`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., MICRON
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 7, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. JASON LANG, ESQUIRE
`JARED BOBROW, ESQUIRE
`ROBERT S. MAGEE, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134
`and
`
`CHAD S. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
`JONATHAN L. McFARLAND, ESQUIRE
`TYLER R. BOWEN, ESQUIRE
`Perkins Coie
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`
`and
`
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQUIRE
`CHETAN BANSAL, ESQUIRE
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`875 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`and
`
`DAVID M. TENNANT, ESQUIRE
`NATHAN ZHANG, ESQUIRE
`JASON XU, ESQUIRE
`White & Case, LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3807
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JUSTIN J. LESKO, ESQUIRE
`Steven G. Lisa, Ltd.
`55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`and
`
`
`ROLF O. STADHEIM, ESQUIRE
`Stadheim & Grear, Ltd.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`March 7, 2018, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Good morning, everyone. So today we
`have oral hearing in seven related inter partes review trials. I'll list the
`case numbers, IPR2017-00279, 280, 281, 282, 391, 392 and 406,
`involving three patents for which Daniel Flamm is the Patent Owner.
`Intel, Global Foundries and Micron are the original Petitioners, and then I
`have Samsung Electronics being added -- joined as a Petitioner in seven
`other cases. I'm not going to list the case numbers for all of those.
`So I'm Judge Crumbley. To my right is Judge Kokoski and to
`my left is Judge McGraw. Let's get the parties' appearances, starting with
`Patent Owner.
`MR. LESKO: Lead counsel for the Patent Owner, Justin
`Lesko. And with me I have Rolf Stadheim.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Who do we have for the Petitioners?
`MR. McFARLAND: Lead counsel for the Intel Petitioners.
`And with me is my partner, Chad Campbell.
`MR. LANG: Lead counsel for Micron, Jason Lang. With me is
`Jared Bobrow.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Anyone else for the Petitioners want to
`make an appearance?
`MR. MODI: Good morning, Your Honors. Naveen Modi on
`behalf of Samsung. And with me I have Chetan Bansal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`MR. TENNANT: David Tennant from White & Case for
`GlobalFoundries. With me, Nathan Zhang and Jason Xu.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Some of you are probably going to
`have to tell the reporter after the fact your names because we don't have
`microphones back there. So I assume that you have all agreed amongst
`yourselves who is making the presentation today. Is it you, Mr.
`Campbell?
`MR. CAMPBELL: It is, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Are you arguing all of the cases?
`MR. CAMPBELL: No, just the ones directed to the '264
`
`patent.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And then who are we going to hear
`from for the other topics?
`MR. LANG: Your Honor, Jason Lang from Micron for the '221
`
`patent.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Very good.
`MR. BOBROW: And Jared Bobrow, and I'll be addressing the
`remaining patent, the '849 patent.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. It's good to have everyone here.
`We put the procedure in our hearing order, but just so we are all on the
`same page, let's just run through it real quick. So the 279 through 282
`cases all involve the reissued '264 patent. So we are going to argue those
`together. I think it makes sense to do that. So we gave 45 minutes total
`argument time per each side on those four cases. You can allocate those
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`minutes among the cases as you wish. We are not going to break up the
`transcript in between the cases. We'll just submit a single transcript into
`all four cases.
`Petitioner has the burden, so will argue first. You can reserve
`time for rebuttal. Unless you have a good reason, I don't want to reserve
`more than half your total time for rebuttal. And then, of course, we'll
`hear from the Patent Owner followed by rebuttal from the Petitioner.
`That should take us close to lunch depending on how many questions we
`have. So then we'll probably take about an hour recess, come back after
`lunch and have the remaining cases. I think we are going to go with the
`391 case first. We have 20 minutes per side for that case. And then we'll
`take up the 392 and 406 cases, and that's 30 minutes per side.
`I have demonstrative exhibits from the Petitioners. We have
`copies of those, but when we get to them, you are welcome to give us the
`hard copies as well. I didn't see any demonstratives from the Patent
`Owner.
`
`MR. LESKO: That's correct.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And I didn't see any objections to the
`Petitioner's demonstratives.
`MR. LESKO: That's also correct.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. Well, with all of that out of the
`way, are there any questions from the parties before we get started? All
`right. We'll begin. Mr. Campbell, do you want to reserve some time?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, ten minutes for rebuttal. And if we
`could hand up the hard copies.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Sure.
`MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Your Honors. Thank you
`for making time. I'll be addressing the four Petitions that are directed to
`the reissued '264 patent. I would like to begin at slide number 49 and just
`speak briefly in an organizational way about what is before the Board and
`maybe what has been conceded or at least not contested specifically.
`There are 59 claims in the '264 patent, 6 independent claims and 53
`dependent claims. Of those 53, 44 of them were not separately contested
`in the papers.
`If we can go to the next slide, please, so I'm going to be
`focusing today on the six independent claims which are highlighted in
`dark blue here and some of the dependent claims.
`Next slide, although there are comments in the papers about
`nine of the dependent claims, several of them are not contested with
`respect to all of the grounds. So for example, claims 15, 19 and 20 and
`57 were contested with respect to one of the grounds but not the other.
`Next slide, please, on 52. For three of the claims there were
`arguments that were presented but not really addressing the prior art
`merits of the Petitioner's arguments. Claim 33, there was a suggestion of
`a limitation called a remote plasma limitation that simply doesn't exist in
`the claim.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Thirty-three is not an issue in the 279
`case; is that right?
`MR. CAMPBELL: It is not at issue in the 279 case, but it was
`addressed in the opposition paper in the 279 case. So that's why we
`talked about it.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: I understand that. I'm just making sure
`I didn't miss something.
`MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. It is at issue in the 281 case. Then
`with respect to claims 47 and 48, there was no substantive argument.
`There was a procedural argument that was made. That leaves us with, if I
`could go to the next slide, dependent claim 17 and 63, both of which
`introduce a radiation limitation into the independent claim from which
`they depend.
`One other organizational item that sweeps across all of the
`Petitions that I would like to address before getting underway with the
`specific grounds is the Matsumura reference. If I could go to slide 3,
`please, a central teaching of the '264 patent that sweeps across all of the
`claims and all of the Petitions and all of the grounds that have been
`presented to the Board is this idea that we are talking about multi
`temperature processing in a semiconductor tool, so there will necessarily
`be a change in the temperature. That change needs to happen a within a
`preselected time. So the idea that you have got specific temperatures, a
`change that happens and the change being accomplished within a
`preselected time is the central idea behind the patent.
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`Next slide, please. That concept is taught in Figure 10 of the
`'264 patent, which is on the left-hand side of this slide. And again, we
`have different temperatures and then changes in the temperatures. Those
`changes are happening over a regulated time interval.
`The Matsumura reference, which is on the right-hand side of
`this slide, teaches that principle. We have what the Matsumura patent
`calls a thermal history curve which is simply the path that the
`temperature travels during the processing run. And as the patent teaches,
`each point along the way, both the points where the temperature reaches
`and holds for a bit while the processing happens and the changes are
`regulated and happening according to a preselected schedule.
`So we can see in the slide here that point P11, for example,
`P14, P17 and P18, those are points along the change portion of the curve,
`and they are input as time and temperature dependencies in a table into a
`CPU that controls and regulates that function. So we have preselected
`time periods over which these temperatures are changing in Matsumura.
`The next slide, please. Critically, Matsumura teaches that its
`technique applies broadly to semiconductor processing. It talks about
`using it for CVD, a deposition process. It talks about using it for etching
`or another type of etching subspecies called ashing. And all of these are
`relevant to the prior art pieces that we have -- the other prior art
`references that we have submitted to the Board.
`Matsumura teaches that the purpose or the advantage of using
`this the approach of controlling the time over which temperatures change
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`is that you end up with an accurate process run. It is the accurate control
`of the thermal history curve that Matsumura says leads to enhanced
`reliability because you are doing things the same over and over again in a
`manufacturing context. That enhances the quality. So we start by
`controlling the time change, preselecting it, having it run on a schedule.
`That leads to accuracy which enhances the reliability because the process
`is repeatable and doesn't bury, and that leads to greater quality and
`throughput.
`If I could have the next slide, during the briefing there was a
`concession that we would like to draw the Board's attention to. Although
`we are pointing to the 280 Patent Owner Response here, there are similar
`statements and arguments that are made in the other papers as well.
`Dr. Flamm argued that the idea of Matsumura using a CPU in a recipe to
`improve the control of the temperature and the other points that we had
`made, he called it a vacuous incantation.
