`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,711,849
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ....... 1
`2.1 Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................... 1
`2.2 Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............ 2
`2.3 Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................. 3
`2.4 Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................. 3
`2.5 Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................. 5
`2.6 Proof of Service .................................................................................... 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B)) ....................................................................................................... 5
`OVERVIEW OF THE 849 PATENT ............................................................. 5
`849 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................. 13
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15
`6.1 Applicable Law .................................................................................. 15
`6.2 Construction of Claim Terms ............................................................. 15
`6.2.1 “surface reaction rate constant” (all claims) ............................ 16
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 19
`DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ....................................................... 20
`8.1 Alkire (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................ 20
`8.2 Galewski (Ex. 1007) ........................................................................... 24
`8.3 Motivations To Combine: Alkire in Combination with
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 28
`GROUND #1: CLAIMS 1-29 OF THE 849 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER ALKIRE IN VIEW OF
`GALEWSKI ................................................................................................. 31
`9.1 Claim 1 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ......................... 31
`9.1.1 [1.P] “A device fabrication method comprising the steps
`of:” ............................................................................................ 31
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`9.1.2 [1.1] “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;”................................................ 32
`9.1.3 [1.2] “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” ...................................................... 34
`9.1.4 [1.3] “extracting a surface reaction rate constant from
`said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate
`constant in the fabrication of a device.” .................................. 38
`9.2 Claim 10 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 45
`9.2.1 [10.P] “A method of designing a reactor comprising the
`steps of:” .................................................................................. 45
`9.2.2 [10.1] “providing a first 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” ......................................... 46
`9.2.3 [10.2] “etching said top film surface to define a relatively
`non-uniform etching profile on said film, and defining
`etch rate data comprising an etch rate and a spatial
`coordinate which defines a position within said relatively
`non-uniform etching profile on said film of said
`substrate, said etching comprising a reaction between a
`gas phase etchant and said film; and” ...................................... 47
`9.2.4 [10.3] “extracting a surface reaction rate constant from
`said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate
`constant in designing a second plasma etching
`apparatus.” ................................................................................ 47
`9.3 Claim 20 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 48
`9.3.1 [20.P] “A substrate fabrication method, using a plasma
`etching apparatus, said method comprising:” .......................... 48
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`9.3.2 [20.1] “providing a substrate selected from a group
`consisting of a semiconductor wafer, a plate, and a flat
`panel display, said substrate comprising a top surface;” ......... 48
`9.3.3 [20.2] “forming a film overlying said top surface, said
`film comprising a top film surface;” ........................................ 49
`9.3.4 [20.3] “etching said top film surface to define a relatively
`non-uniform profile on said film, and defining etch rate
`data comprising an etch rate and a spatial coordinate
`which defines a position within said relatively non-
`uniform etching profile of said film on said substrate,
`said etching comprising a reaction between a gas phase
`etchant and said film; and” ...................................................... 50
`9.3.5 [20.4] “extracting a surface reaction rate constant from
`said etch rate data, and using said surface reaction rate
`constant.” .................................................................................. 50
`9.4 Claim 22 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 50
`9.4.1 [22.P] “A method of fabricating an integrated circuit
`device, using a plasma etching apparatus, said method
`comprising:” ............................................................................. 50
`9.4.2 [22.1] “providing a uniformity value and a surface
`reaction rate constant for an etching reaction, said etching
`reaction including a substrate and etchant species;” ................ 51
`9.4.3 [22.2] “defining etching parameters providing said
`uniformity value; and” ............................................................. 52
`9.4.4 [22.3] “adjusting at least one of said etching parameters
`using said surface reaction rate constant to produce a
`selected etching rate” ............................................................... 53
`9.4.5 [22.4] “wherein said etching rate providing an etching
`condition for fabrication of an integrated circuit device.” ....... 55
`9.5 Claim 26 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 56
`9.5.1 [26.P] “A process for fabricating a device using a plasma
`etching apparatus, said device being fabricated by use of
`a surface reaction rate constant, said surface reaction rate
`constant being derived from a method comprising:” ............... 56
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`9.5.2 [26.1] “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” ................................................. 57
