UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`___________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`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 ............................................................. 5
`A. Ground for standing ............................................................................. 5
`B.
`Identification of challenge .................................................................... 5
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ........................................................................... 6
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 6
`B.
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features ................................................................................................. 8
`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-
`
`

`

`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-
`
`

`

`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 ................................................................................... 66
`8.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 67
`9.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 68
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 68
`11. Claim 64 ................................................................................... 69
`12. Claim 65 ................................................................................... 69
`Ground 6: Claim 17 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Kikuchi ........................................................ 70
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 70
`2.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 70
`G. Ground 7: Claims 24-26 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Moslehi ’849 ........................... 72
`1.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 72
`2.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 73
`3.
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 75
`4.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 75
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`H. Ground 8: Claim 15 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Anderson, Hinman, and Muller .......................................................... 76
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 76
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 76
`VII. 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) & 325(d) ...................................................................... 78
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 79
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Exhibit 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-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in IPR2017-
`00279
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Dr. Daniel Flamm sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”), and
`
`other parties for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E (“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.
`
`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.
`
`(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
`
`chuck) to change temperature within a preselected period of time. Several
`
`references that were not previously before the patent office show that multi-
`
`temperature etching and thermal mass selection were known long before the
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`critical date. The various claims also tack on conventional semiconductor tool
`
`components (temperature sensors and multiple heating elements), but there was
`
`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.
`
`II. Mandatory notices
`A. Real party in interest
`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.
`
`B. Related matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’264 patent against Petitioner and 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, and 5:16-
`
`cv-02252-BLF1. In addition, Lam Research Corporation had filed a declaratory
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`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; IPR2016-
`
`00469; and IPR2016-00470), 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 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.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Patent (IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406), the ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280,
`
`IPR2017-00281, and IPR2017-00282.)
`
`C. Notice of counsel and service information
`Petitioner’s respective counsel are:
`
`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-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service. All services and communications
`
`to the above attorneys can be sent to: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. A Power of Attorney for Petitioner will be filed
`
`concurrently with this Petition.
`
`III. Requirements for inter partes review
`A. Ground for standing
`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
`
`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
`
`request for joinder.
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 13-26 and 64-65 should be cancelled as obvious based on:
`
`2
`
`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)
`
`3
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 13-16, 18-19,
`21-23, 64-65
`Claims 19-20
`
`Claim 17
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`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)
`
`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
`
`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.,
`
`15:65-66, 16:3-5.) The control system measures wafer and chuck temperatures
`
`“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.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`Figure 10 plots changes in temperature against processing time. (Ex. 1006
`
`¶¶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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`selecting the thermal mass of a substrate holder so that a wafer changes between
`
`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 acknowledges, “[o]f course, the type
`
`of surface used depends upon the application.” (Id., 15:47-48.)
`
`B.
`
`The claims recite known etching techniques and conventional
`features
`
`Independent method claim 13 recites etching a substrate at two different
`
`substrate holder temperatures. The method requires the following steps for
`
`carrying out a two-temperature etch:
`
` placing a substrate with a film on a substrate holder in a chamber,
`
` setting the substrate holder to a first temperature with a heat transfer
`
`device,
`
` etching a first portion of a film at the first temperature,
`
` using the heat transfer device to change the substrate holder’s
`
`temperature, and
`
` etching a second portion of a film at the second temperature.
`
`The claim includes one additional requirement. The substrate holder has a
`
`“selected thermal mass” to change between the two selected temperatures within a
`
`“specific interval of time during processing.” (Ex. 1006 ¶¶26-27.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`The claims that depend from claim 13 recite minor, conventional variations
`
`to the above general process:
`
` etching different materials (14);
`
` “in-situ” temperature change (15);
`
` etching in a “substantially constant plasma environment” (16);
`
` etching using radiation (17);
`
` etching using ion bombardment (18);
`
` correspondence between wafer and chuck temperatures (19-22);
`
` using an electrostatic chuck with certain heating and cooling
`
`capabilities (23-26);
`
` using a “control circuit” to change chuck temperature (64); and
`
` reaching a second chuck temperature “at approximately a selected
`
`time” (65).
`
`C. The earliest possible priority date for the ’264 patent is
`September 1997
`
`For purposes of this Petition, September 11, 1997 is the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the challenged claims. Although the ’264 patent also recites a
`
`priority claim to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224, filed on December 4,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`1995 (Ex. 1007), the claimed subject matter is not supported by the ’224
`
`application.2
`
`For example, claim 13 requires that the “thermal mass of the substrate holder
`
`is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of
`
`time during processing.” Yet, the ’224 application did not use the term “thermal
`
`mass,” much less describe or teach selecting the thermal mass of a chuck or doing
`
`so to change temperature “within a specific interval of time.” (Ex. 1006 ¶¶30-31.)
