`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Issued: January 27, 1998
`
`Named Inventors: Daniel L. Flamm & John P. Verboncoeur
`
`Title: PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
`IN GAS PHASE DRY ETCHING
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`3475044
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1016
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`FORMALITIES ............................................................................................ 3 
`
`A.  Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................. 3 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................... 3 
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)) ....................................................................................... 3 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................... 3 
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................... 3 
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(a)) ........................................................................................... 4 
`
`III.  CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.............................................. 4 
`
`A. 
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`Challenges Are Based ........................................................................ 4 
`
`IV.  THE ‘849 PATENT ...................................................................................... 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Representative Claim 1 ...................................................................... 7 
`
`The ‘849 Patent Disclosure ................................................................ 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Plasma Etching Apparatus Comprising A Substrate
`Therein ..................................................................................... 7 
`
`Relatively Non-Uniform Etching Profile ................................. 9 
`
`Etch Rate Data Comprising An Etch Rate And A
`Spatial Coordinate .................................................................. 10 
`
`Surface Reaction Rate Constant............................................. 10 
`
`V. 
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................... 11 
`
`VI.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘849 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ........................... 12 
`
`3475044
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 26-28 Are Obvious Over Battey Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................ 12 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Battey Teaches All the Limitations of Independent
`Claim 26 ................................................................................. 13 
`
`Chart for Claim 26 ................................................................. 17 
`
`Battey Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 27 and
`28 ............................................................................................ 22 
`
`Chart for Claims 27 and 28 .................................................... 24 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21 And 29 Are
`Rendered Obvious By Battey In View of Galewski Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................. 24 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 1 ...................................... 25 
`
`Chart for Claim 1 ................................................................... 28 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-9 .................................... 30 
`
`Chart for Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-9 ............................................ 32 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 10 .................................... 33 
`
`Chart for Claim 10 ................................................................. 36 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Claims 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 .......................... 37 
`
`Chart for Claims 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 .................................. 39 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 20 .................................... 40 
`
`10.  Chart for Claim 20 ................................................................. 43 
`
`11.  Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Claim 21 ......................................................... 44 
`
`3475044
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`12.  Chart for Claim 21 ................................................................. 45 
`
`13.  Battey In View of Galewski Teaches All the
`Limitations of Claim 29 ......................................................... 45 
`
`14.  Chart for Claim 29 ................................................................. 45 
`
`15.  Reasons for Combinability for Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14,
`16-21 and 29 ........................................................................... 46 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4, 6, 13, 15 and 22-25 Are Rendered
`Obvious By Battey In View of Galewski And Sawin Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................ 47 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski and Sawin Teaches All
`the Limitations of Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 .............................. 47 
`
`Chart for Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 ............................................ 49 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski and Sawin Teaches All
`the Limitations of Independent Claim 22 .............................. 50 
`
`Chart for Claim 22 ................................................................. 53 
`
`Battey In View of Galewski and Sawin Teaches All
`the Limitations of Claims 23-25 ............................................ 56 
`
`Chart for Claims 23-25 .......................................................... 57 
`
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 4, 6, 13, 15 and
`22-25 ...................................................................................... 58 
`
`
`
`3475044
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases 
`
`Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`Case 1:15-cv-613-LY (W.D. Tex.) ........................................................... 3
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) ...................................................................... 2
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 2
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).................................................................................. 1
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ...................................................... 3
`
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273 (1976).................................................................................. 2
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .......................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................... 4, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`3475044
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 3
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`3475044
`
`
`- v -
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (the ‘849 patent)
`
`1002
`
`James F. Battey, The Effects of Geometry on Diffusion-Controlled
`Chemical Reaction Rates in a Plasma, JOURNAL OF THE
`ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY: SOLID-STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
`Vol. 124, No. 3 (March 1977) (Battey)
`
`1003 Carl Galewski and William G. Oldham, Modeling of a High Throughput
`Hot-Wall Reactor for Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon, IEEE
`TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, Vol. 5, No. 3
`(August 1992) (Galewski)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,450,205 (Sawin)
`
`1005 Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`1007
`
`‘849 Patent Prosecution History
`
`1008 H. Scott Fogler, ELEMENTS OF CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING 635-
`642 (2nd ed. 1992).
