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
`_____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION
`
`AND GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2017-0406
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`_____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION
`
`AND GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2017-0406
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... iii
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Overview of the ‘849 Patent .................................................................. 1
`
`III. Alkire and Galewski Teach Away from
`Each Other and Teach Away from the ‘849 Patent ............................... 3
`IV. Alkire and Galewski, Alone or In Combination,
`Fail to Teach Elements of the ‘849 Patent ............................................. 7
`A. Claim Element [1.2] .................................................................... 7
`
`B. Claim Element [1.3] .................................................................... 8
`
`C. Claim 10 ...................................................................................... 11
`
`D. Claim 20 ...................................................................................... 12
`
`E. Claim 22 ...................................................................................... 13
`
`F. Claim 26 ...................................................................................... 14
`
`V. Dependent Claims ................................................................................. 15
`
`VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................... 16
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................................................................... 16
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 ............................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`VLSI Technology (S.M. Sze ed., 1983) (excerpts)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the co-inventor and sole owner of the U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,711,849 (“the ‘849 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 Petition relies primarily on a combination of papers written by Alkire
`and Galewski. Alkire relates specifically to a “mathematical model” formulated to
`analyze transient behavior during film removal for closely spaced wafers in a
`barrel plasma etching reactor. Alkire, however, even by the admission of
`Petitioners, lacks the basic elements of Dr. Flamm’s invention. To overcome the
`shortcomings of Alkire, Petitioners introduce Galewski. Galewski relates to
`modeling a hot wall silicon epitaxial reactor, which is in a completely different
`area of technology from either Alkire or the ‘849 patent. That said, Alkire and
`Galewski, even if combined, lack the basic elements of the ‘849 patent. In fact,
`those references teach away from each other and, more particularly, from the ‘849
`patent.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘849 Patent
`
`The Background of the Invention in the ‘849 patent states the problems Dr.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`Flamm faced:
`
` A limitation with the conventional plasma etching technique is
`obtaining and maintaining etching uniformity within selected
`predetermined limits. In fact, the conventional technique for
`obtaining and maintaining uniform etching relies upon a “trial and
`error” process. The trial and error process often cannot anticipate the
`effects of parameter changes necessary for actual wafer production.
`Accordingly,
`the conventional
`technique
`for obtaining and
`maintaining etching uniformity is often costly, laborious, and difficult
`to achieve.
`
` Another limitation with the conventional plasma etching technique
`is reaction rates between the etching species and the etched material
`are often not available. Accordingly, it is often impossible to
`anticipate actual etch rates from reaction rate constants since no
`accurate reaction rate constants are available. In fact, conventional
`techniques require the actual construction and operation of an etching
`apparatus to obtain accurate etch rates.
` Full-scale prototype
`equipment and the use of actual semiconductor wafers are often
`required, thereby being an expensive and time-consuming process.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:26-44.)
`
`Dr. Flamm’s solution to these problems is summarized in the first paragraph
`
`of the Summary of Invention:
`
`According to the present invention, a plasma etching method that
`includes determining a reaction rate coefficient based upon etch
`profile data is provided. The present plasma etching method provides
`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 by way of the etch profile
`data.
`
`(Id. at 1:51-57.)
`
`The “reaction rate coefficient” is a key factor in the “surface reaction rate
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`constant,” which appears in all claims of the ‘849 patent. That is, Dr. Flamm’s
`
`invention takes etch profile data from a non-uniform profile to determine a reaction
`
`rate coefficient, and using such reaction rate coefficient in the fabrication of a
`
`device to achieve a more uniform film on the device without mathematical
`
`modeling.
`
`III. Alkire and Galewski Teach Away from Each Other and
`Teach Away from the ‘849 Patent
`A PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine Alkire and
`Galewski as argued by Petitioners. In fact, Alkire and Galewski teach away from
`any combination with each other for the following reasons.
