UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00280
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`_______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66 & 68-69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 112
`
`Samsung Exhibit 10(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory notices .......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Real party in interest............................................................................. 2
`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 ........................................................................... 6
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 6
`B.
`The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features ............................................................................ 8
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997 ......... 9
`C.
`V. Overview of the prior art .............................................................................. 11
`A. Kadomura (Ex. 1005) ......................................................................... 12
`B. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ........................................................................ 13
`C. Kikuchi (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................. 16
`D. Muller (Ex. 1002) ............................................................................... 19
`E.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................... 21
`VI. Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 of the ’264 patent are
`unpatentable .................................................................................................. 22
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 66 are obvious over
`Kadomura and Matsumura ................................................................. 22
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 22
`2.
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 36
`3.
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 36
`4.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 37
`5.
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 37
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 66 ................................................................................... 38
`6.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 31 and 35 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matusmura, and Kikuchi .................................................................... 38
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 38
`2.
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 39
`3.
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 42
`C. Ground 3 ............................................................................................. 42
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 42
`2.
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 42
`3.
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 44
`4.
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 47
`5.
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 47
`6.
`Claim 52 ................................................................................... 52
`7.
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 53
`8.
`Claim 54 ................................................................................... 54
`9.
`Claim 55 ................................................................................... 55
`10. Claim 68 ................................................................................... 57
`11. Claim 69 ................................................................................... 58
`D. Ground 4 ............................................................................................. 58
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 70
`3.
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 71
`4.
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 73
`5.
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 73
`6.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 74
`7.
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 75
`8.
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 75
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 75
`9.
`10. Claim 52 ................................................................................... 79
`11. Claim 53 ................................................................................... 80
`12. Claim 54 ................................................................................... 81
`13. Claim 66 ................................................................................... 81
`14. Claim 68 ................................................................................... 82
`15. Claim 69 ................................................................................... 82
`Ground 5: Claims 29-30, 34, 55, and 68 are obvious over
`Kikuchi, Matsumura, and Muller ....................................................... 82
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 82
`2.
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 82
`3.
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 84
`4.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 86
`5.
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 88
`6.
`Claim 55 ................................................................................... 88
`7.
`Claim 68 ................................................................................... 90
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 90
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 5 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`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 ............................................................. 7
`A. Ground for standing ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Identification of challenge .................................................................... 8
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ........................................................................... 9
`A.
`The specification describes multi-temperature etch processes ............ 9
`B.
`The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features .......................................................................... 11
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997 ....... 12
`C.
`V. Overview of the prior art .............................................................................. 14
`A. Kadomura (Ex.1005) .......................................................................... 15
`B. Matsumura (Ex.1003) ......................................................................... 16
`C. Kikuchi (Ex.1004) .............................................................................. 19
`D. Muller (Ex.1002) ................................................................................ 22
`E.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ......................................................... 24
`VI. Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 of the ’264 patent are
`unpatentable .................................................................................................. 25
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 66 are obvious over
`Kadomura and Matsumura ................................................................. 25
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 39
`3.
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 39
`4.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 40
`5.
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 40
`
`-i-
`
`Page 6 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 66 ................................................................................... 41
`6.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 31 and 35 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matusmura, and Kikuchi .................................................................... 41
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 41
`2.
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 42
`3.
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 45
`C. Ground 3 ............................................................................................. 45
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 45
`2.
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 45
`3.
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 47
`4.
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 50
`5.
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 50
`6.
`Claim 52 ................................................................................... 55
`7.
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 56
`8.
`Claim 54 ................................................................................... 57
`9.
`Claim 55 ................................................................................... 57
`10. Claim 68 ................................................................................... 60
`11. Claim 69 ................................................................................... 60
`D. Ground 4 ............................................................................................. 61
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 61
`2.
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 73
`3.
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 74
`4.
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 76
`5.
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 76
`6.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 77
`7.
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 78
`8.
`Claim 36 ................................................................................... 78
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 7 of 112
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 78
`9.
