Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 9, 2017
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 9, 2017
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Micron Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,711,849 (“the ’849 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1. Daniel L. Flamm
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 9.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at
`least claim 1 of the ’849 patent. As such, we exercise our discretion to have
`the review proceed on all the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute
`an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of the ’849 patent.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties indicate that the ’849 patent is at issue in five related
`patent infringement actions. Pet. 4; Paper 7, 2. The ’849 patent previously
`was the subject of IPR2016-00466 (filed by Lam Research Corp., institution
`denied on July 19, 2016), and currently is the subject of IPR2017-00392,
`also filed by Petitioner. Pet. 5.
`The ’849 Patent
`B.
`The ’849 patent, titled “Process Optimization in Gas Phase Dry
`Etching,” is directed to “a plasma etching method that includes determining
`a reaction rate coefficient based upon etch profile data.” Ex. 1001, 1:51–53.
`The method “includes steps of providing a plasma etching apparatus having
`a substrate therein[,]” where the substrate has a film overlaying the top
`surface, and the film has a top film surface. Id. at 1:59–63. It “also includes
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`chemically etching the top film surface to define an etching profile on the
`film, and defining etch rate data which includes an etch rate and a spatial
`coordinate from the etching profile.” Id. at 1:63–67. Steps of extracting a
`reaction rate constant from the etch rate data, and using the reaction rate
`constant to adjust the plasma etching apparatus are also described. Id. at
`1:67–2:2. According to the ’849 patent, the 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 1:53–57.
`Figure 1A of the ’849 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1A is an example of an etched substrate. Id. at 3:66–67. Substrate 21
`includes bottom surface 23, sides 25, and top surface film 27, and is defined
`in spatial coordinates z and r. Id. at 3:67–4:2. “[T]op surface film [27]
`includes a convex region, or etching profile.” Id. at 4:3–4. “The etching
`profile occurs by way of different etch rates along the r-direction of
`[substrate 21], corresponding to different etchant species concentrations.”
`Id. at 4:4–6. Concentration profile no(r,z) shows that “the greatest
`concentration of reactant species exists at the outer periphery of [] top
`surface film [27].” Id. at 4:6–9.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`The ’849 patent describes an embodiment of a method of extracting
`an etch rate constant in which a substrate with an overlying film is placed
`into a plasma etching apparatus, and the plasma etching step occurs at
`constant pressure, and, preferably, isothermally. Id. at 5:11–19. Plasma
`etching of the film stops before etching into an etch stop layer underneath
`the overlying film “in order to define a ‘clean’ etching profile.” Id. at 5:24–
`26. The plasma etching step produces an etching profile, which “converts
`into a relative etch rate, relative concentration ratio, a relative etch depth and
`the like at selected spatial coordinates.” Id. at 5:28–32.
`Using x-y-z coordinates, the relative etch rate is in the z-direction, and
`x-y are the spatial coordinates. Id. at 5:38–40. “The etching profile is
`thereby characterized as a relative etch rate u, [an] x-location, and a y-
`location u, (x, y),” and an array of data points in the x-y coordinates define
`the etching profile. Id. at 5:40–41, 45–47. An etch constant over diffusivity
`(kvo/D) and an etch rate at the substrate edge is then calculated, where “[t]he
`etch constant over diffusivity correlates with data points representing the
`etch rate profile.” Id. at 5:62–65. After the etch rate constant kvo is
`extracted, the surface reaction rate constant ks can be determined using the
`formula ks = (kvo)dgap, where dgap is the space above the substrate, between
`the substrate and the adjacent substrate. Id. at 3:35–36, 6:58–62, 9:27–29,
`Fig 7.
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–29 of the ’849 patent. Claims 1, 10,
`20, 22, and 26 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`1.
`
`A device fabrication method comprising the steps
`
`Exhibit No.
`1007
`
`of:
`providing a 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;
`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
`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, 17:35–50.
