UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Patent No. RE40,264
`
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK J. KUSHNER, PH.D.
`
`Tokyo Electron Limited
`EXHIBIT 1013
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience .................................................. 1 
`
`Scope of Assignment ....................................................................................... 3 
`
`
`
`  Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 4 III.
`
`IV.
`
`  Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 5 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`Legal Principles used in Analysis .................................................................... 6 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`Patent Claims in General ..................................................................... 6 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 7 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 7 
`
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 8 
`
`Patentability ......................................................................................... 9 
`
`VI.
`
`  Priority Date of the ’264 Patent ..................................................................... 12 
`
`
`
`  A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art ............................................ 14 VII.
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`Relevant Field ................................................................................... 14 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 14 
`
`
`
`  The ’264 Patent .............................................................................................. 16 VIII.
`
`IX.
`
`  Background of the Relevant Technology of ’264 Patent .............................. 26 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Thermal Mass and Thermal Conductivity ........................................ 26 
`
`Substrate Holder Temperature Change ............................................. 28 
`
`Relationship Between Thermal Mass and Temperature Change
`According to ’264 Patent .................................................................. 30 
`
`X.
`
` 
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 31 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`F.
` 
`
`G.
`
` 
`
`H.
`
` 
`
`I.
` 
`
`“substrate holder” (first interpretation) ............................................. 31 
`
`“heat transfer device” (first interpretation) ....................................... 32 
`
`“selected thermal mass” (first interpretation) .................................. 33 
`
`“selected first substrate holder temperature,” “selected second
`substrate holder temperature” ........................................................... 35 
`
`“predetermined temperature change” ............................................... 35 
`
`“specific interval of time,” “specified time interval” ....................... 36 
`
`“substrate holder” (second interpretation) ........................................ 36 
`
`“selected thermal mass” (second interpretation) .............................. 37 
`
`“heat transfer device” (second interpretation) .................................. 38 
`
`XI.
`
` 
`
`Invalidity Analysis ......................................................................................... 38 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`E. 
`
`F.
` 
`
`G.
`
` 
`
`H.
`
` 
`
`Summary of Kadomura ..................................................................... 38 
`
`Summary of Matsumura .................................................................... 42 
`
`Summary of Okada ........................................................................... 42 
`
`Claim 13 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kadomura or is
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Kadomura and
`Matsumura. ........................................................................................ 44 
`
`Claim 13 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Okada or is
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Okada, Matsumura, and
`Kadomura. ......................................................................................... 69 
`
`Claims 14-16, 19-23, 64, and 65 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 in view of Kadomura, Okada, and Matsumura. ......................... 81 
`
`Claims 17 and 18 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`Kadomura, Kaji, Okada, and Matsumura. ...................................... 102 
`
`Claims 25 and 26 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`Kadomura, Edamura, Okada, and Matsumura. ............................... 106 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I.
` 
`
`Claim 24 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Kadomura,
`Okada 2, Okada, and Matsumura .................................................... 109 
`
`
`
`  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................110 XII.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`1. My name is Dr. Mark J. Kushner. I am a professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. I understand
`
`that my declaration is being submitted in connection with a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (’264 patent).
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience
`2.
`
` I received a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear engineering
`
`(Summa Cum Laude) from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in
`
`1976. I also simultaneously received a Bachelor of Arts in astronomy from UCLA
`
`in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Masters of Science in Applied Physics from the
`
`California Institute of Technology in 1977. I also received a PhD in Applied
`
`Physics from the California Institute of Technology in 1979.
`
`4.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 320 scientific and technical
`
`journal articles. I am listed as an inventor on two U.S. patents.
`
`5.
`
`After completing my PhD, I worked at various national laboratories
`
`and companies from 1980-1986. I was a physicist at Sandia National Laboratory
`
`in the Laser Analytical Spectroscopy Division from 1980-1981, where I focused on
`
`microelectronics related plasma etching. I was also a physicist at the Lawrence
`
`Livermore National Laboratory in the Advanced Lasers and Laser Isotope
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Separation Programs from 1981-1983, where I focused on laser systems for laser
`
`isotope separation. I was also a principal research scientist and director at Spectra
`
`Technology from 1983-1986, where I focused on plasma material processing.