`
`3475044
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner Lam Research Corporation (“Lam” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests
`
`that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1-29 (“challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent 5,711,849 (“the ‘849 patent”), which is owned by Daniel L. Flamm
`
`(“Flamm” or “Patent Owner”), and cancel those claims because they are
`
`unpatentable in view of prior art patents and printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The twenty-nine claims challenged in this Petition are all directed to a
`
`method for fabricating semiconductor devices in a plasma etching apparatus. In
`
`the method, a film on the surface of the semiconductor is etched, yielding a non-
`
`uniform etch profile from which etch characteristics, such as a surface reaction rate
`
`constant, are derived. The surface reaction rate constant may then be used, such as
`
`in the fabrication of the device or to adjust or modify the plasma etching apparatus.
`
`As set forth below, the claims of the ‘849 patent are unpatentable because
`
`they recite known methods that were described in printed publications before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention, and are obvious because they are
`
`nothing more than the result of combining “familiar elements according to known
`
`methods” to “yield predictable results.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 415-16 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, “when a patent ‘simply
`
`arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S.
`
`273, 282 (1976) (reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976))). The key question is
`
`whether the alleged improvement “is more than the predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 401. As set forth below,
`
`the answer to this question is “no” for the ‘849 patent because, well before the
`
`purported invention, modeling and/or optimizing uniformity of etch profiles for
`
`semiconductor devices in a plasma etch apparatus was well known. Patents and
`
`printed publications predating the purported invention also disclosed modeling
`
`and/or optimizing uniformity of etch profiles for semiconductor devices in a
`
`plasma etch apparatus by measuring such etch profiles and extracting a surface
`
`reaction rate constant, to be used in subsequent adjustments to the etch process.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the teachings of these references to practice the method of the challenged claims.
`
`Notably, “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference....”
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, “obviousness focuses on
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
`
`1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-party in interest for this Petition is Lam Research Corporation.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ‘849 patent is presently at issue in the declaratory judgment action Lam
`
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and in
`
`the infringement action Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00613-LY (W.D. Tex.).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel: Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`
`Backup Counsel: Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707), Kamran Vakili (Reg. No.
`
`64,825)
`
`Address: Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Tel: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at: LamFlammIPR@irell.com.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge the required fees, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), to Deposit Account No. 09-0946 referencing Docket
`
`No. 153405-0053(849IPR), and for any other required fees.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`F. Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘849 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘849 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner has filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of the
`
`claims of the ‘849 patent, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-
`
`01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner has not filed a declaratory judgment action for
`
`invalidity of the claims of the ‘849 patent. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, IPR2012-
`
`00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162, at *5 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2013).
`
`On Oct. 2, 2015, Daniel L. Flamm answered Lam’s Complaint but did not file any
`
`counterclaims against Lam for infringement of the '849 patent. On Oct. 2, 2015,
`
`Flamm filed a Third-Party Complaint asserting claims of infringement of the '849
`
`patent against unknown Lam customers.
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) and §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner
`
`challenges claims 1-29 of the ‘849 patent. Petitioner respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ‘849 patent based on the
`
`grounds detailed below.
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenges
`Are Based
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the ‘849 patent
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`is requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`‘849 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
`
`1. James F. Battey, The Effects of Geometry on Diffusion-Controlled Chemical
`
`Reaction Rates in a Plasma, JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY:
`
`SOLID-STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 124, No. 3 (March 1977).
`
`2. Carl Galewski and William G. Oldham, Modeling of a High Throughput Hot-
`
`Wall Reactor for Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, Vol. 5, No. 3 (August 1992).
`
`3. Herbert H. Sawin, et al., Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Measurement of
`
`Thin Film Layer Thickness and Changes Thereof, U.S. Patent No. 5,450,205
`
`(filed: May 28, 1993; issued: September 12, 1995).