`
`Nor did the ’224 application disclose changing chuck temperature from a first to a
`
`second temperature within a preselected interval of time. (Id. ¶31.)
`
`V. Overview of the prior art
`A. Two-temperature etch processes were well known in the prior art
`Alone or in combination, Muller, Kadomura, Matsumura, and Kikuchi
`
`disclosed the two-temperature etching processes recited in independent claim 13
`
`and the minor variations in its dependents. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶34, 38-39, 137.)
`
`
`2 The Board analyzed the priority of claims 13-26 and 64-65 in a prior IPR. The
`
`Board found that those claims were not entitled to a priority date before September
`
`11, 1997. (Ex. 1017, 10-12.) Although unimportant to this petition, Petitioner does
`
`not concede that the claims are entitled to priority as of September 11, 1997.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`In particular, the references disclosed controlling temperature changes (Ex.
`
`1002, Abstract; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:8-13; Ex. 1005, Title, Abstract) through
`
`heating (Ex. 1004, 7:25-34; Ex. 1005, 11:42-47) and cooling (Ex. 1002, 4:51-5:25;
`
`Ex. 1003, 6:20-32; Ex. 1005, 11:42-59), and rapid temperature changes to
`
`minimize potential processing delays (Ex. 1002, 5:17-26, 6:66-7:8; Ex. 1003, 7:50-
`
`53, Figs. 8-9; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 7:62-8:14; Ex. 1005, 5:18-25). The references
`
`disclosed etching tools with sensors to measure temperatures and regulate
`
`temperature changes. (Ex. 1003, 6:20-32; Ex. 1005, 12:37-48; Ex. 1008 at 321
`
`(“The system employs an optical fluorescence probe on the chuck (a second probe
`
`monitors the wafer temperature as well)….”).) The references also disclosed using
`
`processing recipes to pre-program systems to process wafers at particular times or
`
`temperatures and to change temperatures within preselected times. (Ex. 1003, 3:1-
`
`16, 5:58-6:2, 7:19-32, 8:25-35, 8:56-68, Figs. 8-9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶34-40, 79-84.) It
`
`was also known in the art to select an object’s thermal mass to change between two
`
`selected temperatures within a specific time interval. (Ex. 1011, 6:24-28; Ex.
`
`1010, 2:53-3:6; Ex. 1006 ¶¶41-47.)
`
`1. Muller (Ex. 1002)
`Muller issued in February 1997. Like the ’264 patent, Muller disclosed
`
`etching a wafer at two sequential temperatures in a chamber. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶71, 74.)
`
`Muller disclosed etching surface layers on a wafer and deep trenches into the wafer
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`while varying wafer temperature using an electrostatic chuck and coolant
`
`circulating through a cathode. (Ex. 1002, 1:7-12, 1:44-55, 4:51-63.) Figure 4
`
`below is annotated to highlight the wafer 104 (green), electrostatic chuck 105
`
`(purple), and cathode 106 (blue).
`
`
`Muller taught performing an initial etch at 125ºC or 145ºC. (Id., 3:45-52,
`
`3:56-66.) Then, the gas pressure underneath the chuck was changed to adjust the
`
`chuck temperature and increase wafer temperature by 50ºC in “several seconds”
`
`during etching. (Id., 4:64-5:25, 5:41-48.) Due to the 50ºC increase, Muller’s
`
`second etching step was performed at 175ºC (e.g., 125ºC plus 50ºC) or 195ºC (e.g.,
`
`145ºC plus 50ºC). (Id., 5:17-25, 5:41-48; Ex. 1006 ¶73-74.) The two etching
`
`temperature examples corresponded to different coolant temperatures––(a) with
`
`coolant at 10ºC, etch steps 1 and 2 were at 125ºC (step 1) and 175ºC (step 2),
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`respectively; and (b) with coolant at 30ºC, etch steps 1 and 2 were at 145ºC (step 1)
`
`and 195ºC (step 2), respectively. (Id., 5:17-25, 5:41-48; Fig. 3.)
`
`As shown below in Figure 6C, Muller taught that etching at lower
`
`temperatures produced sloped sidewalls in mask openings and deep trenches, while
`
`etching at higher temperatures produced more vertical sidewalls. (Id., 3:34-52,
`
`6:3-10, Figs. 1-2, Ex. 1006 ¶74.)
`
`2. Matsumura (Ex. 1003)
`Like Muller, Matsumura (issued September 1992) disclosed multi-
`
`
`
`temperature wafer processing in a chamber. Additionally, Matsumura disclosed
`
`the well-known practice of using recipes to preselect process parameters such as
`
`temperatures and temperature change times. Matsumura also disclosed using a
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor with processing recipes. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶80-83.)