`
`6.
`
`I worked at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from
`
`1986-2004. While at the University of Illinois, I held numerous positions
`
`including becoming a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1991, becoming a Founder Professor of Engineering in 1999, and
`
`serving as Interim Head of Electrical and Computer engineering in 2001. While at
`
`the University of Illinois, I performed research focusing on plasma material
`
`processing for microelectronics and plasma displays among other topics.
`
`7.
`
`I worked at Iowa State University from 2005-2008 serving as the
`
`Dean for the College of Engineering.
`
`8.
`
`I joined the University of Michigan in 2008 holding numerous titles
`
`including Professor in the Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences (NERS)
`
`Dept., Applied Physics Program, and Chemical Engineering Department. I am
`
`also a Director of the Michigan Institute for Plasma Science and Engineering and
`
`of the Department of Energy Center on Control of Plasma Kinetics.
`
`9.
`
`I have been a consultant to numerous plasma etching and materials
`
`processing industry leaders including LAM Research Corp., PlasmaTherm, Inc.,
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Applied Materials Corp., and 3M, Inc.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`10. A more complete recitation of my professional experience including a
`
`list of my journal publications, patents, conference proceedings, and committee
`
`memberships may be found in my Curriculum Vitae, attached to my declaration as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Scope of Assignment
`11.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by Rothwell, Figg, Ernst &
`
`Manbeck, P.C. (“Rothwell Figg”) as a technical expert in the field of
`
`semiconductor processing. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at
`
`my usual and customary rate. I have no personal or financial stake or interest in
`
`the outcome of the Petition for Inter Partes Review or any related action. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon my testimony or the outcome of the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review.
`
`12.
`
`I have been advised that Rothwell Figg represents Tokyo Electron
`
`Limited (TEL) in this matter and that Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) owns the ’264 patent. I have no personal or financial stake or interest in
`
`TEL or in the ’264 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

` Materials Considered
`III.
`13.
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I considered the ’264 patent
`
`and its file history. I have also considered the following documents:
`
`(1)
`
` U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 to Flamm (filed May 14, 2003)(issued on
`
`April 29, 2008)(the “’264 patent”)(Ex. 1001);
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 5,981,913 to Kadomura et al. (filed March 20,
`
`1997)(issued on November 9, 1999)(“Kadomura”)(Ex. 1002);
`
`(3)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 5-136095 to Okada (published June 1,
`
`1993(“Okada”)(Ex. 1003)(Ex. 1004 – Certified Translation);
`
`(4)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 3-196206 to Matsumura (published
`
`1991)(“Matsumura”)(Ex. 1005)(Ex. 1006 – Certified Translation);
`
`(5)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 9-191059 to Edamura (published July
`
`23, 1996)(“Edamura”)(Ex. 1007)(Ex. 1008 – Certified Translation);
`
`(6)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 5-243191 to Okada (published
`
`September 21, 1993 (“Okada 2”)(Ex. 1009)(Ex. 1010 – Certified
`
`Translation);
`
`(7)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 3-145123 to Kaji (published June 20,
`
`1991)(“Kaji”)(Ex. 1011)(Ex. 1012 – Certified Translation);
`
`(8) Continuation-in-Part Provisional Application No. 60/058650 (Ex. 1014);
`
`(9)
`
`Parent Application No. 08/567,224 (Ex. 1015).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`(10) LAM Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Institution Decision,
`
`Paper No. 7 (February 24, 2016) (Ex. 1016).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
` Summary of Opinions
`14. Based on my investigation and analysis and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that all of the limitations of claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of the
`
`’264 patent were known, and
`
`a. claim13 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kadomura or is invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Kadomura and Matsumura;
`
`b. claim 13 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Okada or is invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Okada, Matsumura, and Kadomura;
`
`c. claims 14-16, 19-23, 64, 65 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
`
`of Kadomura, Okada, and Matsumura;
`
`d. claims 17 and 18 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`
`Kadomura, Okada, Matsumura, and Edamura;
`
`e. claims 25 and 26 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`
`Kadomura, Okada, Matsumura, and Edamura; and
`
`f. claim 24 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Kadomura,
`
`Okada, Matsumura, and Okada 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`V.