`The Prior Art
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Description
`Date
`Modeling of a High
`Galewski
`Aug. 1992
`Throughput Hot-Wall
`Reactor for Selective
`Epitaxial Growth of Silicon,
`IEEE Transaction on
`Semiconductor
`Manufacturing, Vol. 5, No.
`3 (1992) 169–179
`Transient Behavior during
`Film Removal in Diffusion-
`Controlled Plasma Etching,
`J. Electrochem. Soc.: Solid-
`State Science and
`Technology, Vol. 132, No.
`3 (1985) 648–656
`
`Alkire
`
`March 1985
`
`1005
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–29 of
`the ’849 patent on the following ground:
`Challenged Claims
`References
`Basis
`Alkire and Galewski
`§ 103(a) 1–29
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`The’849 patent has expired. Ex. 1001 at [22] (application filed May
`3, 1995); see Pet. 15. For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim
`interpretation is similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention, and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we
`determine that it is necessary to address the interpretation of the claim term
`“surface reaction rate constant” as set forth in claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 20, 22, 26,
`27, and 29.
`“surface reaction rate constant”
`1.
`Petitioner contends that the term “surface reaction rate constant”
`should be interpreted to mean “a temperature-dependent reaction rate
`constant for the chemical reaction between a gas phase etchant and the
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`surface of an etchable material.” Pet. 16. In support of its contention,
`Petitioner notes that the Specification “refers to the term ‘surface reaction
`rate constant’ solely as the constant labeled ks,” and contends that the
`Specification “teaches that ks is a temperature dependent quantity that relates
`the etching rate to the ‘concentration [of gas phase etchant] above an
`etchable material film surface.” Id. at 16–17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:33–35).
`According to Petitioner, “[t]he concentration of the gas phase etchant in
`conjunction with the etch rate provides the reaction rate of the chemical
`reaction,” and, therefore, “ks, which is temperature dependent, is the
`constant for the reaction rate for the chemical reaction of the gas-phase
`etchant and surface material.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner does not address the
`interpretation of any of the recited claim terms.
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`interpretation is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`“surface reaction rate constant” as would be understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and in the context of the
`entire patent disclosure. Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is also
`consistent with the ’849 patent’s prosecution history, where, as Petitioner
`notes, the applicant “defined the surface reaction rate constant as a
`temperature dependent quantity relating to the chemical reaction between a
`gas phase etchant and the surface of an etchable film.” Pet. 17; see also
`Ex. 1002, 1101 (“The surface reaction rate constant, however, depends
`predominantly upon temperature, as defined throughout the present patent
`specification, but notably by the equation at page 11 line 16.”).
`
`
`1 The cited page numbers in Ex. 1002 refer to the numbers added by
`Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the page.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we interpret “surface
`reaction rate constant” to mean “a temperature-dependent reaction rate
`constant for the chemical reaction between a gas phase etchant and the
`surface of an etchable material.”
`B.
`Obviousness over Alkire and Galewski
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–29 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over the
`combined teachings of Alkire and Galewski. Pet. 29–79. Petitioner relies
`on the Declaration of David B. Graves (“the Graves Declaration,” Ex. 1003)
`in support of its contentions. Id.
`Overview of Alkire
`1.
`Alkire is directed to the formulation of a mathematical model “to
`analyze transient behavior during film removal from closely spaced wafers
`in a barrel plasma etching reactor.” Ex. 1005, 1.2 “The analysis relates the
`effect of geometric and operating variables to process characteristics such as
`etch uniformity, over-etch exposure, and throughput.” Id. “Regions of
`operating conditions that permit etch uniformity within specified tolerances
`are found, and optimum settings for inter-wafer spacing and reactor pressure
`to achieve maximum throughput are calculated.” Id. Alkire teaches that
`“[e]tch uniformity and throughput are of particular importance in any plasma
`etching process,” and that “[p]arameters that affect uniformity and
`throughput include RF power input, chamber pressure, gas flow rate and
`distribution, wafer spacing, wafer diameter, and temperature.” Id. at 1–2.