`First, Alkire provides a “mathematical model” for analyzing transient
`behavior during film removal from closely spaced wafers in a barrel plasma
`etching reactor, which is incompatible with the modeling of hot wall reactor for
`selective epitaxial growth of silicon taught by Galewski. In fact, Petitioners even
`admit that “Alkire provides a robust model for the reaction between a gas phase
`etchant and a substrate film, but that no experimental data to test and validate that
`model was provided.) (Pet. at 29; Ex. 1006 at p.1 (discussing the model of Alkire
`and recognizing that “only model results were given with no experimental data”).
`A PHOSITA would not have been motivated to improve the model disclosed in
`Alkire by using silicon deposition experimental data for epitaxial films given that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`silicon deposition experimental data are incompatible and would in no way be
`expected to relate to the plasma etching taught by Alkire.
`Second, a PHOSITA would never combine a mathematical model for
`analyzing transient behavior during film removal with the epitaxial film formation
`of silicon using hot wall reactor. Even if Galewski somehow could have been
`combined with Alkire, such combination, which would be incompatible, would not
`yield any predictable results. Galewski relates to growth of silicon epitaxial films
`in hot wall reactor, while Alkire relates to modeling transient behavior during film
`removal in a barrel plasma etching reactor. A PHOSITA would never combine
`modeling transient behavior during film removal in a barrel reactor of Alkire with
`the modeling of a hot wall reactor for selective epitaxial growth of silicon of
`Galewski.
`Third, Dr. Flamm never recognized, as asserted by Petitioners, that a
`PHOSITA would have understood that the mathematical models disclosed in the
`‘849 Patent apply equally to etching and deposition. (See Ex. 1001 at 17:1-7
`(describing the “present invention” in terms of generic “[g]as-surface radical
`reaction rates . . . for the design of plasma processing equipment”).) Petitioners’
`assertion is not shown or suggested by Dr. Flamm, and even Dr. Flamm himself is
`confused by Petitioners assertion in the present Petition.
`Fourth, Alkire and Galewski are both directed to completely different types
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`of reactors. Moreover, although Petitioners argue that Alkire teaches that similar
`reactors are used for the LPCVD process, such argument is illogical. In fact,
`Alkire’s sole words to that effect are: “Similar reactors are also used for LPCVD
`processes (4, 18).” (Ex. 1005 at 1.) Alkire was no PHOSITA in either field, and
`the purported similarity is superficial at best.
`The barrel etcher that was the subject of Alkire’s publication has radially
`opposing feed and pumping ports and an etch tunnel, which provide a relatively
`uniform concentration of etchant surrounding each individual wafer and relatively
`uniform temperature within the tunnel. A plasma discharge surrounds the tunnel.
`This stands in stark contrast to the longitudinal (axial) flow pattern and a zoned
`furnace surrounding the flow tube that is used to create a longitudinally (axial)
`decreasing temperature profile to compensate for depletion of feed gas as it is
`deposited on successive wafers while flowing along the tube. Silicon epitaxy is
`not performed using conventional LPCVD equipment because a far more stringent
`degree of purity and temperature uniformity control is necessary to obtain
`production worthy epitaxy. For that reason, epitaxy and CVD are often treated as
`separate subject matter. In fact, the book reference comprising the Chapter about
`LPCVD cited by Alkire has distinct chapters directed to “Epitaxy” and “Dielectric
`and Polysilicon Film Deposition.” (See VLSI Technology (S.M. Sze ed., 1983)
`(compare Chapter 1 by W. Pearce, Epitaxy with Chapter 3 by A.C. Adams,
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`Dielectric and Polysilicon Film Deposition), excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit
`2001.) The Alkire reference cites only the Dielectric and Polysilicon Film
`Deposition chapter. (Ex. 1009 at 9, n.4.)
`Alkire also recites that “a similar analysis can be applied to LPCVD
`processes.” (Ex. 1005 at 1, 4; see also Ex.1003 ¶122.) Such similar analysis for
`LPCVD is focused on purely a mathematical modeling approach, and not the use
`of any actual deposition data derived from LPCVD techniques. Thus, a PHOSITA
`would not have looked to Galewski to improve the theoretical model of Alkire, and
`would not have been motivated to apply the teachings of Galewski to Alkire,
`which are incompatible with each other.