`
` Legal Principles used in Analysis
`15.
` I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the
`
`law on patentability. Rather, TEL’s attorneys have explained legal principles to
`
`me that I have relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`
`A.
`16.
`
`Patent Claims in General
`
`I understand that patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end
`
`of each patent, and the claims define what a patent covers. I understand that the
`
`figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples and
`
`help explain the scope of the claims, but that the claims define the breadth of the
`
`patent’s coverage.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that an “independent claim” expressly sets forth all of the
`
`elements that must be met in order for something to be covered by that claim. A
`
`“dependent claim” does not itself recite all of the elements of the claim but refers
`
`to another claim for some of its elements; in this way, the claim “depends” on
`
`another claim and incorporates all of the elements of the claim(s) from which it
`
`depends. A dependent claim adds additional elements. I understand that, to
`
`determine all the elements of a dependent claim, it is necessary to look at the
`
`recitations of the dependent claim and any other claim(s) on which it depends.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`B.
`18.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art may include: (A) the type of problems encountered in the art; (B)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (D) sophistication of the technology; and (E) educational level of active
`
`workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or
`
`more factors may predominate.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. I further understand that the hypothetical
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
` Claim Construction
`C.
`20. The ’264 patent is expired. I understand that, in an inter partes
`
`review, for expired patents, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`21.
`
`I also understand that, in determining the meaning of a disputed claim
`
`limitation, the intrinsic evidence of record is considered by examining the claim
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history. I further
`
`understand that a patentee may act as its own lexicographer and depart from the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning by defining a term with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness and precision, but that there is a presumption that a claim term
`
`carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`
`D.
`22.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that the law provides categories of information (known
`
`as “prior art”) that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims. I
`
`understand that, to be prior art with respect to a particular patent, a reference must
`
`have been made, known, used, published, or patented, or be the subject of a patent
`
`application by another, before the priority date of the patent.
`
`23. Further, I understand that statements by a patent applicant or patentee,
`
`including statements in the patent that something is in the “prior art,” can
`
`constitute prior art that can be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`That is, prior art can be created by admissions of the patent applicant or patentee.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed
`
`to have knowledge of all prior art.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`E.
`25.
`
`Patentability
`
`I understand that a determination of whether the claims of a patent are
`
`rendered obvious by prior art is a two-step analysis: (1) determining the meaning
`
`and scope of the claims, and (2) comparing the properly construed claims to the
`
`prior art. I have endeavored to undertake this process herein.
`
`26.
`
` I understand that, where a prior art reference includes every element
`
`as set forth in a patent claim, the reference anticipates that claim. Anticipation can
`
`be found by the expressed teachings of the reference or by inherency. For a claim
`
`element to be met by inherency, the element must necessarily be present in the
`
`apparatus or method of the reference even though it is not specifically described --
`
`a mere possibility or probability is not sufficient.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that, even if every element of a claim is not found
`
`explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim would have been obvious when it is
`
`only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their respective
`
`functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to known
`
`methods to obtain predictable results. I understand that the following four factors
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`are considered when determining whether a patent claim would have been obvious:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) additional
`
`considerations of objective evidence, sometimes referred to as “secondary
`
`considerations,” tending to prove obviousness or non-obviousness. With respect to
`
`the fourth factor, I have been informed that the courts have established a collection
`
`of additional considerations of objective evidence, which include: unexpected,
`
`surprising, or unusual results; prior art that teaches away from the alleged
`
`invention; substantially superior results; synergistic results; long-standing need;
`
`commercial success; and copying by others. Further, I have been informed that
`
`nearly-simultaneous invention by others may be a secondary consideration tending
`
`to prove obviousness. I have also been informed that there must be a connection,
`
`or nexus, between these secondary considerations and the scope of the claim
`
`language.