`
`
`2 The cited page numbers Ex. 1005 refer to the numbers added by Petitioner
`in the bottom right corner of the page.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`Alkire Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a schematic of the radially symmetric region between two
`successive wafers that are facing each other. Id. at 2. Before etching begins,
`a uniform-thickness film exists on the wafer surface. Id. “To an extent that
`depends upon operating conditions, the etch rate is highest on the periphery
`of the wafer,” and, therefore, film in this region clears first. Id. Figure 2
`illustrates this, showing that the “film has been cleared entirely from the
`outer portion of the wafer, while the inner region is yet to clear.” Id.
`Alkire makes several assumptions to “preserve the salient features of
`the system and also streamline the task of computation,” including that
`“[t]he spacing between adjacent wafers is sufficiently smaller than the wafer
`radius so that significant concentration variations occur only in the radial
`direction,” “[t]he etching reaction is first order” and “proceeds to completion
`at or near the film surface,” and “[t]he concentration of etchant at the wafer
`edge remains constant during the etch cycle.” Id. Alkire provides two
`governing equations: Equation [1] that gives “the thickness of etchable
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`material left at a certain location and time,” and Equation [2] that is the
`conservation equation for the etching species, as set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`Id. Alkire defines h0 as the initial film thickness (cm), k2 as the etch rate
`constant (cm/s), Χ as the moles of etchant species consumed per cm3 of film
`etched (mol/cm3), c as the etchant concentration (mol/cm3), h as the film
`thickness (cm), r as the radial position (cm), t as time (s), D as the etchant
`diffusivity (cm2/s), L as the wafer separation distance (cm), k1 as the volume
`recombination reaction rate constant (cm6/(mol)2/s), A2 as the parent
`molecule, vo as the random thermal velocity of etchant species (cm/s), w as
`the wall recombination coefficient, c0 as the etchant concentration at the
`wafer edge (mol/cm3), and R0 as the wafer radium (cm). Id. at 8–9.
`Alkire then “rewrite[s] the governing equations in terms of
`dimensionless quantities” that it defines, resulting in dimensionless
`Equations [6] and [7]. Id. at 3. According to Alkire, “[b]y solving Eq. [6]
`and [7], the effect of process parameters (c0, P, D, k’s) and of geometric
`factors (L, R0) on etch uniformity, overetch exposure, and total etch time can
`be determined,” and, “[i]n particular, optimum conditions for high
`throughput can be identified.” Id. Alkire states that these “[d]imensionless
`groupings of system parameters were used to compile behavior and to reveal
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`scale-up principles,” and that “[t]he model can be extended without much
`difficulty to handle more complex situations.” Id. at 8. Alkire concludes
`that “[t]he use of mathematical models can assist in organizing scientific
`concepts into strategies for engineering design.” Id.
`Overview of Galewski
`2.
`Galewski is directed to characterizing “[a] tubular hot-wall silicon
`epitaxial reactor operated in the selective deposition regime . . . for growth
`rate uniformity in both the radial and longitudinal directions.” Ex. 1007,
`Abs. Galewski explains that “[t]ypically, epitaxial deposition of silicon
`requires high temperatures that are not compatible with hot-wall reactors
`because of the severe depletion effects that result,” but “it is possible with
`careful consideration of the reactor design, deposition conditions, and wafer
`cleaning to use low deposition temperatures that reduce depletion effects
`while still resulting in defect-free epitaxial silicon.” Id. at 1.3 Galewski uses
`growth rate data produced in an experimental reactor “to formulate a
`physical model that predicts the deposition uniformity in both the radial and
`longitudinal directions,” and uses the model “to propose improvements to
`the existing reactor, and to propose a design for a system that can
`accommodate 100 wafers of 200 mm diameter.” Id.
`Analysis
`3.