`10. Claim 52 ................................................................................... 82
`11. Claim 53 ................................................................................... 83
`12. Claim 54 ................................................................................... 84
`13. Claim 66 ................................................................................... 84
`14. Claim 68 ................................................................................... 84
`15. Claim 69 ................................................................................... 85
`Ground 5: Claims 29-30, 34, 55, and 68 are obvious over
`Kikuchi, Matsumura, and Muller ....................................................... 85
`1.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 85
`2.
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 85
`3.
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 87
`4.
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 89
`5.
`Claim 51 ................................................................................... 91
`6.
`Claim 55 ................................................................................... 91
`7.
`Claim 68 ................................................................................... 93
`VII. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) & 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................... 93
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 94
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 8 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`Petitioner’s ExhibitsExhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“’264 patent”)
`
`Ex.1002
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,605,600 (“Muller”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”)
`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. 5,711,849 (“’849 patent”)
`
`Ex.1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`Ex.1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00470, Paper 6 (July 1,
`2016)
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v.
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01768, Paper 7 (February 24, 2016)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`Fourth Petition, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-
`01768, Paper 1 (August 18, 2015)
`
`Ex.1015
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00469, Paper 6 (July 1,
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 9 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`(continued)
`
`2016)
`
`Ex.1016
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research Corp. v.
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 7 (February 24, 2016)
`
`Ex.1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,446,824 (“Moslehi ’824”)
`
`Ex.1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,871 (“Shinagawa”)
`
`Ex.1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (“Hwang”)
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`RESERVED
`
`Other
`Abbreviati
`ons and
`Conventio
`nsEx.1021
`
`Petitioners
`Ex.1022
`
`Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron
`Technology, Inc.RESERVED
`
`Daniel FlammComparison between the Current Petition and Petition
`in IPR2017-00280
`
`Patent
`OwnerEx.
`1023
`
`
`-v-
`
`Page 10 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 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, IPR2017-00280 (“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.1023, illustrating changes between the instant Petition and the Petition in
`
`IPR2017-00280.)
`
`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 with preselected processing times. Several references that were
`
`20
`
`not previously before the patent office show that multi-temperature etching and
`
`-1-
`
`Page 11 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`predetermined process times were known long before the critical date. The various
`
`claims also tack on conventional semiconductor tool components (temperature
`
`sensors and control circuits), ordinary semiconductor temperature ranges (above
`
`room temperature), but there was nothing unexpected or inventive about those
`
`5
`
`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 are obvious.
`
`II. Mandatory notices
`A. Real party in interest
`The real parties in interest are Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. No other parties exercised or could have
`
`15
`
`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
`
`others in lawsuits (now stayed) in the Northern District of California: Case Nos.
`
`20
`
`5:16-cv-01578-BLF, 5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-BLF, 5:16-cv-1581-BLF,
`
`-2-
`
`Page 12 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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 13 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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 (IPR2017-00279,
`
`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 14 of 112
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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.
`
`-5-
`
`Page 15 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`-6-
`
`Page 16 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`WCGlobalFoundries-FlammTeam@whitecase.com.. A Power of Attorney for
`
`PetitionersPetitioner will be filed concurrently with this Petition.
`
`III. Requirements for inter partes review
`A. Ground for standing
`The ’264 patent qualifies for IPR, and Petitioners are not barred.2
`
`5
`
` 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
`
`10
`
`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.
`
`
`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 17 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 should be cancelled as obvious based
`
`on:
`
`Ground References
`Kadomura & Matsumura (Exs. 1003 &
`1
`1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Kikuchi (Exs.
`1003-1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs.
`1002-1003 & 1005)
`Kikuchi & Matsumura (Exs. 1003-1004)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36,
`66
`Claims 31, 35
`
`Claim 28, 30, 33, 51-55,
`68, 69
`Claims 27-28, 31-36, 51-
`54, 66, 68-69
`Claims 29-30, 34, 55, 68
`
`5
`
`Kikuchi, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs.