`
`29.
`
`In determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art
`
`references, I also understand that evidence of some reason to combine the
`
`teachings is required to make the combination, and thus such evidence must be
`
`considered, along with any evidence that one or more of the references would have
`
`taught away from the claimed invention at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`30.
`
`I understand that some examples of rationales that may support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) simply substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(D) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success—in other words, whether
`
`something is “obvious to try;”
`
`(F) using work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of that
`
`work for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(G) arriving at a claimed invention as a result of some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings.
`
`I understand that other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be
`
`relied upon, for instance, common sense (where substantiated) may be a reason to
`
`combine or modify prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a basis to combine teachings need not be stated
`
`expressly in any prior art reference. However, there must be some evidence
`
`showing an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a
`
`motivation to combine teachings and to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`VI.
`
` Priority Date of the ’264 Patent
`32. The ’264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776 (“the ’776
`
`patent”), which issued from Application No. 09/151,163 (“the ’163 application”).
`
`The ’163 application was filed on Sept. 10, 1998, and is a continuation-in-part of
`
`the following two applications: (1) U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/058,650
`
`(“the ’650 provisional application”), filed September 11, 1997; and (2) U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 08/567, 224 (“the ’224 application”) filed on December 4, 1995.
`
`For at least the reasons stated below, the ’224 application does not provide
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`sufficient written description support for claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of the ’264
`
`patent.
`
`33. Claim 13 recites, inter alia, “etching a first portion of the film … at
`
`the selected first substrate holder temperature,” “changing the substrate holder
`
`temperature from the selected first substrate holder temperature to a selected
`
`second substrate holder temperature, “etching a second portion of the film … at the
`
`selected second substrate holder temperature,” and “the thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time.” Based on my review of the ’224 application, these
`
`claimed features are neither disclosed nor suggested.
`
`34. The ’224 application is directed to a technique that relies upon the
`
`control of an instantaneous applied AC potential to selectively control a variety of
`
`plasma characteristics. (Ex. 1015 at 8:38-41).
`
`35. The ’224 application describes processing a substrate at different
`
`temperatures. (See Ex. 1015 at 45). However, the ’224 application does not
`
`disclose or suggest selecting a thermal mass for a substrate holder and changing the
`
`substrate holder with the selected thermal mass from a first temperature to a second
`
`temperature within a specific interval of time. Instead, the ’224 application
`
`discloses processing a wafer using different substrate holders (e.g., "pedestals")
`
`within different chambers that are kept at respective different temperatures. Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`36. For example, the ’224 application teaches changing a temperature of a
`
`substrate by moving the substrate to a different chamber with a respective pedestal
`
`between each processing step. As an example, the ’224 application describes a
`
`first step of performing stripping photoresist from a wafer in a first chamber having
`
`a pedestal set to 40 °C. Subsequently, the wafer is moved to a second chamber set
`
`at a higher temperature to perform overashing. Id.
`
`37. Thus, based on my review of the ’224 application, this application
`
`does not provide sufficient written description support for claim 13 of the ’264
`
`patent and claims depending therefrom.
`
`
`
` A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`VII.
`38.
`I understand that my assessment and determination of the patentability
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent must be undertaken from the
`
`perspective of what would have been known or understood by someone of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant field as of the earliest possible priority date of the ’264 patent –
`
`September 11, 1997.
`
` Relevant Field
`A.
`39.