`9.5.3 [26.2] “etching said top surface at a temperature to define
`a relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film, and
`defining etch rate data comprising an etch rate and a
`spatial coordinate which defined a position from said
`relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film of
`said substrate, said etching comprising a reaction
`between a gas phase etchant and said film; and” ..................... 57
`9.5.4 [26.3] “extracting from said etching rate data a surface
`reaction rate constant for said temperature.” ........................... 58
`9.6 Dependent Claims 2 and 11 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 58
`9.6.1 [2.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said etching step is
`diffusion limited.” .................................................................... 58
`9.7 Dependent Claims 3 and 12 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 59
`9.7.1 [3.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said spatial
`coordinate includes a radius and an angle.” ............................. 59
`9.8 Dependent Claims 4 and 13 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 62
`9.8.1 [4.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said spatial
`coordinate includes an x-direction and a y-direction.” ............ 62
`9.9 Dependent Claims 5 and 14 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 63
`9.9.1 [5.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said extracting
`step correlates said surface reaction rate constant over a
`diffusivity with said etch rate, said etch rate being
`defined by said relatively non-uniform etching profile.” ........ 63
`9.10 Dependent Claims 6 and 15 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 64
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`9.10.1 [6.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said etch rate is
`defined by said relatively non-uniform etching profile at
`selected spatial coordinates over a time.” ................................ 64
`9.11 Dependent Claims 7 and 16 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 65
`9.11.1 [7.0] “The method of claim 1 wherein said etching is an
`ashing method.” ....................................................................... 65
`9.12 Dependent Claims 8 and 17 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 66
`9.12.1 [8.0] “The method of claim 7 wherein said ashing
`method comprises reactants including an oxygen and a
`photoresist.” ............................................................................. 66
`9.13 Claim 9 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ......................... 67
`9.13.1 [9.0] “The method of claim 1 further comprising a step of
`using said reaction rate constant in adjusting said plasma
`etch apparatus.” ........................................................................ 67
`9.14 Claim 18 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 69
`9.14.1 [18.0] “The method of claim 10 wherein said second
`plasma etching apparatus is a co-axial reactor.” ...................... 69
`9.15 Claim 19 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 71
`9.15.1 [19.0] “The method of claim 10 wherein said second
`plasma etching apparatus is a plasma etching apparatus.” ...... 71
`9.16 Dependent Claims 21 and 28 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 72
`9.16.1 [21.0] “The method of claims 1, 10, or 20 wherein said
`etching is provided whereupon chemical effects are
`enhanced over ion bombardment effects.” .............................. 72
`9.17 Claim 23 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 74
`9.17.1 [23.0] “The method of claim 22 wherein said etching
`parameters can be selected from a group consisting of a
`temperature, a pressure, a power, a gap, and a flow rate.” ...... 74
`9.18 Dependent Claims 24 and 25 are obvious over Alkire in view of
`Galewski ............................................................................................. 74
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`9.18.1 [24.0] “The method of claim 22 wherein said uniformity
`value ranges from 90% and greater.” ....................................... 74
`9.19 Claim 27 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 75
`9.19.1 [27.0] “The process of claim 26 wherein said surface
`reaction rate constant is derived using at least a
`diffusivity value that is determined by an equation.” .............. 75
`9.20 Claim 29 is obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski ....................... 75
`9.20.1 [29.0] “The method of claim 26 further comprising using
`said surface reaction rate constant in a method selected
`from a group consisting of a fabrication of a device or of
`designing a reactor, said surface reaction rate constant
`being provided by at least a diffusivity value.” ....................... 75
`10. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 76
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (“849 Patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,711, 849
`
`Declaration of Dr. David Graves (“Graves Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. David Graves
`
`Alkire et al., Transient Behavior during Film Removal in Diffusion-
`Controlled Plasma Etching, J. Electrochem. Soc.: Solid-State
`Science and Technology, March 1985, pp. 648-656 (“Alkire”)
`
`Kao et al., Analysis of Nonuniformities in the Plasma Etching of
`Silicon with CF4/O2, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 137 No. 3,
`March 1990, pp. 954-960 (“Kao”)
`
`Galewski et al., Modeling of a High Throughput Hot-Wall Reactor
`for Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon, IEEE Transactions On
`Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 3, August 1991, pp. 169-
`179 (“Galewski”)
`
`Klavs F. Jensen, Chemical Engineering in the Processing of
`Electronic and Optical Materials: A Discussion, Advances in
`Chemical Engineering, Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 395-412 (“Jensen 1991”)
`
`Jensen et al., Modeling and Analysis of Low Pressure CVD
`Reactors, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 130, No. 9, September 1983,
`pp. 1950-1957 (“Jensen 1983”)
`
`al., Plasma-Enhanced Etching and Deposition,
`et
`Hess
`Microelectronics Processing, Chemical Engineering Aspects,
`Advances in Chemistry Series 221, pp. 377-440 (“Hess”)
`
`Klavs F. Jensen, Micro-Reaction Engineering Applications of
`Reaction Engineering to Processing of Electronic and Photonic
`Materials, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 42, No. 5, 1987, pp.
