`
`_______________________
`
`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
`
`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 two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features ............................................................................ 8
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997 ....... 10
`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-
`
`
`
`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 ................................................................................... 54
`10. Claim 68 ................................................................................... 57
`11. Claim 69 ................................................................................... 57
`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-
`
`
`
`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 ................................................................................... 81
`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. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) & 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................... 90
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 91
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Exhibit 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
`
`Ex.1015
`
`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)
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00469, Paper 6 (July 1,
`2016)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`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
`
`Ex.1021
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex.1022
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in IPR2017-
`00280
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`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.
`
`(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
`
`not previously before the patent office show that multi-temperature etching and
`
`predetermined process times were known long before the critical date. The various
`
`claims also tack on conventional semiconductor tool components (temperature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`sensors and control circuits), ordinary semiconductor temperature ranges (above
`
`room temperature), 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 are 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 (IPR2017-00279,
`
`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 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 should be cancelled as obvious based
`
`on:
`
`2
`
`Ground References
`Kadomura & Matsumura (Exs. 1003 &
`1
`1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Kikuchi (Exs.
`1003-1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs.
`5
`
`
`3
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36,
`66
`Claims 31, 35
`
`Claim 28, 30, 33, 51-55,
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`1002-1003 & 1005)
`Kikuchi & Matsumura (Exs. 1003-1004)
`
`Kikuchi, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs.
`1002-1004)
`
`68, 69
`Claims 27-28, 31-36, 51-
`54, 66, 68-69
`Claims 29-30, 34, 55, 68
`
`Wright, Sato, Shinagawa, and other references illustrate the state of the art at
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`references was before the patent office during the examination leading to the ’264
`
`patent. Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of Dr. John Bravman (Ex.1006)
`
`and other supporting evidence in Petitioner’s exhibit list.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`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-
`
`26; Ex.1006 ¶¶43-50.)
`
`Figure 10 below plots changes in temperature against processing time.
`
`(Ex.1006 ¶¶51-52.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`Fig 10
`
`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
`
`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
`
`control via a “substrate control circuit,” a “substrate holder temperature sensor,”
`
`and a “substrate holder control circuit.” Both claims require changing temperature
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`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
`
`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);
`
` heat transfer using an electrostatic chuck (29);
`
` heat transfer based on “a pressure of gas behind [the] substrate” (30);
`
` 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);
`
` 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”
`
`(52) or “from the substrate into the substrate holder” (53);
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
` 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”
`
`(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,
`
`1995 (Ex.1007), that date is unsupportable because the ’224 application did not
`
`disclose the claimed subject matter.2
`
`For example, claim 27 requires changing the temperature of a substrate on a
`
`substrate holder from a “first” to a “second substrate temperature, using a
`
`measured substrate temperature, within a preselected time interval.” Yet, the ’224
`
`application failed to disclose changing temperature “within a preselected time
`
`interval,” much less using the same substrate holder. (Ex.1006 ¶¶30-31.) Claim
`
`2 In earlier IPRs, the Board found that September 11, 1997 is the earliest priority
`
`date to which the challenged claims are entitled. (Ex.1012, 10-12; Ex.1015, 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
`
`27 also requires “using a measured substrate temperature” to change temperatures.
`
`The ’224 application disclosed a thermocouple to measure the temperature of the
`
`substrate holder, not the substrate. (Id. ¶¶32-33.)
`
`Similarly, claim 51 requires that a “substrate temperature control circuit
`
`effectuates the change from the first substrate temperature to the second substrate
`
`temperature within a preselected time period.” Yet, the ’224 application did not
`
`disclose changing substrate temperature “within a preselected time period” or
`
`using a control circuit to effect the change. (Id. ¶¶30-33.)
`
`V. Overview of the prior art
`As Kadomura, Matsumura, Kikuchi, and Muller illustrate, multi-temperature
`
`wafer processing in a chamber was well known in the prior art. Alone or in
`
`combination, those references disclosed the two-temperature etching processes
`
`recited in independent claims 27 and 51 and the minor variations in their
`
`dependents. (Id. ¶¶35-42.)
`
`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, 7:24-33; Ex.1005, 11:42-47) and cooling (Ex.1002, 4:51-5:25;
`
`Ex.1003, 6:19-31; Ex.1005, 11:42-59), and rapid temperature changes to minimize
`
`potential processing delays (Ex.1002, 5:17-25, 6:66-7:8; Ex.1003, 7:50-53, Figs. 8-
`
`9; Ex.1004, Abstract, 7:62-8:14; Ex.1005, 5:18-26). The references disclosed
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`etching tools with sensors and controllers to measure temperatures and regulate
`
`temperature changes. (Ex.1003, 6:19-31; Ex.1005, 12:37-48; Ex.1008, 321.) The
`
`references also disclosed using processing recipes to pre-program control 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 ¶¶71-73.)
`
`A. Kadomura (Ex.1005)
`Kadomura was filed in February 1997. Like the ’264 patent, Kadomura
`
`disclosed a multi-temperature process for etching portions of a semiconductor
`
`wafer. (Ex.1006 ¶¶58-67.) As in annotated Figure 4 below, Kadomura disclosed
`
`an etching tool with a heater (not explicitly shown but represented in red) 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.1005, 11:36-59, 12:37-48.) Kadomura
`
`adjusted the wafer’s temperature by changing the temperature of stage 12. (Id.,
`
`3:23-49.)
