry
`
`that chemical engineers could apply their standard analytical principles to
`
`problems in manufacturing integrated circuits (i.e. “microelectronics materials
`
`processing”). As Jensen writes, “[c]hemical engineers have a long history of
`
`solving multidisciplinary problems in other specialized fields, such as food
`
`processing and polymer processing, and there is a growing recognition of the
`
`useful contributions that chemical engineers can make to electronic materials
`
`processing.” Ex.1008 (K. F. Jensen, “Chemical Engineering in the Processing of
`
`Electronic and Optical Materials: A Discussion,” Adv. Chem. Eng., 16(9): 395-412
`
`(1991)).
`
`21. Like all engineers, chemical engineers use mathematical models in
`
`order to predict how a piece of equipment will operate even before it is built. A
`
`chemical reactor is one such piece of equipment. Specifically, a chemical reactor
`
`is a temperature- and pressure-controlled vessel within which fluid reactants
`
`transform chemically into desired products.
`
`22. The “chemical reaction engineer” combines equations that describe
`
`the motion, temperature and chemical composition of the fluid (most often a gas or
`
`plasma) that moves through the reactor. The underlying mathematical equations
`
`originate from the principles of thermodynamics, continuum mechanics and
`
`chemical kinetics.
`
`9
`
`Ex.1003 p.9
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`23. For example, the first law of thermodynamics states that all energy is
`
`conserved but can change form. Equations describing chemical kinetics predict
`
`how fast various chemical reactions will occur as a function of chemical
`
`concentrations, temperature, pressure and perhaps the presence of accelerating
`
`agents (i.e. catalysts).
`
`B.
`
`Temperature Dependent Reactions
`Relationship
`24. At the most basic level, a chemical reaction results from a collision of
`
`and
`
`the Arrhenius
`
`molecules with sufficient energy to create a new product. For example, the 849
`
`Patent discloses the simple bimolecular etching reaction:
`
`O+S→SO
`
`where S is a substrate atom and O is the gas-phase etchant. Ex.1001 at 3:41-48.
`
`25. The mere collision of these two atoms is insufficient to break the
`
`bonds between atoms. Rather the collisions between the atoms must be
`
`sufficiently energetic to bring about bond disruption. The critical energy required
`
`to stretch, bend, or otherwise distort one or more bonds and bring about a chemical
`
`reaction is known as the activation energy of the reaction. Additionally, the
`
`molecules in the collision must have the correct orientation for the particular
`
`chemical reaction.
`
`26. As early as 1890, it was well known that higher temperatures speed up
`
`chemical reactions. This is unsurprising as thermal energy directly relates to
`
`10
`
`Ex.1003 p.10
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`motion at the molecular level. As the temperature rises, molecules move faster and
`
`collide with more energy, greatly increasing the likelihood of bond cleavages and
`
`rearrangements.
`
`27.
`
`In 1899 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, proposed an equation
`
`empirically describing a rate constant of a chemical reaction as a function of
`
`temperature:
`
`k = Ae-Ea/(RT)
`
`where k is the rate constant, T is the absolute temperature (in Kelvin), A is a pre-
`
`exponential factor, Ea is the activation energy for the reaction, and R is the
`
`universal gas constant. The pre-exponential factor is a parameter for each
`
`chemical reaction that is related to the frequency of collisions in the correct
`
`orientation. Note that the Arrhenius relationship can also be expressed as a
`
`function of the Boltzmann constant (kB) in place of the universal gas constant (R).
`
`The only difference is the units of Ea, which is in energy per mole for the former,
`
`and energy per molecule in the later.
`
`28. The basic Arrhenius equation described above is one of the most
`
`important relationships in physical chemistry and chemical engineering. The
`
`reaction rate constant, k, is predominantly dependent on temperature. This
`
`relationship allows for the calculation of the activation energy of a reaction from
`
`values of k observed at different temperatures. It also allows for the calculation of
`
`11
`
`Ex.1003 p.11
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`the reaction rate constant from the known activation energy for a given
`
`temperature.
