UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`___________________
`
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00279
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 10(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`Page 1 of 103
`
`

`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`Claims 13-26 & 64-65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory notices .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real party in interest............................................................................. 1
`B.
`Related matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C. Notice of counsel and service information ........................................... 2
`III. Requirements for inter partes review ............................................................. 4
`A. Ground for standing ............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Identification of challenge .................................................................... 5
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ........................................................................... 5
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 5
`B.
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features ................................................................................................. 7
`The earliest possible priority date for the ’264 patent is
`September 1997 .................................................................................... 9
`V. Overview of the prior art .............................................................................. 10
`A.
`Two-temperature etch processes were well known in the prior
`art ........................................................................................................ 10
`1. Muller (Ex. 1002) ..................................................................... 11
`2. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ............................................................. 13
`3.
`Kadomura (Ex. 1005) ............................................................... 15
`Selecting thermal mass for a substrate holder was a known
`technique ............................................................................................ 16
`1.
`Anderson (Ex. 1011) ................................................................ 17
`2.
`Hinman (Ex. 1010) ................................................................... 18
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................... 18
`Proposed claim constructions ............................................................. 19
`1.
`“Selected thermal mass” .......................................................... 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`-i-
`
`Page 3 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`“The thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for
`a predetermined temperature change within a specific
`interval of time” ....................................................................... 20
`VI. Claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable....................... 21
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 64-65 are obvious
`over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................. 21
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 21
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 35
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 36
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 37
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 38
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 38
`7.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 39
`8.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 40
`9.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 41
`10. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 42
`11. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 42
`B. Ground 2: Claims 19-20 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Wright ......................................................... 43
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 43
`2.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 43
`3.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 44
`C. Ground 3: Claim 17 is obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 45
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 45
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 45
`D. Ground 4: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ............................................... 48
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 48
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 4 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 48
`2.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 50
`3.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 50
`4.
`Ground 5: Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 64-65 are obvious over
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................... 51
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 51
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 64
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 65
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 65
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 65
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 66
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 67
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 68
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 68
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 69
`11. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 70
`12. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 70
`Ground 6: Claim 17 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 71
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 71
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 71
`G. Ground 7: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ........................... 73
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 73
`2.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 74
`3.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 76
`4.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 76
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 5 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`H. Ground 8: Claim 15 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Muller .......................................................... 77
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 77
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 77
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 79
`I.
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`II. Mandatory notices .......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Real party in interest............................................................................. 2
`B.
`Related matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C. Notice of counsel and service information ........................................... 4
`III. Requirements for inter partes review ............................................................. 6
`A. Ground for standing ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Identification of challenge .................................................................... 7
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ........................................................................... 8
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 8
`B.
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features ............................................................................................... 10
`The earliest possible priority date for the ’264 patent is
`September 1997 .................................................................................. 11
`V. Overview of the prior art .............................................................................. 13
`A.
`Two-temperature etch processes were well known in the prior
`art ........................................................................................................ 13
`1. Muller (Ex. 1002) ..................................................................... 14
`2. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ............................................................. 16
`3.
`Kadomura (Ex. 1005) ............................................................... 18
`Selecting thermal mass for a substrate holder was a known
`technique ............................................................................................ 19
`1.
`Anderson (Ex. 1011) ................................................................ 20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 6 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Hinman (Ex. 1010) ................................................................... 21
`2.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................... 21
`Proposed claim constructions ............................................................. 22
`1.
`“Selected thermal mass” .......................................................... 22
`2.
`“The thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for
`a predetermined temperature change within a specific
`interval of time” ....................................................................... 23
`VI. Claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable....................... 24
`A. Ground 1: Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 64-65 are obvious
`over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................. 24
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 24
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 38
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 39
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 40
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 41
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 41
`7.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 42
`8.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 43
`9.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 44
`10. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 45
`11. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 45
`B. Ground 2: Claims 19-20 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Wright ......................................................... 46
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 46
`2.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 47
`C. Ground 3: Claim 17 is obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 48
`
`-v-
`
`Page 7 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 48
`1.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 48
`2.
`D. Ground 4: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ............................................... 51
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 51
`2.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 53
`Ground 5: Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 64-65 are obvious over
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman ............................... 54
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 54
`2.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 67
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 68
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 68
`5.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 68
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 69
`7.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 70
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 71
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 71
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 72
`11. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 73
`12. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 73
`Ground 6: Claim 17 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 74
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 74
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 74
`G. Ground 7: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ........................... 76
`
`F.
`
`-vi-
`
`Page 8 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 76
`1.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 77
`2.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 79
`3.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 79
`4.