`923-958 (“Jensen 1987”)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,918,031 (“Flamm 031”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,304,282 (“Flamm 282”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,815,201 (“Harris”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,453,157 (“Jeng”)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, IPR2016-00466
`
`Declaration of Mariellen F. Calter regarding Alkire et al., Transient
`Behavior during Film Removal in Diffusion-Controlled Plasma
`Etching (1985), Kao et al., Analysis of Nonuniformities in the
`Plasma Etching of Silicon with CF4/O2 (1990), and Galewski et al.,
`Modeling of a High Throughput Hot-Wall Reactor for Selective
`Epitaxial Growth of Silicon (1992)
`
`Steinfeld et al., Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics, Prentice Hall,
`Inc., 1989
`
`Dennis M. Manos and Daniel L. Flamm, Plasma Etching: An
`Introduction, Academic Press, 1989
`
`G. B. Thomas, Calculus and Analytical Geometry, 4th Ed.,
`Addison-Wesley, 1968
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in IPR2017-
`00406
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ( “Petitioner”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,711,849, titled “Process Optimization In Gas Phase Dry Etching” (Ex.1001, the
`
`“849 Patent”), and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Micron Technology,
`
`Inc. et al v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00406 (“the Micron IPR” or “the Micron
`
`proceeding”), which the Board instituted on June 9, 2017. This Petition is
`
`substantially identical to the petition in the Micron IPR; it contains the same
`
`grounds (based on the same prior art combinations and supporting evidence)
`
`against the same claims. (See Ex. 1023, illustrating changes between the instant
`
`Petition and the Petition in IPR2017-00406.)
`
`2.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`2.1 Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`The ’849 Patent is available for inter partes review and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the Patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner is not estopped because
`
`this Petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder, and is being submitted no
`
`later than one month after the institution date of the Micron IPR. Under the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Board’s current interpretation of the statute and rules, including 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b), the time period set forth in § 42.101(b) does not apply to a Petition
`
`accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`2.2 Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`provides the following designation of Lead and Back-Up counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1990
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1996
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`Chetan R. Bansal (Limited Recognition
`No. L0667)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1948
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`Howard Herr
`(pro hac vice admission to be requested)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1980
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney for Petitioner are
`
`attached.
`
`2.3 Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-parties-in -interest for this petition are Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. No other parties exercised or could have
`
`exercised control over this petition; no other parties funded or directed this
`
`Petition. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759-60.
`
`2.4 Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm”) has asserted the 849 Patent and U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,017,221 (the “221 Patent”) and RE40,264 (the “RE264 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the asserted patents”) in the following co-pending litigations (now
`
`stayed): Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Micron Technology, Inc., 16-cv-1581 (N.D.
`
`Cal.), Daniel L. Flamm v. GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. Inc., 16-cv-1578 (N.D.
`
`Cal.), Daniel L. Flamm v. Intel Corporation, 16-cv-1579 (N.D. Cal.), Daniel L.
`
`Flamm v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., 16-cv-1580 (N.D. Cal.), and Daniel L.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 16-cv-02252 (N.D. Cal.)1. The 849
`
`Patent is also at issue in a declaratory judgment action entitled Lam Research
`
`Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, 15-cv-1277 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`The 849 Patent was at issue in Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`
`IPR2016-00466. The 849 Patent is presently at issue in two inter partes review
`
`proceedings, Micron Technology, Inc. et al v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00392
`
`and IPR2017-00406, both instituted on June 9, 2017. In addition to this Petition,
`
`Petitioner is filing six petitions for inter partes review: an additional Petition for
`
`inter partes review of 849 Patent, four Petitions for inter partes review of the
`
`RE264 Patent, and a Petition for inter partes review of the 221 Patent.
`
`Concurrently with each of these six Petitions, Petitioner is filing Motions for
`
`Joinder to join inter partes reviews of the 849 Patent (IPR2017-00392), U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE40,264 (IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-
`
`00282), and the 221 Patent (IPR2017-00391).
`
`
`1 Patent Owner had asserted the ’221 Patent against Petitioner in Daniel L. Flamm
`
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:15-cv-613-LY (WDTX). The case
`
`was transferred to the Northern District of California on April 27, 2016 and is now
`
`pending under Case No. 5:16-cv-2252-BLF (NDCA).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,980,766, which expired due to non-payment of fees,
`
`claimed priority to the 849 Patent.
`
`2.5 Fee for Inter Partes Review
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a), and any other required fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`2.6 Proof of Service
`Proof of service of this petition on the patent owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for the 849 Patent is attached.