`1002-1004)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Wright, Sato, Shinagawa, and other references illustrate the state of the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805
`
`F. 3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Art can legitimately serve to document the
`
`knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art
`
`identified as producing obviousness.”) (citation omitted). None of the above
`
`10
`
`references was before the patent office during the examination leading to the ’264
`
`patent. PetitionersPetitioner further relyrelies on the Declaration of Dr. John
`
`Bravman (Ex.1006) and other supporting evidence in Petitioners’Petitioner’s
`
`exhibit list.
`
`-8-
`
`Page 18 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`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 inventor is Daniel L. Flamm. The patent discloses
`
`5
`
`processing (e.g., etching) a semiconductor wafer at two different temperatures in a
`
`single tool chamber. (Ex.1001, 2:10-12, 18:54-56.) Specifically, the patent
`
`describes temperature control system 700, shown in Figure 7 below. (Id., 15:65-
`
`67.) That system heats or cools wafer chuck 701 (purple), which holds a wafer
`
`during processing. (Id., 16:3-5.) The control system measures wafer and chuck
`
`10
`
`temperatures, and a controller (not shown in Figure 7) increases or lowers set
`
`temperatures to match desired levels using a heater (red) and fluid (blue) from
`
`reservoir 713. (Id., 14:62-63,15:10-13, 16:3-19, 16:36-46, Fig. 6.) Temperature
`
`control system 700 “us[es] conventional means” to change temperatures “to pre-
`
`determined temperatures within specific time intervals….” (Id., 16:60-67, 18:22-
`
`15
`
`26; Ex.1006 ¶¶43-50.)
`
`-9-
`
`Page 19 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`Figure 10 below plots changes in temperature against processing time.
`
`(Ex.1006 ¶¶51-52.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Fig 10
`
`-10-
`
`Page 20 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
`B.
`
`The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features
`
`Independent method claims 27 and 51 both recite placing a substrate (e.g.,
`
`wafer) onto a substrate holder (e.g., chuck) and etching the substrate at two
`
`5
`
`different sequentially-selected temperatures in the same chamber. They also recite
`
`sensors for measuring temperature and require controlling temperature changes
`
`based on the measurements. Claim 27 specifically requires a “substrate holder
`
`having at least one temperature sensing unit” and changing temperature based on
`
`“a measured substrate temperature.” Claim 51 similarly requires temperature
`
`10
`
`control via a “substrate control circuit,” a “substrate holder temperature sensor,”
`
`and a “substrate holder control circuit.” Both claims require changing temperature
`
`within a “preselected” time. The claims differ in that claim 27 requires at least one
`
`etching temperature to be “above room temperature,” while claim 51 requires at
`
`least one etching step to occur “while heat is being transferred to the substrate
`
`15
`
`holder with the substrate holder control circuit.” (Ex.1006 ¶¶26-28.)
`
`The claims that depend from claim 27 (28-36, 66) and from claim 51 (52-55,
`
`68-69) recite, at-most, minor, conventional variations to the general process
`
`outlined above:
`
` a “continuous etching process” (28);
`
`20
`
` heat transfer using an electrostatic chuck (29);
`
` heat transfer based on “a pressure of gas behind [the] substrate” (30);
`
`-11-
`
`Page 21 of 112
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00280)
`
` etching or temperature change based on “radiation” (31, 35);
`
` heat transfer “from a substrate temperature control system to the
`
`substrate holder” (32);
`
` “in-situ” temperature change (33);
`
`5
`
` etching film portions with different “material composition[s]” (34,
`
`68);
`
` etching based on “ion bombardment” (36),
`
` etching at a first temperature “above room temperature” (66);
`
` etching with “heat flow from the substrate holder into the substrate”
`
`10
`
`(52) or “from the substrate into the substrate holder” (53);
`
` etching at 50ºC-100ºC (54);
`
` etching where the temperature change time “subtends less than about
`
`5 percent of a total etching process time” (55); and
`
` reaching a second temperature “at approximately a selected time”
`
`15
`
`(69).
`
`C. The earliest 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,
`
`-12-
`
`Page 22 of 112
`
`

`

`