`H. Ground 8: Claim 15 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Muller .......................................................... 80
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 80
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 80
`VII. 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) & 325(d) ...................................................................... 82
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 84
`
`-vii-
`
`Page 9 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`Petitioner’s ExhibitsExhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“’264 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,605,600 (“Muller”)
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,226,056 (“Kikuchi”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 (“Kadomura”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224 (“’224 application”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Wright, D.R. et al., A Closed Loop Temperature Control System for
`a Low-Temperature Etch Chuck, Advanced Techniques for
`Integrated Processing II, Vol. 1803 (1992), pp. 321–329 (“Wright”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,192,849 (“Moslehi ’849”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,863,049 (“Hinman”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Statutory Invention Registration No. H1145 (“Anderson”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Incropera, Frank P. et al, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
`Third Edition, 1981 (“Incropera”)
`
`CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: A Ready-Reference
`Book of Chemical and Physical Data, 71st Edition, CRC Press, Inc.,
`1974 (“CRC Handbook”)
`
`-v-
`
`Page 10 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`(continued)
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Paper 7
`(February 24, 2016)
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00468, Paper 6
`(June 30, 2016)
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v.
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 7 (February 24, 2016)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 1 (August 18, 2015)
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. regarding Exhibit 1014
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1015
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`RESERVED
`
`Other
`Abbreviatio
`ns and
`Conventions
`Ex. 1023
`
`PetitionersE
`x. 1024
`
`Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and
`MicronTechnology, Inc.RESERVED
`
`Daniel FlammComparison between the Current Petition and Petition
`in IPR2017-00279
`
`Patent
`OwnerEx.
`1025
`
`
`-vi-
`
`Page 11 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Dr. Daniel Flamm sued Petitioners Intel Corporation,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc.,Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”),
`
`and Micron Technology, Inc.other parties for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No.
`
`5
`
`RE40,264 E. Petitioners request (“the ’264 Patent”). Petitioner requests the Board
`
`to institute an IPR trial on claims 13-26 and 64-65 of the ’264 patent because prior
`
`art that was not before the examiner during prosecution renders those claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`10
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Intel Corp. et al. v.
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00279 (“the Intel IPR” or “the Intel proceeding”),
`
`which the Board instituted on June 13, 2017. This Petition is substantially
`
`identical to the Petition in the Intel IPR; it contains the same grounds (based on the
`
`same prior art combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims.
`
`15
`
`(See Ex. 1025, illustrating changes between the instant Petition and the Petition in
`
`IPR2017-00279.)
`
`The ’264 patent is titled “Multi-Temperature Processing.” The challenged
`
`claims all require etching a substrate (such as a semiconductor wafer) at multiple
`
`temperatures and selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder (such as a wafer
`
`20
`
`chuck) to change temperature within a preselected period of time. Several
`
`-1-
`
`Page 12 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`references that were not previously before the patent office show that multi-
`
`temperature etching and thermal mass selection were known long before the
`
`critical date. The various claims also tack on conventional semiconductor tool
`
`components (temperature sensors and multiple heating elements), but there was
`
`5
`
`nothing unexpected or inventive about those elements either. Each of the
`
`challenged claims is a combination of well-known elements arranged in a
`
`conventional way to produce predictable results. The challenged claims were
`
`obvious.
`
`10
`
`II. Mandatory notices
`A. Real party in interest
`The real parties in interest are Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
`
`Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`The real-parties in interest for this petition are Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and
`
`15
`
`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.
`
`B. Related matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’264 patent against PetitionersPetitioner and
`
`20
`
`others in lawsuits (now stayed) in the Northern District of California: Case Nos.
`
`5:16-cv-01578-BLF, 5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-BLF, 5:16-cv-1581-BLF,
`
`-2-
`
`Page 13 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`and 5:16-cv-02252-BLF1. In addition, Lam Research Corporation hashad filed a
`
`declaratory judgment action against Patent Owner on the ’264 patent (N.D. Cal.
`
`Case No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF) and IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2015-
`
`01759; IPR2015-01764; IPR2015-01766; IPR2015-01768; IPR2016-00468;
`
`5
`
`IPR2016-00469; and IPR2016-00470). Finally, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.
`
`has filed IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2016-01510 and IPR2016-01512).),
`
`each of which was either denied institution or terminated pursuant to settlement.
`
`Petitioner also filed IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2016-01510 and
`
`IPR2016-01512), of which the latter is currently pending. The ’264 Patent is also
`
`10
`
`at issue in four other inter partes reviews, Intel Corp. et al v. Daniel L. Flamm
`
`(IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280, IPR2017-00281, IPR2017-00282), each of
`
`which was instituted on June 13, 2017. Finally, the ’264 Patent is at issue in Tokyo
`
`Electron Ltd. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-01072, which is awaiting an institution
`
`decision.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner had asserted the ’264 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).
`
`-3-
`
`Page 14 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`In addition to this Petition, Petitioner is filing six petitions for inter partes
`
`review: a Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221 (“the ’221
`
`Patent”), two Petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (“the
`
`’849 Patent”), and three Petitions for inter partes review of the ’264 Patent.
`
`5
`
`Concurrently with each of these six Petitions, Petitioner is filing Motions for
`
`Joinder to join inter partes reviews of the ’221 Patent (IPR2017-00391), ’849
`
`Patent (IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406), the ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280,
`
`IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-00282.)