`
`3.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`42.104(B))
`Ground #1: Claims 1-29 of the 849 Patent are invalid under (pre-AIA) 35
`
`(§
`
`U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground that they are obvious over Alkire in view of Galewski.
`
`This Ground is explained below and is supported by the Declaration of Dr. David
`
`Graves (Ex.1003, “Graves Decl.”).
`
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE 849 PATENT
`The 849 Patent was filed on May 3, 1995 and issued on January 27, 1998.
`
`The 849 Patent does not claim priority to any other applications or patents.
`
`The 849 Patent relates generally to modeling gaseous diffusion and surface
`
`chemical reaction to predict etch rate uniformity in a plasma reactor in connection
`
`with designing a reactor for the manufacture of integrated circuits. Ex.1001, 849
`
`Patent at Abstract, 1:6-7; Ex.1003, ¶45. The alleged invention is a method for
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`applied chemical reaction engineering, modeling the “reaction between a neutral
`
`gas phase species and a surface material layer, typically for removal,” Ex.1001
`
`at 1:20-21, and is “illustrated in an example with regard to plasma etching.” Id.
`
`at 1:6-7.
`
`The 849 Patent alleges that the “conventional technique for obtaining and
`
`maintaining uniform etching relies upon a ‘trial and error’ process.” Id. at 1:28-30.
`
`It also alleges that “reaction rates between the etching species and the etched
`
`material are often not available,” and so “it is often impossible to anticipate actual
`
`etch rates from reaction rate constants.” Id. at 1:36-39. Thus, to avoid the need to
`
`build “[f]ull scale prototype equipment,” the 849 Patent describes a method of
`
`“determining a reaction rate coefficient based upon etch profile data” to “provide[]
`
`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.” Id. at 1:42-57.
`
`The 849 Patent uses two exemplary plasma etching apparatuses in
`
`describing its claimed methods. See id. at Figs. 1, 2. Figure 1 is a simplified
`
`diagram of a co-axial reactor, divided into three processing zones: a plasma
`
`generating zone 13, a transport zone 15, and a plate stack zone 17. Id. at 2:56-62.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`The “gas phase species” enter into the plasma generating zone through the
`
`chemical feed (“F” above), diffuse through the transport zone, and are consumed
`
`by a chemical reaction as they diffuse “over surfaces of the substrates 21.” Id.
`
`at 2:63-3:25. An exhaust is provided at E in Figure 1 for the removal of remaining
`
`gas phase species. Id. This type of reactor “relies substantially upon diffusion to
`
`obtain the desired etching uniformity” and “a chemical etch rate which is diffusion
`
`limited.” Id. at 3:6-9.
`
`Figure 2 illustrates “an alternative example” of a reactor that can be used in
`
`the claimed methods. Id. at 4:14-15.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`In Figure 2, the reactor is a “single wafer etching apparatus” with two
`
`electrodes (55 and 57) which contain the plasma in region 54. Id. at Fig. 2; 4:15-
`
`22. Again, the gas phase species are introduced through the chemical feed (F), and
`
`are removed through an exhaust (E). Id. at 4:27-28. The substrate (61) sits on a
`
`platen (64) and the gas phase species are directed to the substrate by diffusion. Id.
`
`at 4:18-31.
`
`Although the specification provides two exemplary reactors, “the invention
`
`may be applied to other reactors such as large batch, high pressure, chemical,
`
`single wafer, and others.” Id. at 4:61-63. As the 849 Patent admits, “[o]ne of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize other applications” of the modeling
`
`methods claimed. Id. at 5:5-7.
`
`The 849 Patent models the behavior of substrate film removal in diffusion-
`
`limited plasma etching. The model for the surface etching reaction “bears a first
`
`order form:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`O+S→SO
`
`where S is a substrate atom … and O is the gas-phase etchant.” Id. at 3:34-
`
`47. The rate of this reaction is directly related to the concentration of the gas-
`
`phase etchant, and can produce a non-uniform etching profile as a result of
`
`“different etch rates along the r-direction of the substrate corresponding to different
`
`etchant species concentrations.” Id. at 4:2-6.
`
`Figure 1A illustrates the concentration of the etchant as a function of the
`
`substrate radius in the top graph, and illustrates the convex etching profile of the
`
`substrate film (27). Id. at 3:66-4:9. The etching profile “can be measured by
`
`conventional techniques” and can be used to derive an “etching rate constant.” Id.
`
`at 4:47-49.