`
`29. The Arrhenius equation can also be expressed in a manner that makes
`
`explicit a weak temperature dependence of the preexponential term:
`
`k = ATne-Ea/(RT)
`
`In this form, the preexponential is a constant A multiplied by the temperature
`
`raised to a fractional power n, where n=0 for a temperature-independent
`
`preexponential factor. A typical value of n is 0.5. See, e.g., Ex.1018, Steinfeld et
`
`al., Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics, 14-16 (1989); Ex.1017, Manos and Flamm,
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, 118-19 (1989).
`
`C.
`
`and Chemical Vapor Deposition
`Plasma Etching
`Semiconductor Manufacturing
`30. By
`
`the 1980s
`
`the application of chemical engineering
`
`In
`
`to
`
`semiconductor manufacturing was well known and many persons in the art were
`
`developing models for both the process of depositing layers through chemical
`
`vapor deposition and the process of removing layers through plasma etching.
`
`31. The impetus for chemical engineers to take a greater involvement in
`
`the semiconductor manufacturing field was to reduce the time and cost of
`
`developing equipment to create semiconductor devices. Jensen and Graves (1983)
`
`wrote: “The development of CVD (chemical vapor deposition) reactors and the
`
`selection of operating regimes have hitherto mainly been based on empirical design
`
`12
`
`Ex.1003 p.12
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`rules. This limits the operation of existing reactors to certain fixed conditions and
`
`severely hampers the development of novel deposition processes . . . Thus,
`
`reaction engineering analysis and design should be a key element in the
`
`development and operation of CVD reactors.” Ex.1009 at p.1 (K. F. Jensen and D.
`
`B. Graves, “Modeling and Analysis of Low Pressure CVD Reactors,” J.
`
`Electrochem. Soc., 130(9): 1950-1957 (1983)).
`
`32. The generality of the principles of chemical reaction engineering can
`
`be seen in the remarkable fact that the mathematical model of the low pressure
`
`chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) reactor described by Jensen and Graves
`
`(1983) originated as a model of a packed bed chemical reactor used in the chemical
`
`and petroleum refining industries, among others. Jensen and Graves (1983) write:
`
`“The combined reactor equations [(i.e. of the LPCVD reactor)] have the same form
`
`as the ones for a catalytic-fixed bed reactor, and consequently the concepts
`
`developed for fixed bed reactors also apply to LPCVD reactors.” Id. at p.7.
`
`33. LPCVD reactors are typically on the order of one meter in length and
`
`fractions of a meter in diameter. The pressure is usually about 1/1000 atmospheric
`
`pressure and the gas flow rate is about one standard liter per minute. By contrast,
`
`an industrial fixed-bed catalytic reactor is filled with small, porous catalyst pellets
`
`about 1 cm in diameter, and operates at atmospheric pressure. It is usually tens of
`
`meters in height and several meters in diameter with flow rates many thousands of
`
`13
`
`Ex.1003 p.13
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`times higher than in the LPCVD reactor. It would be far from obvious to an
`
`untrained observer that these two, seemingly very different classes of “chemical
`
`reactor” could be fruitfully modeled with identical equations.
`
`34. By the late 1980s, it was well known that there are substantial
`
`similarities between plasma etching and chemical vapor deposition (and other
`
`applications). Models for one process (e.g. chemical vapor deposition) can often
`
`be easily adapted to, and in some cases are identical to, the models for another
`
`process (e.g. plasma etching).
`
`35. For example, Hess and Graves write: “etching or deposition processes
`
`are merely chemical reactions that yield a volatile or involatile product,
`
`respectively . . . .” Ex.1010 at p.12 (D. W. Hess and K. F. Jensen, eds.,
`
`Microelectronics Processing, 221(7-8): 362, 377-440 (May 5, 1989)). Plasmas can
`
`be used to either deposit or etch films.
`
`36.