`
`C. Notice of counsel and service information
`Petitioners’Petitioner’s respective counsel are:
`
`10
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jonathan McFarland 
`Reg. No. 61,109 
`PERKINS COIE LLP 
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 
`Seattle, WA 98101 
`206‐359‐8000 (phone) 
`206‐359‐9000 (fax) 
`Attorney for Intel CorporationNaveen
`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
`Chad Campbell
`Pro hac vice to be submitted
`Tyler Bowen
`Reg. No. 60,461
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`2901 N. Central Ave, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012
`602-351-8000 (phone)
`602-648-7000 (fax)
`Attorneys for Intel Corporation
`
`Daniel Keese
`Reg. No. 69,315
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
`Portland, OR 97209
`503-727-2000 (phone)
`503-727-2222 (fax)
`
`-4-
`
`Page 15 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Attorney for Intel Corporation
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Registration No. 73,604
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-802-3237 (phone)
`650-802-3100 (fax)
`Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`Jared Bobrow
`Pro hac vice to be submitted
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-802-3034 (phone)
`650-802-3100 (fax)
`Attorney for Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`202-626-3600 (phone)
`202-639-9355 (fax)
`Attorney for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.
`
`Nathan Zhang
`Registration No. 71,401
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`650-213-0300 (phone)
`650-213-8158 (fax)
`Attorney for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No.
`46,508)
`
`-5-
`
`Page 16 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`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-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Petitioners consentPetitioner consents to electronic service. All services and
`
`communications to the above attorneys can be sent to: IntelPH-Samsung-Flamm-
`
`Service-IPR@perkinscoiepaulhastings.com; micron.flamm.service@weil.com; and
`
`5
`
`WCGlobalFoundries-FlammTeam@whitecase.com.. A Power of Attorney for
`
`PetitionersPetitioner will be filed concurrently with this Petition.
`
`III. Requirements for inter partes review
`
`-6-
`
`Page 17 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`A. Ground for standing
`The ’264 patent qualifies for IPR, and Petitioners are not barred.2
`
`The ’264 Patent is available for inter partes review and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the Patent
`
`5
`
`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 Intel IPR. Under the 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
`
`10
`
`request for joinder.
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 13-26 and 64-65 should be cancelled as obvious based on:
`
`
`2 Patent Owner did not name Petitioners in an infringement complaint until January
`
`15, 2016, and the court did not issue summonses for purposes of service until
`
`January 21, 2016. N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF, Dkts. 50, 58, 60 & 61.
`
`Patent Owner did not serve any Petitioner with the complaint before January 21,
`
`2016.
`
`-7-
`
`Page 18 of 103
`
`

`

`Ground References
`1
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman (Exs.
`1002-1003 and 1010-1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Wright (Exs. 1002-1003, 1008 and 1010-
`1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Kikuchi (Exs. 1002-1004 and 1010-1011)
`Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Moslehi ’849 (Exs. 1002-1003 and 1009-
`1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman
`(Exs. 1003, 1005 and 1010-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Kikuchi (Exs. 1003-1005 and 1010-1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Moslehi ’849 (Exs. 1003, 1005 and 1009-
`1011)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman,
`Muller (Exs. 1002-1003, 1005 and 1010-
`1011)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 13-16, 18-19,
`21-23, 64-65
`Claims 19-20
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claims 24-26
`
`Claims 13-16, 18-23,
`64-65
`Claim 17
`
`Claims 24-26
`
`Claim 15
`
`
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent
`A. The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes
`The ’264 patent issued April 29, 2008 from a reissue application filed
`
`5
`
`May 14, 2003. The sole named inventor is Daniel L. Flamm. The patent discloses
`
`processing (e.g., etching) a semiconductor wafer at two different temperatures in a
`
`tool chamber. (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12, 18:54-56.) Specifically, the patent describes
`
`that temperature control system 700, shown in Figure 7 below, heats or cools wafer
`
`chuck 701 (purple) using a heater (red) and fluid (blue) from reservoir 713. (Id.,
`
`10
`
`15:65-66, 16:3-5.) The control system measures wafer and chuck temperatures
`
`-8-
`
`Page 19 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`“using conventional means” to change temperatures “to pre-determined
`
`temperatures within specified time intervals….” (Id., 16:60-67, 18:22-26; Ex.
`
`1006 ¶¶48-55.)
`
`
`Figure 10 plots changes in temperature against processing time. (Ex. 1006
`
`5
`
`¶¶56-57.)
`
`
`The ’264 patent further describes selecting the thermal mass of a substrate
`
`holder (e.g., chuck) “to facilitate” changing the substrate (e.g., wafer) temperature
`
`-9-
`
`Page 20 of 103
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279)
`
`and “allow[ing] for a change from a first temperature to a second temperature
`
`within a characteristic time period to process a film.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:51-
`
`56.) Yet, the ’264 specification does not provide any specific examples of
`
`selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder so that a wafer changes between
`
`5
`
`two selected temperatures within a specific time period. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶58-59.) Nor
`
`does the ’264 patent identify the precise thermal mass of any particular chuck
`
`materials, other than suggesting use of a “low thermal mass” material such as
`
`copper. (Ex. 1001, 15:43-48.) As the patent acknowled