`
`The Battey and Galewski references each qualify as prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because each was published or issued more than one year prior
`
`to the earliest priority date recited by the ‘849 patent, May 3, 1995, while the
`
`Sawin reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) having a
`
`filing date of May 28, 1993. None of these references were cited or considered by
`
`the PTO during the prosecution of the ‘849 patent.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 1-29 under the
`
`following statutory grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 26-28 are obvious over Battey under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21 and 29 are rendered obvious by
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`Battey in view of Galewski under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4, 6, 13, 15 and 22-25 are rendered obvious by Battey in
`
`view of Galewski and Sawin under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Section VII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
`
`declaration of Joseph Cecchi, Ph.D. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.].
`
`IV. THE ‘849 PATENT
`The application leading to the ‘849 patent was filed on May 3, 1995, and
`
`included no claim for earlier priority. Ex. 1001-1. The references relied upon in
`
`this Petition are prior art to the ‘849 patent because they all predate the patent
`
`application filing date, May 3, 1995, the earliest possible priority date for the ‘849
`
`patent. Battey and Galewski are 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) references because they both
`
`were published more than a year prior to the ‘849 patent application date, and
`
`Sawin is a 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) reference because its patent application date is prior
`
`to the ‘849 patent application date.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`A. Representative Claim 1
`The crux of the alleged invention of the ‘849 patent is the straightforward
`
`and well-known process of modeling and/or optimizing uniformity of etch profiles
`
`for semiconductor devices in a plasma etch apparatus. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 [Cecchi
`
`decl.] at ¶¶ 37, 39. For example, claim 1 recites a process comprising (a)
`
`“providing a plasma etching apparatus comprising a substrate therein, said
`
`substrate comprising a top surface and a film overlaying said top surface, said film
`
`comprising a top film surface,” (b) “etching said top film surface to define a
`
`relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film,” (c) “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,” (d) “extracting a
`
`surface reaction rate constant from said etch rate data,” and (e) “using said surface
`
`reaction rate constant in the fabrication of a device.” Ex. 1001 [‘849 patent] at
`
`17:36-50.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘849 Patent Disclosure
`1.
`
`Plasma Etching Apparatus Comprising A Substrate
`Therein
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`The ‘849 patent shows embodiments of a plasma etching apparatus in
`
`Figures 1 and 2. The embodiment in Figure 1 is described as “a co-axial reactor
`
`[that] includes at least three processing zones . . . a plasma processing zone (PG)
`
`13, a transport zone (TZ) 15, a plate stack zone (PS) 17, and others.” Ex 1001
`
`[‘849 patent] at 2:58-62. The plate stack zone allows for multiple wafers to be
`
`stacked co-axially, as shown in Fig. 1. The embodiment in Figure 2 is described as
`
`“a single wafer etching apparatus with elements such as a chamber 53, a top
`
`electrode 55, a bottom electrode 57, a power source 59, a platen 64, and others.”
`
`Id. at 4:16-18. The ‘849 patent describes a method whereby “[a] substrate with an
`
`overlying film is placed into a plasma etching apparatus. . . . [and a] step of plasma
`
`etching the film is performed.” Id. at 5:11-16; Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 40.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`2.
`
`Relatively Non-Uniform Etching Profile
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘849 patent describes how “[a] limitation with the conventional plasma
`
`etching technique is obtaining and maintain etching uniformity,” which it claims
`
`“relies upon a ‘trial and error’ process” to obtain and maintain such desired
`
`uniformity. Id. at 1:26-34. Figure 1A shows an “example of an etched substrate
`
`21 from the plate stack zone,” where “the top surface film includes a convex
`
`region, or etching profile … [which] occurs by way of different etch rates along the
`
`r-direction of the substrate corresponding to different etchant species
`
`concentrations.” Id. at 3:66-4:6. In an effort to systematize the process of
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`obtaining and maintaining etching uniformity, “a plasma etching method that
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`includes determining a reaction rate coefficient based upon etch profile data is
`
`provided.” Id. at 1:51-53. Accordingly, the ‘849 patent asserts that “an easy and
`
`cost effective way to select appropriate etching parameters . . . by way of the etch
`
`profile data” is facilitated. Id. at 1:54-57; Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 41.
`
`3.