`
`Indeed, it is well known that both deposition and etching usually take
`
`place simultaneously in plasma reactors. Etching can happen on the surface of the
`
`substrate being processed inside a plasma etch reactor while deposition of a film
`
`simultaneously occurs on the inside chamber wall surfaces. The chamber walls of
`
`industrial plasma etch reactors must be periodically cleaned to remove this
`
`accumulated film.
`
`14
`
`Ex.1003 p.14
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`37. For example, Jensen in 1987 noted that the chemical aspects of
`
`plasma etching (including diffusion controlled plasma etching that neglects plasma
`
`effects) can be modeled in the same manner as chemical vapor deposition: “Since
`
`the plasmas used in microelectronics processing are weakly ionized gases, plasma
`
`reactor modelling may be separated into two subproblems: the discharge structure
`
`as a function of electric parameters, and the transport and reaction of neutral
`
`species governing the deposition/etch performance. The latter problem is
`
`equivalent to those of conventional reaction engineering and CVD as discussed.”
`
`Ex.1011 at p.24 (K. F. Jensen, “Micro-Reaction Engineering: Applications of
`
`Reaction Engineering to Processing of Electronic and Photonic Materials,” Chem.
`
`Eng. Sci., 42(5): 923-958 (1987)).
`
`38.
`
`Jensen provides the following figure to illustrate the components of
`
`plasma processes:
`
`15
`
`Ex.1003 p.15
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`Ex.1008, Jensen 1991 at Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`Note that the two parts of the plasma process are: “plasma chemistry” and “neutral
`
`species chemistry.” Ex.1008 at Figure 2. The second of these is identical to the
`
`processes occurring in chemical vapor deposition reactors. Equations modeling
`
`these processes are correspondingly identical.
`
`39. Moreover, the inventor of the 849 Patent acknowledged that the same
`
`reactors and technology for plasma etching and chemical vapor deposition were
`
`complementary. Dr. Flamm applied for U.S. Patent No. 4,918,031 in 1988. In the
`
`031 Patent, he describes the use of a single plasma processing device for “plasma
`
`etching” as well as “plasma induced deposition.” See Ex.1012 at Abstract.
`
`16
`
`Ex.1003 p.16
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`Dr. Flamm described two plasma procedures to either perform “chemical vapor
`
`deposition” or plasma for “etch[ing] a substrate.” Id. at 1:16-19. Similarly,
`
`Dr. Flamm applied for U.S. Patent No. 5,304,282 in 1991. In the 282 Patent, Dr.
`
`Flamm stated that “[p]lasma etching and deposition is accomplished utilizing a
`
`helical resonator . . . .” Ex.1013 at Abstract.
`
`40. Simply put, it was obvious to people working in this field since at
`
`least the 1980’s that models used in CVD are often equally valid for plasma etch
`
`and vice versa, depending on the reactor conditions.
`
`V. THE 849 PATENT
`41.
`I understand Petitioners are challenging claims 1-29 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of the 849 Patent (Ex.1001).
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the 849 Patent was filed on May 3, 1995 and issued
`
`on January 27, 1998. I understand that the 849 Patent does not claim priority to
`
`any other patent application or provisional application. I have been asked to
`
`assume that the filing date of the 849 Patent is the priority date. I further
`
`understand that the references relied upon in the Petition all predate the filing of
`
`the 849 Patent.
`
`A.
`Independent Claim 1
`43. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter. For example,
`
`claim 1 recites a method for fabricating a device comprising: (a)” providing a
`
`17
`
`Ex.1003 p.17
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`plasma etching apparatus comprising a substrate therein, said substrate comprising
`
`a top surface and a film overlying said top surface, said film comprising a top film
`
`surface;” (b) “etching said top film surface to define a relatively non-uniform
`
`etching profile on said film, and defining etch rate data comprising an etch rate and
`
`a spatial coordinate which defines a position within said relatively non-uniform
`
`etching profile on said substrate, said etching comprising a reaction between a gas
`
`phase etchant and said film;” and (c) “extracting a surface reaction rate constant
`
`from said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate constant in the
`
`fabrication of a device.” Ex.1001 at 17:36-50.