`In my opinion, the field relevant to the claims of the ’264 patent is
`
`plasma processing of substrates such as semiconductor wafers.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`40. Based on my experience in the field, analysis of the ’264 patent, and
`
`review of the relied upon prior art references, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field as of September 11, 1997, would have had
`
`familiarity with plasma processing systems for performing etching of a wafer and
`
`at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or physics, or a
`
`related field such as, but not limited to, materials science, chemical engineering or
`
`mechanical engineering, and 4-6 years of experience working in the field of plasma
`
`processing, or a comparable amount of combined education and equivalent
`
`experience with respect to plasma processing systems. One of ordinary skill would
`
`also have an understanding of plasma processes and equipment used in plasma
`
`processing. In addition, one skilled in the art would have an understanding of heat
`
`transfer and mathematical relationships relating thereto, as well as materials used
`
`in equipment for processing semiconductors and their associated properties. The
`
`level of skill in the art is also reflected by related literature in the field including
`
`the references discussed herein, and a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field
`
`would be knowledgeable with heat transfer relatonships in systems and processes.
`
`Unless otherwise specified, when I state that something would have been known to
`
`or understood by one skilled in the art or possessing ordinary skill in the art, I am
`
`referring to someone with this level of knowledge and understanding.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`41. With over 35 years of experience working in the plasma processing
`
`field, I am well acquainted with the level of ordinary skill that would have been
`
`required to design, develop, and/or implement the subject matter of the ’264 patent.
`
`I have direct experience with the relevant subject matter and am capable of
`
`rendering an informed opinion regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`was for the relevant field as of September 11, 1997. I am also capable of rendering
`
`an informed opinion regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood as of September 11, 1997.
`
`
`
` The ’264 Patent
`VIII.
`42. The ’264 patent is directed to a method “for etching a substrate in the
`
`manufacture of a device.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. The ’264 patent purports that
`
`conventional etching processes and equipment “maintain temperature in a ‘batch’
`
`mode,” where the temperature in a chamber is “controlled to be at a substantially
`
`… single value of temperature during processing.” Id. at 1:65-2:2. However,
`
`according to the ’264 patent, by processing wafers at a single temperature,
`
`throughput and etching rates were lowered. Id. at 2:13-15.
`
`43. The ’264 patent allegedly overcomes these disadvantages by
`
`providing a process that “utilizes temperature changes to achieve high etch rates.”
`
`Id. at 2:30-32. Specifically, the ’264 patent alleges to have invented a “novel
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`inventive means for effecting a suitable controlled change in temperature …
`
`[using] a workpiece support which has low thermal mass in comparison to the heat
`
`transfer means.” Id. at 2:37-41.
`
`44. The workpiece support of this alleged novel invention is a substrate
`
`holder. The ’264 patent contends that the substrate holder “has a selected thermal
`
`mass to facilitate changing the temperature of the substrate to be etched.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:51-53. More specifically, “the selected thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder allows for a change from a first temperature to a second temperature within
`
`a characteristic time period to process film.” Id. at 2:53-56.
`
`45.
`
`In each of the disclosed embodiments, a heat transfer fluid passes
`
`through the substrate holder, and the temperature of the substrate holder is changed
`
`by changing the temperature of the heat transfer fluid passing through the substrate
`
`holder. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at 14:28-36, 15:10-15, 40-51, Figs. 6-8.
`
`46. Fig. 6 (reproduced below) illustrates an example substrate holder that
`
`includes a “backside surface 608, which includes a plurality of concentric zones
`
`608A, 608B, 608C, and 608D.” Id. at 14:28-36.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`47. As illustrated in Fig. 6, each zone is separated by a baffle 605 that
`
`“extends from a lower region of the substrate holder toward an upper portion of the
`
`substrate holder,” but does not touch the upper surface of the substrate holder to
`
`prevent “an uneven temperature distribution along the upper surface 601.” Id. at
`
`14:48-56. The ’264 patent further purports that even distribution of temperature
`
`along the upper surface 601 is achieved through “[f]luid communication in
`
`connection with the upper surface.” Id. at 14:59-61.