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Alkire and Galewski
`discloses or suggests all of the elements of claim 1. Pet. 32–46. For
`example, Petitioner contends that Alkire teaches “defining etch rate data
`comprising an etch rate and a spatial coordinate which defines a position
`
`
`3 The cited page numbers Ex. 1007 refer to the numbers added by Petitioner
`in the bottom right corner of the page.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`within said relatively non-uniform etching profile on said substrate” because
`“[t]he thickness of etchable material as a function of time disclosed in Alkire
`is etch rate data, where the change in h(r,t) as a function of time is an etch
`rate at a spatial coordinate (given by r in cylindrical coordinates) over time
`(t).” Id. at 36. Petitioner acknowledges that “Alkire does not explicitly
`disclose measuring the etch rate at any spatial coordinates,” and contends
`that “it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA [person having ordinary
`skill in the art] to combine Alkire with the experimental measurement of
`reaction rate and the use of that data in modeling as taught by Galewski.”
`Id. In particular, Petitioner contends that “Galewski teaches measuring the
`reaction rate data for a reaction between a gas-phase deposition precursor
`and a film on a substrate at a number of spatial coordinates,” and “discloses
`measuring ‘[f]ilm thicknesses . . . with a stylus profiler.’” Id. at 36–37
`(quoting Ex. 1007, 3).
`According to Petitioner, “combining the teaching from Galewski of
`using experimentally measured data in modeling the reaction would have
`been an obvious improvement of the theoretical Alkire model to a
`PHOSITA.” Pet. 37. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have
`recognized 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.” Id. at 29. Thus, Petitioner argues,
`“[a] PHOSITA would have been motivated to improve the model disclosed
`in Alkire by using experimental data to provide independent confirmation of
`the accuracy of the model as taught in Galewski.” Id. at 29–30 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 119). Petitioner further argues that “both Alkire and Galewski
`disclose the known technique of modeling a gas-phase and substrate reaction
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`using a first-order mathematical model,” and are “directed to chemical
`reactors for manufacturing semiconductor devices and address non-
`uniformity in semiconductor plasma processing.” Id. at 30–31.
`We are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner’s
`discussion of the particular operations and structures in Alkire and Galewski,
`and the explanations in the Petition and the Graves Declaration, are
`sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined
`teachings of Alkire and Galewski. Petitioner’s contentions are supported
`adequately by Dr. Graves, who testifies, for example, that “[t]he reaction
`rate data in Galewski is for the deposition growth rate in an LPCVD [low
`pressure chemical vapor deposition], but it was well known that plasma
`etching and plasma chemical vapor deposition exhibit the same behavior.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (citing Ex. 1005, 1, 4; Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013; Ex. 1010; Ex.
`1008). Dr. Graves further testifies that “Galewski teaches a method for
`calculating [surface reaction rate constant] ks
`’ that is essentially identical to
`the method disclosed in the 849 Patent” (id.¶ 112) which is “unsurprising, as
`both reactions are first order surface reactions of a diffusion limited reactant
`and both reflect the non-uniform diffusion of the gas-phase reactant across
`the substrate surface with very similar assumptions” (id. ¶ 111). See
`generally id. ¶¶ 103–115.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and, based on the
`record before us, do not find them to be persuasive. For example, Patent
`Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`growth of silicon of Galewski.” Prelim. Resp. 4. According to Patent
`Owner, “[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 silicon deposition experimental data are
`incompatible and would in no way be expected to relate to the plasma
`etching taught by Alkire.” Id. at 3–4. Petitioner, however, is not arguing
`that a PHOSITA would incorporate Galewski’s measured data into Alkire’s
`model; instead, as we understand it, Petitioner is arguing that Galewski
`teaches a PHOSITA to conduct experiments to determine reaction rate data
`and then extract a surface reaction rate constant from the experimental data,
`thus “connect[ing] the purely mathematical model of Alkire to empirical
`data for the reaction rate data to extract the surface reaction rate for defined
`process conditions to test, validate, and improve Alkire’s model.” Ex. 1003
`¶ 139; see also id. ¶ 119 (A person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`been motivated to improve the theoretical model of Alkire with the use of
`actual measured reaction rate data as taught in Galewski.”); Pet. 29–30 (“A
`PHOSITA would have been motivated to improve the model disclosed in
`Alkire by using experimental data to provide independent confirmation of