`
`Etch Rate Data Comprising An Etch Rate And A Spatial
`Coordinate
`
`The ‘849 patent describes the characterization of a relatively non-uniform
`
`etching profile for an etched substrate in terms of “etch rate data,” including an
`
`etch rate and a spatial coordinate. “The etching profile is thereby characterized as
`
`a relative etch rate u, a x-location, and a y-location u, (x, y).” Id. at 5:38-41. In
`
`addition to x-y coordinates, the ‘849 patent discusses how, “[i]n cylindrical
`
`coordinates, the relative etch rate is also in the z-direction, and the spatial
`
`coordinates are defined in the r and θ coordinates.” Id. at 5:42-44; Ex. 1005
`
`[Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 42.
`
`Surface Reaction Rate Constant
`
`4.
`The ‘849 patent discusses etching a sample substrate to yield an “etching
`
`profile,” and how “[t]he present methods provide for improved etching conditions
`
`by way of a reaction rate constant derived from . . . [the] etching profile.” Id. at
`
`4:67-5:3. The specification describes modelling a measured etch rate according to
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`the following solution, (cid:1873)(cid:4666)(cid:1870)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:3010)(cid:3116)(cid:3436)(cid:3495)(cid:3286)(cid:3297)(cid:3116)(cid:3253)(cid:3045)(cid:3440)
`(cid:3010)(cid:3116)(cid:3436)(cid:3495)(cid:3286)(cid:3297)(cid:3116)(cid:3253)(cid:3028)(cid:3440), where u(r) is the etch rate, I0 is the
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`modified Bessel function of the first kind, D is the diffusivity, a is the outer radius
`
`of the wafer, and kν0 is the reaction rate constant. Id. at 6:20-25. For the particular
`
`geometry of the co-axial reactor described in the ‘849 patent, the surface reaction
`
`rate constant is related to the reaction rate constant via, Ks = (kvo)dgap, where dgap is
`
`the wafer spacing. Id. at 6:58-62. It goes on to describe using the extracted surface
`
`reaction rate in some embodiments. For example, it states “[f]rom the
`
`concentration and the surface reaction rate, the particular etching step can be
`
`improved by way of adjusting selected etching parameters.” Id. at 7:22-24; Ex.
`
`1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶¶ 43-44.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (“PHOSITA”) would generally
`
`have had either (i) a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry,
`
`materials science, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields, or (ii) a Master’s degree in
`
`engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field and one or two
`
`years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields. Ex.
`
`1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶¶ 26-29.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘849 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Claims 1-29 of the ‘849 patent are unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`1
`§ 103(a) Battey
`2
`§ 103(a) Battey in view of Galewski
`
`References(s)
`
`Claims
`
`26-28
`1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-
`21 and 29
`4, 6, 13, 15 and 22-25
`
`3
`
`§ 103(a) Battey in view of Galewski and
`Sawin
`In support of these grounds, the Petition includes a Declaration of Dr. Joseph
`
`Cecchi, a semiconductor processing expert. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.].
`
`The references in this petition were not before the Examiner during the
`
`prosecution of the ‘849 patent or its parent applications. The Petition does not
`
`present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`
`presented during the prosecution of the ‘849 patent or its parent applications.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), Petitioner provides in the following
`
`claim charts a detailed comparison of the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`specifying where each element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 26-28 Are Obvious Over Battey Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`As set forth below, Battey teaches the well-known process of optimizing
`
`uniformity of etch profiles for semiconductor devices in a plasma etch apparatus,
`
`and teaches or renders obvious all of the elements of independent claim 26 and
`
`dependent claims 27 and 28. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶¶ 46, 50.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Battey Teaches All the Limitations of Independent Claim 26
`
`1.
`Battey teaches “A process for fabricating a device using a plasma etching
`
`apparatus,” as recited by claim 26. Battey is generally directed to modelling and
`
`adjusting edge-to-center inhomogeneity for etching of photoresist on
`
`semiconductor wafers. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 439 (“Thus, increasing
`
`wafer diameter by a factor f, leads to greater edge-to-center inhomogeneity in strip
`
`rates, which can be corrected by increasing wafer spacing by a factor f2.”). Ex.