`
`44. The dependent claims are merely minor modifications to the claimed
`
`methods that are largely independent of the modeling method disclosed. For
`
`example, dependent claims cover: using a diffusion limited reaction (claims 2, 11),
`
`using cylindrical or Cartesian coordinates (claims 3, 4, 12, 13), using an ashing
`
`method of etching (claims 7, 8, 16, 17), using a reaction that is dominated by
`
`chemical reactions over ion bombardment effects (claims 21, 28), and using a
`
`method that calculates the surface reaction rate constant with a “diffusivity value
`
`that is determined by an equation” (claim 27). These dependent claims do not
`
`materially affect the underlying chemical reaction engineering.
`
`18
`
`Ex.1003 p.18
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`B.
`The 849 Patent Disclosure
`45. The 849 Patent, at a high level, relates to modeling of gas diffusion
`
`and a surface chemical reaction between a gas phase and a substrate, in order to
`
`predict the etch rate in a plasma reactor. This model can be used to design a
`
`reactor for the manufacture of integrated circuits. Ex.1001 at Abstract, 1:6-7. The
`
`focus of the alleged invention is a method for applied chemical reaction
`
`engineering, which models the “reaction between a neutral gas phase species and a
`
`surface material layer, typically for removal,” id. at 1:20-21, and is “illustrated in
`
`an example with regard to plasma etching.” Id. at 1:6-7.
`
`46.
`
`In the 849 Patent, Dr. Flamm argues that the “conventional technique
`
`for obtaining and maintaining uniform etching relies upon a ‘trial and error’
`
`process.” Id. at 1:28-30. He also contends that “reaction rates between the etching
`
`species and the etched material are often not available,” and so “it is often
`
`impossible to anticipate actual etch rates from reaction rate constants.” Id. at 1:36-
`
`39.
`
`47. The 849 Patent describes a method of “determining a reaction rate
`
`coefficient based upon etch profile data” to “provide[] for an easy and cost
`
`effective way to select appropriate etching parameters such as reactor dimensions,
`
`temperature pressure, radio frequency (rf) power, flow rate and the like” which
`
`helps to avoid the need to build “[f]ull scale prototype equipment.” Id. at 1:42-55.
`
`19
`
`Ex.1003 p.19
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`In other words, the 849 Patent is directed to using chemical reaction engineering to
`
`model the etching reaction, determine the reaction rate coefficient by applying the
`
`model to experimental data, and then to use the model to design or modify the
`
`plasma reactor.
`
`48. The 849 Patent discloses two types of plasma etching apparatuses.
`
`See id. at Figs. 1, 2. The first type of plasma reactor is illustrated in Figure 1.
`
`Figure 1 is a very high-level diagram of a co-axial barrel plasma etcher. The
`
`etcher is illustrated as divided into three processing zones: a plasma generating
`
`zone 13, a transport zone 15, and a plate stack zone 17. Id. at 2:56-62.
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 1.
`
`49. The “gas phase species” enter through the chemical feed (marked “F”
`
`above) into the plasma generating zone, diffuse through the transport zone, and
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex.1003 p.20
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`react with the substrate material as they diffuse “over surfaces of the substrates
`
`[21].” Id. at 2:63-3:25. The exhaust (marked “E” above), allows for the removal
`
`of the gas phase species. Id. This type of barrel plasma etcher “relies substantially
`
`upon diffusion to obtain the desired etching uniformity” and “a chemical etch rate
`
`which is diffusion limited.” Id. at 3:6-9.
`
`50. The second type of plasma reactor is illustrated at a high-level in
`
`Figure 2. Figure 2 is identified as “an alternative example” of a reactor that can be
`
`used to perform the claimed methods. Id. at 4:14-15.
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`51. This type of reactor is a “single wafer etching apparatus” with two
`
`electrodes (marked 55 and 57 above) which contain the plasma in the region
`
`marked 54 above. Id. at Fig. 2, 4:16-22. Like the barrel plasma etcher of Figure 1,
`
`the gas phase species enter the reactor through the chemical feed (marked “F”
`
`above), and are removed through an exhaust (marked “E” above). Id. at 4:27-28.