`We actually don't think it's vacuous. We think it's very
`important, and it highlights the idea that this type of automation, as
`Dr. Flamm admits, was common knowledge and its implementation and
`production-worthy processing equipment was pervasive and obvious.
`We agree with that. It was pervasive and obvious. And each of the
`references that we had presented to be combined with Matsumura would
`have been obvious for a person of skill to pursue.
`I would like to turn next to Petition number 1 --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: What slide was that? You might have
`said it, but for the record.
`MR. CAMPBELL: That was slide number 6.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And we usually -- I didn't do it and I
`probably should have -- just remind everyone when you make your
`presentations, the transcript is always a lot clearer if you put the slide
`number in there as well.
`MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Your Honor. Next, slide 9. So
`ground number 1 for the first Petition, which is about independent claim
`13 and its dependents, is focused on the Muller reference in combination
`with Matsumura and then in combination with two other references,
`Anderson and Hinman.
`Muller was an etching tool where the patent taught that you
`could gain an advantage by using different temperatures to form different
`slopes or shapes of the etching profile. If you were etching at a cooler --
`relatively cooler temperature, you would end up with sloped side walls.
`If you were etching at a higher temperature, you would have more
`vertical side walls. And switching back and forth between the process
`run to contour or shape, the etching profile was the idea behind Muller.
`It accomplished that using a chuck that was heated and that had a cathode
`that was cool and then a region where gas pressure could be increased or
`decreased to rapidly cause the temperature to go up or down. And it
`applied not only to the deep silicon trenches that the Patent Owner has
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`focused on. It also applied to regular mask and silicon dioxide or
`insulating layer openings, contact holes that could be shaped in this way.
`Now, it would have been obvious to combine Matsumura with
`Muller because you have got in Muller the need to change temperatures
`during the course of a process run in order to come up with these precise
`contour shapes and the advantages that Matsumura taught by having
`preselected time and programmed recipes would be naturally realized in
`Muller's tool.
`If I could have slide 11 next, please. Importantly, the Patent
`Owner Response does not really dispute with respect to the Muller and
`Matsumura combination, the idea that those two would be obvious to put
`together. There is one other piece of Matsumura that we combine, that
`we suggest combining with Muller. And that is the sensor that's
`embedded into the stage or the substrate holder to measure temperature in
`that area of the tool. Matsumura had that, and we have presented
`evidence and there's been no contrary argument that that would have
`been an obvious feature to combine with Muller.
`That takes us then to the real contest, slide 12, which is the
`limitation that refers to selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder
`for a selected predetermined temperature change within a specific
`interval of time.
`In the Institution Decision, the Board provided a construction,
`adopted a construction for institution that suggests that that limitation
`requires selecting the thermal mass so that you are either selecting the
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`material or the mass of the substrate holder or both in order to effect a
`temperature change, a selected first temperature to a selected second
`temperature within a specific time period. So this idea of picking thermal
`mass in order to effect that temperature change on a schedule is the point
`of the construction, we would submit.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Counsel, so we have struggled with this
`limitation for a while. And you know, I mean, obviously this was your
`language and the Patent Owner didn't provide a separate construction, so
`we adopted it for the Institution Decision.
`So the way I understand this patent, it's about rate of change of
`temperature, right? Change of temperature over a certain amount over a
`certain period of time, well, that's rate. So it's all about effecting the rate
`of the change, and these claims that are in the 279 use thermal mass to do
`that. Does the specification talk anywhere about how that happens, how
`you use thermal mass to effect the rate of change of temperature?
`MR. CAMPBELL: Actually, no, it does not, Your Honor. It
`talks in general terms in the place where the invention is introduced at the
`beginning of the patent and also in the abstract that you would pay
`attention to thermal mass in order to cause that to happen. But in terms
`of a sort of detailed step-by-step process where you would actually do the
`math and input the math into the design, those points aren't discussed in
`the patent. The closest that we get, if I could go to slide 14, is this idea
`here. On the right-hand side of this slide is Figure 6 from the '264 patent.
`It's sort of a sideways view of the substrate holder, so the wafer or the
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`substrate would rest on the top on the surface that's labeled 601. And the
`patent does teach for that one, for 601 you would want to use a low
`thermal mass. It doesn't say how low, but it talks about having a low
`thermal mass so that you would have high heat conductivity and that
`would be beneficial. But beyond that there aren't any other details.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: How is thermal mass related to rate of
`temperature change? How does one affect the other?