`Fifth, and most convincingly, Alkire specifically teaches away from the ‘849
`patent. That is, Alkire specifically takes the position that “purely empirical
`programs of development can be time consuming,” but rather uses a pure
`mathematical model without actual etch profile data. (Ex. 1005 at 1.) The ‘849
`patent relies upon using actual etch profile data from a non-uniform profile to
`determine a reaction rate coefficient, and using such reaction rate coefficient in the
`fabrication of a device to achieve a more uniform film on the device without
`mathematical modeling. That is, the ‘849 patent relies upon purely empirical
`programs to improve the fabrication of a device, rather than the approach taken by
`Alkire.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`Finally, and conclusively, Petitioners heavily and improperly rely upon a
`passage in Alkire that states “A similar analysis can be applied to LPCVD
`processes” to suggest the combination of Alkire and Galewski.” (Pet. at 30-31
`(citing Ex. 1005 at 4).) This passage has been mischaracterized. A correct reading
`of the passage requires that such passage be limited to only the “events occurring
`in between the wafers.” (Ex. 1005 at 4.) The boundary conditions, as well as the
`analysis after this passage, focuses only on a mathematical model for transient
`etching of films, and therefore teaches away from any combination with Galewski.
`Petitioners clearly mischaracterize this passage. Given that they have taken this
`passage out of context, a PHOSITA would never combine Galewski and Alkire.
`Accordingly, a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine Alkire
`and Galewski as suggested by Petitioners.
`IV. Alkire and Galewski, Alone or In Combination,
`Fail to Teach Elements of the ‘849 Patent
`A. Claim Element [1.2]
`As denominated by Petitioners, claim element [1.2] reads:
`
`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
`
`(Pet. at 34.)
`Any combination of Alkire in view of Galewski did not disclose or suggest
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`this element. In particular, Alkire failed to disclose or suggest “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.” Alkire
`merely disclosed an equation for the “thickness of etchable material left at a certain
`location and time”: (Ex. 1005 at 2.) No etch rate data including the etch rate and
`spatial coordinate was disclosed by Alkire. Petitioners even admit that “Alkire
`does not explicitly disclose measuring the etch rate at any spatial coordinates.”
`(Pet. at 36.)
`Like Alkire, Galewski also fails to show or teach any etch rate data as
`claimed by Dr. Flamm, but rather discusses silicon based epitaxial film growth
`rates using LPCVD. A PHOSITA would never have used or even understood any
`way in which silicon based epitaxial film growth rates would be useful in
`connection with the mathematical model related to film removal in a barrel plasma
`etching reactor.
`Alone or in combination, neither Alkire nor Galewski shows or suggests
`“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” as claimed by the ‘849 Patent.
`B. Claim Element [1.3]
`As denominated by Petitioners, claim element [1.3] reads:
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`extracting a surface reaction rate constant from said etch rate data, and
`using said surface reaction rate constant in the fabrication of a device
`(Pet. at 39.)
`Neither Alkire, Galewski, nor any combination thereof shows or suggests
`this element. Each of Alkire or Galewski is silent on extracting a surface reaction
`rate constant from the etch rate data, and using the surface reaction rate constant in
`the fabrication of a device.
`First, Alkire in view of Galewski failed to disclose “extracting a surface
`reaction rate constant from said etch rate data.” Neither Alkire nor Galewski
`disclose or suggest any etch rate data. At most, Alkire disclosed a purely
`mathematical model for etching without any empirical data, while Galewski
`disclosed deposition rates, which are not etch rate data.