`
`1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 51. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, at the
`
`time of the purported invention of the ‘849 patent, to use Battey’s semiconductor
`
`processing system for semiconductor device fabrication for the purpose of
`
`reducing etch inhomogeneity and, thereby, improve component yield and
`
`performance. Id.
`
`a)
`
`Said device being fabricated by use of a surface reaction
`rate constant
`
`Battey teaches and suggests “said device being fabricated by use of a surface
`
`reaction rate constant,” as recited by claim 26. It discusses reducing edge-to-center
`
`inhomogeneity in strip rates for etched wafers in the production of semiconductor
`
`devices by means of its model. Ex. 1002 [Battey] at 439 (“[E]dge-to-center
`
`inhomogeneity . . . can be corrected by increasing wafer spacing by a factor f2.”);
`
`Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 52. It describes solving “[t]he radiation boundary
`
`condition [which] equates the diffusion current [of oxygen etchant] into the wafers,
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`(cid:1830)(cid:3031)(cid:3092)(cid:3031)(cid:3053)(cid:4698)(cid:3053)(cid:2880)(cid:2868), where D is the diffusion coefficient of atomic oxygen in molecular
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`oxygen, to the reaction rate at the surface[.]” Ex. 1002 [Battey] at 438. Forming a
`
`quantity, h, that is the ratio of the surface reaction rate constant to the diffusion
`
`coefficient, Battey describes how the “reaction rates at the edge of the wafer and at
`
`the center were calculated for values of h of 25, 2.5, 0.25, 0.025, and 0.0025.” Id.
`
`at 439. It further describes measuring “h ≈ 0.158 cm-1 at 160o C from the
`
`difference in etch rates at the edge and center in these experiments,” and using a
`
`value of 700 cm/sec2 for the diffusion coefficient, D. Id. Based on these
`
`disclosures, at the time of the purported invention of the ‘849 patent, a PHOSITA
`
`would have understood to use Battey’s model to fabricate a device using the
`
`surface reaction rate constant. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 52.
`
`b)
`
`Providing a plasma etching apparatus
`
`Battey teaches “providing a plasma etching apparatus,” as recited by claim
`
`26. Battey is generally directed to understanding “the effects of geometry on
`
`diffusion-controlled chemical reaction rates in a plasma.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002
`
`[Battey] at p. 437 (Title). It describes “a plasma stripping or etching system [that]
`
`has a processing rate which can be specified in silicon area per unit time.” Id. at p.
`
`437 (Abstract). Battey goes on to describe its etching apparatus, wherein “gas is
`
`exhausted by a forepump from the reactor through a quartz manifold on the top of
`
`the reactor and parallel to the reactor axis,” and “plasma is excited by a radio
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 21 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`frequency generator operating at 13.56 MHz and coupled into the plasma through a
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`
`
`
`
`50 Ω cable[.]” Id. at 437. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 53.
`
`c)
`
`A substrate therein, said substrate comprising a top
`surface and a film overlying said top surface, said film
`comprising a top film surface
`
`Battey teaches “a substrate therein, said substrate comprising a top surface
`
`and a film overlying said top surface, said film comprising a top film surface,” as
`
`recited by claim 26. It discusses its “experimental procedure … to scrape the
`
`photoresist off a small area at the center and the edge of the wafer, measure the
`
`photoresist[.]” Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 438. At the time of the purported invention
`
`of the ‘849 patent, a PHOSITA would have understood that the claimed “substrate
`
`. . . and a film overlying said top surface” corresponds to the photoresist covered
`
`wafer of Battey’s disclosure. Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 54.
`
`d)
`
`Etching said top surface at a temperature to define a
`relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film
`
`Battey teaches “etching said top surface at a temperature to define a
`
`relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film,” as recited by claim 26. Battey
`
`describes a procedure, utilizing its plasma etching apparatus, to “strip the wafer for
`
`a length of time sufficient to remove a significant amount, but not all, of the
`
`photoresist from the center and edge of the wafer, and measure the thickness of the
`
`residual photoresist.” Ex. 1002 [Battey] at p. 438. The measured residual
`
`photoresist after stripping corresponds to the claimed “non-uniform etching profile
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 22 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`on said film.” Ex. 1005 [Cecchi decl.] a