`MR. CAMPBELL: So actually Anderson actually has some
`teachings about that. And Anderson is on the left-hand side of this slide.
`It was a rapid temperature response wafer chuck where you had sort of a
`metal chuck and then you had a heater that was part of it on top. And
`what Anderson, if I could go to slide 13, what Anderson taught was that
`the stuff that was touching the wafer, the insulation around the heater
`element was something to pay attention to. And they talked about using
`a cermet material, which is a combination of ceramic and metal, because
`it readily transfers heat. So by hastening the transfer of heat from the
`heater into the substrate, you could accelerate the heating process. And
`there by being very careful, as Anderson teaches about which material
`and how much you use, you could get the heat to migrate up into the
`wafer more quickly. And that was a point that Anderson was teaching to
`do for both etching and deposition.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So I think you are hinting around
`where I was going with this question, which is that there are other things
`that affect rate of temperature change besides thermal mass.
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`
`MR. CAMPBELL: Absolutely.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So thermal conductivity of the
`insulating layer will change the rate of temperature change of the wafer.
`MR. CAMPBELL: And we would submit that that thermal
`conductivity is tightly coupled to the thermal mass because thermal mass
`is the amount and the specific heat. So that thermal conductivity
`property is related to the specific heat.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So thermal mass is the amount of heat
`that you need to effect a certain degree temperature change, but it doesn't
`tell you anything about that rate until you know how much heat you are
`putting in, right? So I could have a very high thermal mass and still
`make a quick temperature change if I just give it a ton of heat?
`MR. CAMPBELL: That is true. Those are all related to each
`
`other.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: But the patent doesn't tell me anything
`about the amount of heat. I guess my point is, how do I select a thermal
`mass to effect a rate of temperature change if the amount of heat applied
`is undefined?
`MR. CAMPBELL: So at some point, if you are building a tool
`and you are coming up with recipes, the way in which you are going to
`interact with the substrate has to be -- it has to be fixed and decided. This
`thermal mass limitation is one of the variables that goes into that. So
`whether it comes first in the process or second in the process, at some
`point those parameters need to be nailed down, and the variability of the
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`thermal mass, the idea that's claimed here is that that variability is
`something that you would want to pay attention to.
`A couple of other points. If I could go to slide 15, the evidence
`in the record teaches that with respect to Anderson, that top heater layer
`is the point where we are focusing -- just like in the '264 patent, you are
`focusing on that upper layer because that's the thermal mass that matters
`most. It predominates in terms of the heat transferability of the apparatus
`into the substrate.
`We submit that the record is clear that you would combine, that
`you would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anderson with
`Matsumura. If I could go to slide 16, it would be natural to do. In the
`Muller tool you have got a chuck where the idea is you are using that
`chuck in order to effect a temperature change quickly. Anderson teaches
`that by paying attention to the thermal mass of the material right
`underneath the wafer, you could help that happen even faster. The two
`naturally work together.
`Now, we would submit that with the knowledge of those of
`skill in the art, with the combination of Muller, Matsumura, which gives
`us the selected time periods, and Anderson, that claim 13 is obvious. We
`didn't stop there, but we would submit that that's enough to get us to
`obviousness for the teachings that are claimed in the '264 patent.
`I would like now to go ahead, though, and address Hinman, if I
`could. At slide 18 we've got a passage from Dr. Bravman's Declaration
`which talks about the general knowledge of the field in the art and the
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`fact that in lots of different fields, material science, physics, chemistry,
`this idea of understanding the thermal mass of an object and how to get to
`the calculation of it is well understood.
`Hinman, slide 19, provides a specific example of using simple
`math equations to use the specific heat, the amount of the material,
`multiply them together to get to a thermal mass that is then used in a tool.
`It isn't a semiconductor tool, but it's used in a tool in order to accomplish
`a very specific temperature change. You have got one range to another
`within 20 to 40 seconds. So this is an example of the idea that's claimed
`in the '264 patent.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So as I understand it, Hinman is
`slightly different in its use of thermal mass than what the patent is doing
`because Hinman is about you heat the ring and then you use the ring as
`basically stored heat to heat a chemical analyte. Am I understanding that
`correctly?