`Petitioners rely upon a long, complex, and seemingly unintelligible
`argument to show this element. (Pet. at 39-46.) That said, a PHOSITA would not
`be able to understand such argument, or come to any conclusion that element [1.3]
`was taught by the mathematical model for etching by Alkire and in view of
`Galewski’s article concerning epitaxial growth. Petitioners even admit that the
`“surface-rate constant for deposition of Galewski differs from the claimed surface
`reaction rate constant only in that Galewski is directed to chemical vapor
`deposition and the claimed surface reaction rate constant is directed to plasma
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`etching.” (Pet at 41.) Although it can be said that silicon epitaxy is a form of
`chemical vapor deposition, a PHOSITA would recognize that the requirements and
`techniques for these fields of art were different because epitaxial growth requires
`extending the crystalline lattice of an underlying substrate whose success depends
`on exceptional purity of both the substrate and gaseous environment, as well as
`high uniformity, and precise sequencing of environmental parameters and
`composition. PHOSITA would not have recognized that the surface-rate constants
`of Alkire and Galewski model the same temperature-dependent reaction rate
`constant as in the 849 Patent.
`Petitioners continue to misleadingly rely upon the passage that the same
`modeling applies to both plasma etching in a barrel etcher and to the LPCVD
`deposition process in Alkire, which has been taken out of context. (Ex.1005 at 4.)
`A PHOSITA, would not have been motivated to use, and would not have
`recognized any obvious way to use, the teaching of Galewski of extracting the
`surface reaction rate constant from the empirical data (as described below) to
`improve the theoretical model of Alkire through testing and validation.
`Even assuming arguendo that Petitioners’ arguments made any sense, which
`seems unlikely, Galewski taught in “our model it will be assumed that a uniform
`concentration in the annular region supplies the gaseous reactant for each wafer.”
`(Ex. 1007 at 2.) Petitioners further emphasize that a “uniform annular
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`concentration of reactant” is assumed. (Id. at 2, Fig. 2.) Hence, Galewski solves
`his ks for the spacing between the wafers, and normalizes the dimensions in the
`radial direction. Accordingly, Galewski is therefore irrelevant for Flamm’s
`invention since Galewski is (1) modeling deposition of silicon epitaxial films in
`hot wall reactor; and (2) modeling the deposition of silicon epitaxial films based
`upon the spacing between the wafers.
`Accordingly, even if Alkire and Galewski are combined, the combination
`still fails to teach all of the elements claimed by the ‘849 patent.
`C. Claim 10
`Claim 10 is not obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski.
`The preamble of claim 10
`reads: “A method of designing a reactor
`
`comprising the steps of . . . .” (Pet. at 47.) Claim elements [10.2] and [10.3] read,
`in pertinent part:
`
`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 film of said substrate,
`said etching comprising a reaction between a gas phase etchant and
`said film; and
`
`extracting a surface reaction rate constant from said etch rate data, and
`using said surface reaction rate constant in designing a second plasma
`etching apparatus.
`(Pet. at 48.)
`
`As discussed above, Alkire does not show or suggest defining etch rate data,
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`and even Petitioners admit that Alkire lacks this element of the invention.
`
`Likewise, Galewski does not disclose any etch rate data, as claimed, and teaches
`
`away from any combination with Alkire, and the invention itself.
`
`Thus, Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose these elements, and the
`
`invention of claim 10.
`D. Claim 20
`Claim 20 is also not obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski.
`
`The preamble to claim 20 reads: “A substrate fabrication method, using a
`
`plasma etching apparatus, said method comprising . . . .” (Pet. at 49.) Claim
`
`element [20.3] reads:
`
`etching said top film surface to define a relatively non-uniform 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 of said film on said substrate, said etching
`comprising a reaction between a gas phase etchant and said film; and
`
`(Pet. at 51.)
`
`As discussed above, Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose this
`
`element.
`
`Claim element [20.4] reads: “extracting a surface reaction rate constant from
`
`said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate constant.” (Id.) Alkire in
`
`view of Galewski also does not disclose this element. As described above, Alkire
`
`in view of Galewski does not discloses “extracting a surface reaction rate constant
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`from said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate constant” in the
`
`fabrication of a device above, and in the design of a second plasma etching reactor.