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`Kadomura also 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. Matsumura (Ex.1003)
`Matsumura issued in September 1992. Like Kadomura, Matsumura
`
`disclosed multi-temperature wafer processing in a chamber. In addition,
`
`Matsumura disclosed the well-known practice of using recipes to preselect process
`
`parameters such as processing temperatures and temperature change times.
`
`Matsumura also disclosed the use of a substrate holder temperature sensor with
`
`processing recipes. (Ex.1006 ¶¶69-74.)
`
`As in annotated Figure 5A, 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; control system 20 (orange) for managing temperature changes;
`
`conductive thin film 14 (red) in the wafer holder stage 12 (purple) to heat wafer W
`
`(green); and cooling system 23 (blue) for cooling 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. Wright, a paper published in 1992, disclosed a processing tool that used
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`two separate sensors to measure the temperature of the wafer and the wafer holder.
`
`(Ex.1008, 321 (“The system employs an optical fluorescence probe on the chuck (a
`
`second probe monitors the wafer temperature as well)….”); see also Ex.1004, 2:1-
`
`3.) Wright’s Figure 6 below shows sensor measurements for the wafer and the
`
`chuck over time.
`
`
`
`Likewise, using recipes to preselect temperature changes and other
`
`processing conditions was well known in semiconductor manufacturing. (Ex.1006
`
`¶71.) Matsumura’s control system 20 followed “predetermined recipe[s]” that
`
`specified temperatures, processing times, and temperature change times. (Ex.1003,
`
`3:1-7 (“storing, as a predetermined recipe, information showing a time-
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`temperature relationship and applicable for either heating the object to a
`
`predetermined temperature for a predetermined period of time or cooling the object
`
`from a predetermined temperature over a predetermined period of time, or for
`
`both….) (emphasis added), 3:14-16 (“controlling either the heating of the object or
`
`the cooling thereof, or both, in accordance with the detected temperature and the
`
`information”).) 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 could be used in etching processes. (Id., 10:3-7.)
`
`C. Kikuchi (Ex.1004)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Kikuchi (issued July 1993) also disclosed multi-temperature etching within
`
`the same chamber. (Ex.1006 ¶¶82-87.) Kikuchi described ashing3 a wafer’s
`
`photoresist film at two sequential temperatures using either heat lamps or a hot
`
`plate to raise temperature, in addition to measuring wafer and hot plate
`
`temperatures, respectively, using different thermometers. (Ex.1004, 1:56-2:3,
`
`7:20-34, 7:62-68, 8:8-14, 11:6-9, Figs. 12-13.) Embodiments from Figures 1, 11,
`
`and 19 are shown below. The annotations indicate lamps 5 (red), hot plate 7
`
`(purple) with heater 6 (red), wafer 1 (green), and thermometers 10 and 66 (yellow).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Ashing is a type of etching that uses a plasma, typically at high temperatures, to
`
`remove a photoresist film. (Ex.1006 ¶83.) Flamm’s ’849 patent described “resist
`
`stripp[ing]” as etching and dependent claims 7 and 16 recited “ashing” as a subset
`
`of “etching.” (Ex.1009, 1:7-9.)
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`Kikuchi etched photoresist over a range of temperatures, with an initial step
`
`at 70ºC-160ºC and a rapid increase to 200ºC from 5seconds (lamps) or 10 seconds
`
`(hot plate). Figures 12 and 13 below show exemplary etching temperature changes
`
`disclosed in Kikuchi.
`
`
`
`D. Muller (Ex.1002)
`Likewise, Muller (issued February 1997) disclosed etching a wafer at two
`
`sequential temperatures in a chamber. (Ex.1006 ¶¶100-104.) Muller disclosed
`
`etching surface layers on a wafer and deep trenches into the wafer itself 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).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`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 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 ¶103.) The two etching temperature examples corresponded to
`
`two different coolant temperatures––(a) with coolant at 10ºC, etch steps 1 and 2
`
`were at 125ºC (step 1) and 175ºC (step 2), respectively; and (b) with coolant at
`
`30ºC, etch steps 1 and 2 were at 145ºC (step 1) and 195ºC (step 2), respectively.
`
`(Id.) Figure 3 below shows the different step 1 etching temperatures achieved for
`
`coolant at 10ºC versus 30ºC.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`E.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’264 patent (“skilled person”) would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in
`
`chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (iii) a Ph.D. in chemical
`
`engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics,
`
`chemistry, or a similar field. (Ex.1006 ¶¶20-22.)
`21
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent
`
`VI. Claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable
`This Petition uses primary references (1) Kadomura, (2) Matsumura, and
`
`(3) Kikuchi, along with secondary reference (4) Muller, to form distinct
`
`unpatentability grounds for claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 66 are obvious over
`Kadomura and Matsumura
`1.
`
`Claim 27
`a.
`
`Preamble: “A method of etchi