`MR. CAMPBELL: So Hinman does have that ring, and it
`suggests a ratio of thermal masses.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Right. But the rate of temperature
`change that Hinman talks about is not the rate of temperature change of
`the ring, of the thing with the thermal mass. It's the rate of temperature
`change of the analyte.
`MR. CAMPBELL: I would agree that it's not a change for the
`ring, but when we go to thermal mass, actually, Hinman talks about the
`ratio between the ring and the liquid, which is the thing that's heated. So
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`we are paying attention to thermal mass in that sense in an analogous
`way.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay.
`MR. CAMPBELL: And there have been some arguments in the
`papers about why Hinman just shouldn't count. There's been a
`suggestion that it's not analogous art. If I could go to slide 24, we would
`submit that if we applied the teaching and the standard that governs, as
`the Federal Circuit has set out, that Hinman easily qualifies. It's a fact
`question. And it depends upon the circumstances. It depends upon how
`close the specific problem that the patent is trying to solve is to whatever
`the prior art reference is trying to solve.
`And we think that the Board got it right in the institution
`decision. If I could go to slide 25, the prior art plainly teaches that there
`is a linkage between the control of the substrate holder temperature and
`the throughput of the etching process. That linkage is what would cause
`a person of ordinary skill in the art to think about Hinman as pertinent to
`the problem. It's the exact same problem that the patent was trying to
`solve. And Anderson's disclosure of thermal masses being specifically
`relevant to the substrate holder temperature change and doing that in a
`desirable amount of time, we think, qualifies this as analogous art and
`therefore, something that can be combined.
`The other arguments that were suggested about Hinman really
`are beside the point. There was an argument that you couldn't use the
`heater ring in these tools. We've never argued that. It's the teaching
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`about thermal mass that we've argued. There was also an argument about
`Hinman and Anderson not teaching multiple temperatures. Well, we
`don't rely on those references for those. That's Muller and Matsumura.
`So those arguments really are beside the point. And we think once we
`get past this analogous art argument that claim 13 falls.
`I would like to turn briefly to claim 17, which is a dependent
`claim, to clear up some potential confusion in the papers. The Patent
`Owner Response suggests that we are relying on an embodiment from
`Kikuchi that has a hotplate and pins that come up and down to move the
`wafer away from the hotplate. We are not relying on that embodiment
`for claim 17. It is the prior art figure, claim 1, which simply shows and
`illustrates the practice of using a heat lamp, which is radiation, to heat the
`chuck. And we've submitted to the Board evidence that it was known in
`the art to combine the idea of having a heated substrate holder and a heat
`lamp, both of them together, as shown in the Gat patent. This is at slide
`27. Those two things go together and have for a very long time. And
`there isn't a reason why if you wanted to have the flexibility and the extra
`ability to heat in a hurry, you wouldn't use the heat lamp as shown in
`Kikuchi with the Muller tool.
`I would like to turn briefly to claims 19 and 20. These are
`dependent claims. If I could go to slide 29, the idea of claim 19 is that
`when we have a substrate holder temperature and a wafer temperature,
`we are going to have those -- have a known relationship with each other
`as we are doing the temperature changes. And then claim 20 suggests
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`00282 (Patent RE40,264 E);
`Case IPR2017-00391 (Patent 6,017,221); and
`Cases IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406 (Patent 5,711,849)
`
`that that known relationship would be about a degree, one degree
`centigrade as a range.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: We didn't construe or even really
`examine this term "known relationship" in the institution decision. Does
`the specification give us -- do we need to construe it? Do we need an
`explicit construction of this phrase? Does the specification talk about
`what a known relationship is?
`MR. CAMPBELL: It does not, Your Honor, and we don't think
`that there needs to be anything more than just a plain meaning application
`of the words. Wright is a reference that goes back a long ways, and it
`shows the idea of taking a sensor for the wafer and a sensor for the
`chuck, tracking both temperatures. And once you know both of those,
`you understand what the relationship is because you have got the data for
`both and you can track it. That's what the Wright experiments were all
`about.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: But Wright also shows that the wafer
`temperature varies, oscillates, while the chuck temperature stays fairly
`constant.
`MR. CAMPBELL: Let me address that. And if I could go to
`the next slide, slide number 30, this is one of the figures that I think the
`Board is speaking about. We don't rely on Wright for the idea of varied
`temperatures during a processing run. There isn't any discussion in the
`patent about the reality of what happens in a plasma tool. There's a lot
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
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