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`The etching rate constant is also described in the 849 Patent as the surface
`
`reaction rate constant, ks. See id. at 7:15-21, 10:33-38. The etch rate (ROS) is equal
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`to this surface reaction rate constant multiplied by the concentration of the etchant
`
`species (no): ROS = (no) ks. See id.
`
`The 849 Patent includes a method to extract ks by which one: (1) derives an
`
`“etch constant (or a reaction rate constant) over diffusivity (kvo/D)”, (2) multiplies
`
`that value by an estimated diffusivity (DAB) to derive a volumetric reaction rate
`
`constant (kvo), and (3) multiplies the volumetric reaction rate constant by the gap
`
`above the substrate, generally the gap between two substrates, (dgap) to determine a
`
`surface reaction rate constant (ks). Id. at 5:62-6:62; Fig. 3.
`
`The first step of the disclosed method calculates kvo/D, the volumetric etch
`
`constant divided by diffusivity. Id. “kvo is the volume equivalent surface reaction
`
`rate constant.” Id. at 12:8-9. The specification provides two mathematical models
`
`for calculating kvo/D, Id. at 6:5-29, but it also provides “a more robust procedure:
`
`determin[ing] kvo/D from a least squares fit to the entire experimental etch profile
`
`data set taken by a conventional stylus profilometer.” Id. at 15:57-59.
`
`The second step multiplies the determined kvo/D by an estimated diffusivity,
`
`DAB. Id. at 6:30-55. The specification provides the “Chapman-Enskog kinetic
`
`theory equation” to estimate the diffusivity, Id. at 6:30-46, but does not limit its
`
`claims to the use of this equation. It states that “[o]f course, other techniques for
`
`calculating a diffusivity may also be used.” Id. at 6:50-52.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`The final step calculates the surface reaction rate constant, ks. Id. at 6:56-63.
`
`The surface reaction rate constant may be determined by:
`
`ks =(kvo) dgap
`
`where dgap is a geometric conversion from a volumetric reaction rate
`
`constant to a surface reaction rate constant. Ex.1003, ¶61.
`
`The etch rate (ROS) is equal to this surface reaction rate constant multiplied
`
`by the concentration of the etchant species (no):
`
`ROS = (no) ks
`
`See Ex.1001 at 7:15-21, 10:33-38. “From 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.
`
`The 849 Patent provides a graph of an array of etching parameters
`
`(temperature, pressure, and the distance between substrates) for different calculated
`
`etch uniformities in Figure 5A.
`
`Ex.1001, 849 Patent at Fig. 5A.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`In Figure 5A, the squares contain a gray scale corresponding to “a different
`
`uniformity value.” Id. at 9:38-41. Based upon this array, it is possible to “compute
`
`locus of highest T, versus P and dgap” that falls within the desired uniformity
`
`specified. Id. at 9:44-49. The 849 Patent allows, however, that “other sequences
`
`of steps may be used in selecting a desired temperature, pressure, gap, and other
`
`parameters to provide the desired etch rate.” Id. at 10:19-22.
`
`All of the independent claims of the 849 Patent are directed to a method of
`
`fabricating a device in a plasma etching apparatus or designing a plasma etching
`
`apparatus to fabricate a device using this surface reaction rate constant, ks. Claim 1
`
`is illustrative of all of the independent claims. The dependent claims are directed
`
`to minor modifications to the method that are ancillary to the modeling method
`
`disclosed, such as: using a diffusion limited reaction (claims 2, 11), using
`
`cylindrical or Cartesian coordinates (claims 3, 4, 12, 13), using an ashing method
`
`of etching (claims 7, 8, 16, 17), using a reaction that is dominated by chemical
`
`reactions over ion bombardment effects (claims 21, 28), and using a method that
`
`calculates the surface reaction rate constant with a “diffusivity value that is
`
`determined by an equation” (claim 27).
`
`The specification makes clear that the method of modeling a surface reaction
`
`rate constant is not limited to plasma etching reactions:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
`
`The present invention also provides for a method of measuring
`
`absolute gas-surface reaction rates
`
`in commercial processing
`
`equipment without the benefit of sophisticated diagnostic equipment.
`
`Gas-surface radical reaction rates are often needed for the design of
`
`plasma processing equipment and for selection of desired reaction
`
`conditions.
`
`Id. at 17:1-7 (emphasis added).
`
`5.
`
`849 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The application that led to the issuance of the 849 Patent was originally filed
`
`with 23 claims; two additional claims were added in a preliminary amendment.
`
`Ex.1002 at pp.38-41, pp.81-87.
`
`On March 4, 1996, the Examiner rejected all claims as indefinite under §
`
`