`
`48. Specifically, the ’264 patent describes that “the substrate holder and
`
`upper surface cools down or is heated up by way of fluid,” where the “fluid can
`
`traverse through the zones and can absorb thermal energy or release thermal
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`energy by an external heat transfer device.” Ex. 1001 at 15:4-8. The substrate
`
`holder may also include a plurality of heating elements 607 for supplying heat
`
`energy to the fluid. Id. at 15:10-11.
`
`49. The ’264 patent purports that the resulting substrate holder has “a
`
`substantially uniform temperature distribution along the upper surface 601.” Id. at
`
`15:27-29. The ’264 patent further describes that “[t]he upper surface is generally
`
`made of a suitable material that has desirable heat transfer characteristics,” where
`
`for example, “the upper surface is made using a low thermal mass, high
`
`conductivity material.” Id. at 15:40-45. Examples of these types of material are a
`
`“diamond-like or diamond film overlying a copper or copper-like substrate.” Id. at
`
`15:46-47.
`
`50. Accordingly, in the above arrangement, the fluid passes through
`
`channels 603 within the substrate holder so that changing of the temperature of the
`
`fluid will change the temperature of the substrate holder. Id. at 15:10-25. A
`
`substrate sits on the top 601 of the substrate holder 600, however, the ’264
`
`specification makes clear that the “substrate holder” includes not only the top
`
`surface 601, but also the structure including the channels through which the heat
`
`transfer fluid passes. See, e.g., id. at 14:28-29 (identifying the substrate holder as
`
`the overall arrangement 600, not merely the top surface 601), 14:32-36 (identifying
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`the substrate holder as including the plural concentric zones 608A-D), 15:10-11
`
`(identifying the heating elements 607 as within the substrate holder).
`
`51. With the above arrangement, the change of temperature of the fluid is
`
`used to change the temperature of the substrate holder. Further, although heating
`
`elements 607 are provided, they are provided to change the temperature of the
`
`fluid, which in turn changes the temperature of the substrate holder. Ex. 1001 at
`
`15:19-20 (“[t]he heating elements can be any suitable device for supplying heat
`
`energy to the fluid.”).
`
`52. Fig. 7 (Ex. 1001) (reproduced below), illustrates a temperature control
`
`system 700.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`53. As illustrated in Fig. 7, the system 700 includes substrate holder 701
`
`coupled to a heating unit 705, which is coupled to fluid reservoir 713 and heat
`
`pump 709. Ex. 1001 at 16:3-8. The system 700 may also include a heat exchanger
`
`723 that cools fluid leaving the substrate holder. Id. at 16:20-27. Fig. 8 illustrates
`
`an alternative system 800 that includes at least two reservoirs 801 and 803 instead
`
`of the single reservoir illustrated in Fig. 7. See e.g., id. at 17:11-20, Fig. 8.
`
`54.
`
`In operation, “[f]luid from the fluid reservoir is pumped from the
`
`reservoir through the heating unit,” where the “fluid leaves the heating unit at the
`
`selected temperature and traverses through the substrate holder.” Id. at 16:9-14.
`
`Temperature control is performed in which “[t]he desired fluid temperature is
`
`determined by comparing the desired wafer or wafer chuck set point temperature to
`
`a measured wafer or wafer chuck temperature,” and if “the measured temperature
`
`of the wafer [of chuck] or chuck is below the desired temperature, a … controller
`
`algorithm increases the temperature by supplying more power to the heater.” Id. at
`
`16:36-46 (emphasis original).
`
`55.
`
` Here, the substrate holder 700 similarly includes not only the top
`
`surface 701, but also the passageway 703 through which the heat transfer fluid
`
`passes. With this arrangement, rather than controlling the fluid temperature by
`
`heaters disposed within the substrate holder, a heater 705 is disposed upstream of
`
`the substrate holder so that fluid flowing from reservoir 713 is pumped via pump
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`709 through the heater 705 prior to entering the substrate holder 700. Ex. 1001 at
`
`16:3-19.
`