`
`21
`
`Ex.1003 p.21
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`The gas phase species diffuse to the substrate (marked 61 above) where they react
`
`with the substrate. Id. at 4:18-31.
`
`52. While the specification of the 849 Patent illustrates two types of
`
`plasma reactors, “the invention may be applied to other reactors such as large
`
`batch, high pressure, chemical, single wafer, and others.” Id. at 4:61-63. The 849
`
`Patent specifically states that, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would easily
`
`recognize other applications” of the modeling methods claimed. Id. at 5:5-7. I
`
`agree with this statement.
`
`53. The 849 Patent models the surface etching reaction with “a first order
`
`form:
`
`O+S→SO
`
`where S is a substrate atom . . . and O is the gas-phase etchant.” Id. at 3:34-47.
`
`The rate of this reaction is a function of the concentration of the gas-phase etchant
`
`(O), and can result in a non-uniform etching profile as a result of “different etch
`
`rates along the r-direction of the substrate corresponding to different etchant
`
`species concentrations.” Id. at 4:2-6.
`
`54. The 849 Patent charts the concentration of the gas-phase etchant as a
`
`function of the substrate radius in the top graph of Figure 1A. It also illustrates the
`
`convex etching profile of the substrate film in Figure 1A (marked 27 below). Id. at
`
`3:66-4:9. The 849 Patent discloses that the etching profile “can be measured by
`
`22
`
`Ex.1003 p.22
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`conventional techniques” and can be used to derive “an etching rate constant.” Id.
`
`at 4:45-49.
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 1A.
`
`55. The etching rate constant is also described in the 849 Patent as the
`
`surface reaction rate constant, ks. The etch rate (ROS) is equal to this surface
`
`reaction rate constant multiplied by the concentration of the etchant species (no):
`
`ROS = (no) ks See id. at 7:15-21, 10:33-38. “From the concentration and the
`
`surface reaction rate, the particular etching step can be improved by way of
`
`adjusting selected etching parameters.” Id. at 7:22-24.
`
`56. The 849 Patent assumes that the gap above a substrate is sufficiently
`
`small relative to the radius of the substrate that concentration differences in this
`
`direction can be ignored. Id. at 3:34-38. This assumption allows for the
`
`transformation of the partial differential equations from the mathematical model
`
`and in their place use ordinary differential equations in which the only spatial
`
`coordinate is the radial position across the substrate. This transformation results in
`
`an equivalent volumetric reaction rate constant kvo.
`
`23
`
`Ex.1003 p.23
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`Declaration of Dr. Graves
`
`57. The 849 Patent provides examples of the solution of the mathematical
`
`model for the relationship between the relative etch rate, u(r) (in this example in
`
`cylindrical coordinates), and kvo/D where D is the diffusivity of the etchant:
`
`
`
`where IO is a “modified Bessel function of the first kind,” and “a is an outer radius
`
`(or edge) of the substrate.” Id. at 6:17-29. Different geometries result in different
`
`equations for u(r), but in all cases the mathematical solution relates a relative etch
`
`rate as a function of position across the substrate to kvo/D and the size of the
`
`substrate, here defined as the parameter a.
`
`58. The 849 Patent discloses one method to calculate the surface reaction
`
`rate constant, ks: (1) derive an “etch constant (or reaction rate constant) over
`
`diffusivity (kvo/D)”, (2) multiply that value by a calculated diffusivity (DAB) to
`
`derive a volumetric reaction rate constant (kvo), and (3) multiply the volumetric
`
`reaction rate constant by the gap between two substrates, (dgap) to determine a
`
`surface reaction rate constant (ks). Id. at 5:62-6:62, Fig. 3.
`
`59. The first step of this method calculates kvo/D. Id. “kvo is the volume
`
`equivalent surface reaction rate constant.” Id. at 12:8-9. In other words, this value
`
`is equivalent to the surface reaction rate for the volume above the substrate. While
`
`24
`
`Ex.1003 p.24
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. Unassign
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