`
`As in annotated Figure 5A below, Matsumura taught a processing tool with a
`
`thermometer 24 and sensor 25 (yellow) for measuring the temperature of wafer
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`holding stage 12 (purple); control system 20 (orange) for managing temperature
`
`changes; thin heat conducting film 14 (red) in stage 12 to heat wafer W (green);
`
`and cooling system 23 (blue) to cool the wafer. (Ex. 1003, 5:60-63, 5:68-6:2, 8:18-
`
`35.)
`
`
`Substrate temperature sensors, like Matsumura’s, were well known in the
`
`prior art. For example, Wright (published 1992) disclosed using two separate
`
`sensors to measure the temperature of the wafer and the wafer holder (chuck). (Ex.
`
`1008, 321 (“The system employs an optical fluorescence probe on the chuck (a
`
`second probe monitors the wafer temperature as well)….”), Fig. 6.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Likewise, using recipes to preselect temperature changes and other
`
`processing conditions was well known in semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`Matsumura’s control system 20 followed “predetermined recipe[s]” that specified
`
`temperatures, processing times, and temperature change times. (Ex. 1003, 3:1-7,
`
`3:14-16.) Matsumura’s Figure 9 below charts a sample recipe with multiple
`
`preselected processing temperatures (y-axis) and temperature change times (x-
`
`axis). Matsumura expressly taught that its recipe-based temperature control
`
`techniques applied to etching processes. (Id., 10:3-7.)
`
`
`
`3. Kadomura (Ex. 1005)
`Kadomura (filed February 1997) also disclosed a multi-temperature etching
`
`process. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶95-105.) As in annotated Figure 4 below, Kadomura
`
`disclosed an etching tool with a heater in wafer holder stage 12 (purple), a chiller
`
`17 (blue) for cooling stage 12, a thermometer 18 (yellow) for measuring wafer
`
`temperature, and a control device 25 (orange) for controlling the temperature of
`
`wafer W (green) based on temperature measurements from thermometer 18. (Ex.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`1005, 11:36-59, 12:37-48.) Kadomura adjusted the wafer’s temperature by
`
`changing the temperature of stage 12. (Id., 3:23-49.)
`
`
`Kadomura disclosed several specific examples of multi-temperature etch
`
`processes, including etching wafers at and above room temperature (20ºC, 50ºC)
`
`and changing etching temperature within about 30 or 50 seconds. (Id., 6:18-7:7,
`
`7:58-8:64, 9:33-10:27.)
`
`B.
`
`Selecting thermal mass for a substrate holder was a known
`technique
`
`Choosing a material with a thermal mass that provides for specific
`
`temperature changes within specific time periods was also known in the prior art.
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶¶41-47.) In semiconductor processing, it was known that thermal mass
`
`is relevant to chuck design and affects the time needed to change temperature. For
`
`example, Moslehi ’849 taught using a “low thermal mass” chuck for rapid heating
`
`and cooling to maximize “throughput.” (Ex. 1009, Title, 3:32-34, 4:44-48, 4:55-
`
`57, 9:58-60, 11:58-60.) Moslehi ’849 also explained that the chuck’s thermal mass
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`should be large enough to change temperature evenly. (Id., 10:3-7.) As another
`
`example, Anderson taught using a low thermal mass substrate holder that changed
`
`from room temperature to 100ºC-500ºC in “a matter of seconds.” (Ex. 1011, 6:23-
`
`127.)
`
`Additionally, the basic thermal mass equation (mass x specific heat) was
`
`well known in the art, and the specific heats of various materials were known and
`
`widely available to skilled artisans. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶44-46 (citing Ex. 1010 & Ex.
`
`1015).) It was further known to preselect the mass or material of an object so that
`
`it changed from one selected temperature to another within a given time period.
`
`Hinman selected an aluminum ring with a thermal mass of 230 for that purpose.
`
`(Ex. 1010, 2:53-3:1.)
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1011)
`
`1.
`Anderson (published March 1993) disclosed selecting a low thermal mass
`
`substrate holder to quickly change a semiconductor wafer’s temperature for
`
`processing. (Ex. 1011, Abstract, 2:60-65; Ex. 1006 ¶¶112-115.) Anderson’s
`
`preferred embodiment changed “from room temperature to an operating
`
`temperature of 100º to 500ºC in a matter of seconds, due to the low thermal mass
`
`heater employed.” (Ex. 1011, 6:24-28 (emphasis added).) Annotated Figure 2
`
`below illustrates wafer 20 (green) on a substrate holder including heater 15
`
`(red) and chuck 11 (purple circle).
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`2. Hinman (Ex. 1010)
`Hinman (issued 1975) disclosed preselecting the thermal mass of a material
`
`in a chemical analyzer’s “temperature control system” to effectuate predetermined
`
`temperature changes within a specific time interval. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶123-127.) The
`
`device used a metal ring to change the temperature of liquids in a preselected time
`
`for performing chemical reactions. (Ex. 1010, Abstract, 1:5-29.) Hinman taught
`
`that the thermal mass of the