`
`Thus, Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose the elements of claim 20.
`E. Claim 22
`Claim 22 is similarly not obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski.
`
`The preamble of claim 22 reads: “A method of fabricating an integrated
`
`circuit device, using a plasma etching apparatus, said method comprising . . . .”
`
`(Pet. at 52.) Claim element [22.2] reads: “defining etching parameters providing
`
`said uniformity value . . . .” (Pet. at 53.) Alkire in view of Galewski does not
`
`disclose this element.
`
`In Figure 10, Galewski merely discloses the relationship between reaction
`
`parameters (temperature, pressure, and spacing) that will produce a uniformity
`
`value of 98% for silicon based epitaxial films, which are not etching parameters as
`
`claimed. Alkire also does not show or suggest any etching parameters (or etching
`
`data), as even the Petitioners admit.
`
`Thus, Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose this element.
`
`Further, claim elements [22.3] and [22.4] read:
`
`adjusting at least one of said etching parameters using said surface
`reaction rate constant to produce a selected etching rate;
`
`wherein said etching rate providing an etching condition for
`fabrication of an integrated circuit device.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`(Pet. at 54, 57.)
`
`Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose these elements. In addition to
`
`the arguments presented above, Alkire merely discloses that by using his model,
`
`“the effect of process parameters . . . on etch uniformity, overetch exposure, and
`
`total etch time can be determined,” while failing to show or suggest adjusting one
`
`of the parameters using the surface reaction rate to produce a selected etching rate.
`
`(Ex.1005 at p.3.) In particular, Alkire does not show or suggest adjusting any
`
`etching parameter or disclose any selected etching rate as claimed in Dr. Flamm’s
`
`invention. Galewski suffers from additional deficiencies, e.g., not showing or
`
`suggesting any etching parameters or producing a selected etch rate, but rather
`
`disclosing silicon based epitaxial films from a hot wall silicon epitaxial reactor,
`
`which is irrelevant. Additionally, neither Alkire nor Galewski show or suggest that
`
`the etching rate provides an etching condition for fabrication of an integrated
`
`circuit device. Each of these references is silent on the point and, in fact, Galewski
`
`teaches fabrication of epitaxial silicon films using hot wall reactors, rather than any
`
`etching process as claimed.
`F. Claim 26
`Claim 26 is also not obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski. The preamble
`
`of claim 26 reads:
`
`A process for fabricating a device using a plasma etching apparatus,
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`said device being fabricated by use of a surface reaction rate constant,
`said surface reaction rate constant being derived from a method
`comprising . . . .
`
`(Pet. at 57.) In turn, claim elements [26.2] and [26.3] read:
`
`“etching said top surface at a temperature 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 defined a
`position from said relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film
`of said substrate, said etching comprising a reaction between a gas
`phase etchant and said film; and”
`
`extracting from said etching rate data a surface reaction rate constant
`for said temperature.
`
`(Pet. at 58-59.)
`
`Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose these elements. As discussed
`
`above, Alkire does not show or suggest defining etch rate data, and Petitioners
`
`even admit that Alkire lacks this element of the invention. Likewise, Galewski
`
`does not disclose any extracting from the etch rate data a surface reaction rate
`
`constant for the temperature, as claimed, and, in fact, teaches away from any
`
`combination with Alkire, and the invention itself.
`
`Thus, Alkire in view of Galewski does not disclose these elements of claim
`
`26.
`
`V. Dependent Claims
`As shown above, Petitioners fail to show any basis to invalidate independent
`claims 1, 10, 20, 22 or 26. As a matter of law, the petition should also be denied as
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`to all of the claims that depend from that claims. Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic
`
`Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 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))).
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`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 3,555, 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. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`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. 5,711,849
`IPR2017-00406
`
`
`
`
`
`Jared Bobrow
`Jared.bobrow@weil.com
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Jason.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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