`the accuracy of the model as taught in Galewski.”); id. at 37–38 (“Applying
`Galewski’s empirical rate measurement and use of empirical data in
`extracting the surface reaction rate constant in the model teaching to the
`plasma etching model of Alkire would allow a PHOSITA to use empirical
`data to improve the Alkire model for plasma etching.”). Patent Owner does
`not address whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`looked to Galewski for this purpose.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “Alkire specifically teaches away from
`the ’849 patent,” because Alkire “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.” Prelim. Resp. 6. The
`fact that Alkire describes a mathematical model does not necessarily mean,
`however, that it teaches away from using experimental data. “A reference
`may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path that was taken by
`the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference
`does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an
`alternative invention from amongst the options available to the ordinarily
`skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
`investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). Alkire’s statement that “purely empirical programs of
`development can be time consuming” does not criticize, discredit, or
`disparage the use of empirical data to improve the fabrication of a device.
`Patent Owner further argues that because the requirements and
`techniques used in silicon epitaxy and film removal are different, a
`“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.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not
`provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support this argument.
`Petitioner, on the other hand, provides testimony from Dr. Graves that
`“Galewski discloses a ‘surface-rate constant for deposition’ (ks
`’) that is a
`reaction rate constant for the chemical reaction between a gas phase and the
`surface of a material” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 142), and provides analysis setting forth
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`how Galewski’s surface-rate constant ks’ is determined using the “same basic
`
`relationship between the etch rate and the surface reaction rate constant”
`disclosed in the ’849 patent (id. ¶ 143). See id. ¶¶ 141–145. Dr. Graves
`further testifies that Galewski’s surface-rate constant for deposition “differs
`from the surface reaction rate constant claimed in the 849 Patent only in that
`Galewski is directed to chemical vapor deposition and the surface reaction
`rate constant is directed to plasma etching,” and a person having ordinary
`skill in the art “would have recognized that the surface-rate constant of
`Galewski models the same temperature-dependent reaction rate constant as
`in the 849 Patent.” Id. ¶ 145. Therefore, we do not find Patent Owner’s
`unsupported arguments regarding Galewski’s surface-rate reaction constant
`to be persuasive on this record.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim
`1 of the ’849 patent would have been obvious over the combined teachings
`of Alkire and Galewski. Having decided that Alkire and Galewski evince a
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the
`Petition is unpatentable, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`to have the review proceed on all claims challenged as obvious over the
`combined teachings of Alkire and Galewski.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on the arguments in the Petition and Preliminary Response, and
`the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its challenge that claim 1 of
`the ’849 patent is unpatentable. In keeping with our mission of resolving
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`patent validity disputes in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner, we
`exercise our discretion to institute an inter partes review on all of the
`challenged claims.
`The Board has not made a final determination as to the patentability of
`any challenged claim.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that inter partes review is granted as to claims 1–29 of
`the ’849 patent with respect to the following ground:
`Whether claims 1–29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Alkire and Galewski;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial
`commencing on the entry date of this Decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than that specifically
`granted above is authorized for inter partes review as to the claims of the
`’849 patent.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00406
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Jared Bobrow
`Robert Stephen Magee
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`jason.lang@weil.com
`jared.bobrow@weil.com
`robert.magee@weil.com
`
`Chad Campbell
`Jonathan McFarland
`Philip A. Morin
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`cscampbell@perkinscoie.com
`jmcfarland@perkinscoie.com
`
`David M. Tenant
`Nathan Zhang
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`nathan.zhang@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
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
