UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`AND MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`PetitionersSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00281
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`Claims 37-50 & 67
`
`Page 1 of 116
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1024
`
`

`

`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 ............................................................................ 5
`A.
`The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features ............................................................................. 7
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997 .......... 9
`B.
`V. Overview of the prior art ............................................................................... 10
`A. Kadomura (Ex. 1005) .......................................................................... 11
`B. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ......................................................................... 12
`C. Kikuchi (Ex. 1004) .............................................................................. 16
`D. Muller (Ex. 1002) ................................................................................ 18
`E. Moslehi ’824 (Ex. 1010) ..................................................................... 20
`F.
`Oka (Ex. 1011) .................................................................................... 23
`G.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 24
`VI. Claims 37-50 and 67 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable ............................. 24
`A. Ground 1: Claims 37-46 are obvious over Kadomura and
`Matsumura ........................................................................................... 25
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 40
`3.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 40
`4.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 41
`5.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 45
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2 of 116
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 46
`6.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 46
`7.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 47
`8.
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 48
`9.
`10. Claim 46 .................................................................................... 49
`B. Ground 2: Claims 40, 42, 45, 49, and 67 are obvious over
`Kadomura, Matsumura, and Muller .................................................... 49
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 49
`2.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 49
`3.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 51
`4.
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 52
`5.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claim 67 .................................................................................... 55
`C. Ground 3: Claim 50 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`and Kikuchi ......................................................................................... 56
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 56
`2.
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 56
`D. Ground 4: Claims 37-46, 50, and 67 are obvious over Kikuchi
`and Matsumura .................................................................................... 58
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 67
`3.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 67
`4.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 67
`5.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 70
`6.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 71
`7.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 72
`8.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 73
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3 of 116
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 73
`9.
`10. Claim 46 .................................................................................... 74
`11. Claim 50 .................................................................................... 74
`12. Claim 67 .................................................................................... 76
`Ground 5: Claims 41 and 49 are obvious over Kikuchi,
`Matsumura, and Muller ....................................................................... 76
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 76
`2.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 76
`3.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................... 78
`Ground 6: Claims 37 and 47-48 are obvious over Moslehi
`’824, Matsumura, and Oka .................................................................. 81
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 81
`2.
`Claim 47 .................................................................................... 93
`3.
`Claim 48 .................................................................................... 94
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 94
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4 of 116
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory notices ........................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Real party in interest.............................................................................. 2
`B.
`Related matters ...................................................................................... 3
`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 claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features ........................................................................... 11
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997 ........ 12
`B.
`V. Overview of the prior art ............................................................................... 13
`A. Kadomura (Ex.1005) ........................................................................... 14
`B. Matsumura (Ex.1003) .......................................................................... 16
`C. Kikuchi (Ex.1004) ............................................................................... 20
`D. Muller (Ex.1002) ................................................................................. 23
`E. Moslehi ’824 (Ex.1010) ...................................................................... 25
`F.
`Oka (Ex.1011) ..................................................................................... 28
`G.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 29
`VI. Claims 37-50 and 67 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable ............................. 29
`A. Ground 1: Claims 37-46 are obvious over Kadomura and
`Matsumura ........................................................................................... 30
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 30
`2.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 45
`3.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 45
`4.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 46
`5.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 50
`
`-i-
`
`Page 5 of 116
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 51
`6.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 51
`7.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 52
`8.
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 53
`9.
`10. Claim 46 .................................................................................... 54
`B. Ground 2: Claims 40, 42, 45, 49, and 67 are obvious over
`Kadomura, Matsumura, and Muller .................................................... 54
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 54
`2.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 56
`4.
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 57
`5.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................... 58
`6.
`Claim 67 .................................................................................... 60
`C. Ground 3: Claim 50 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`and Kikuchi ......................................................................................... 61
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 61
`2.
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 61
`D. Ground 4: Claims 37-46, 50, and 67 are obvious over Kikuchi
`and Matsumura .................................................................................... 63
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 63
`2.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 72
`3.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 72
`5.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 75
`6.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 76
`7.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 77
`8.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 78
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 6 of 116
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 78
`9.
`10. Claim 46 .................................................................................... 79
`11. Claim 50 .................................................................................... 79
`12. Claim 67 .................................................................................... 81
`Ground 5: Claims 41 and 49 are obvious over Kikuchi,
`Matsumura, and Muller ....................................................................... 81
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 81
`2.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 81
`3.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................... 83
`Ground 6: Claims 37 and 47-48 are obvious over Moslehi
`’824, Matsumura, and Oka .................................................................. 86
`1.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 86
`2.
`Claim 47 .................................................................................... 98
`3.
`Claim 48 .................................................................................... 99
`VII. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) & 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................... 99
`VIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 100 
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 7 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Petitioner’s ExhibitsExhibit List
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 (“’264 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,605,600 (“Muller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,151,871 (“Matsumura”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,226,056 (“Kikuchi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,063,710 (“Kadomura”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. John Bravman in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/567,224 (“’224
`application”)
`
`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”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 (“’849 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,446,824 (“Moslehi ’824”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,235,563 (“Oka”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,871 (“Shinagawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`
`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
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 8 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`(continued01751)
`
`(February 24, 2016)
`
`PTAB Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam Research
`Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2015-01764, Paper 7
`(February 24, 2016)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,242,536 (“Schoenborn”)
`
`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)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (“Hwang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`RESERVED
`
`Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and
`Micron Technology, Inc.RESERVED
`
`Daniel FlammComparison between the Current Petition and
`Petition in IPR2017-00281
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Other Abbreviations
`and
`ConventionsEx.1022
`
`PetitionersEx.1023
`
`Patent
`OwnerEx.1024
`
`
`-v-
`
`Page 9 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`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 that the
`
`Board institute an IPR trial on claims 37-50 and 67 of the ’264 patent because prior
`
`art 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.
`
`10
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00281 (“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.1024, illustrating changes between the instant Petition and the Petition in
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-00281.)
`
`The ’264 patent is titled “Multi-Temperature Processing.” The challenged
`
`claims 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
`
`20
`
`predetermined process times were known long before the date of the alleged
`
`-1-
`
`Page 10 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`invention. The various claims also tack on: conventional semiconductor tool
`
`components (temperature sensors and control circuits), longstanding processing
`
`techniques (etching, deposition), well-known heat transfer methods (from a
`
`substrate to a holder or vice versa, using gas pressure or radiation), or
`
`5
`
`straightforward temperature ranges (above room temperature, 300ºC-500ºC). But
`
`there was nothing unexpected or inventive about those trivial variations.
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`II. Mandatory notices
`
`A. Real party in interest
`
`The real parties in interest are Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
`
`Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`The real-parties in interest for this petition are Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`15
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. No other parties exercised or could have
`
`exercised control over this petition; no other parties funded or directed this
`
`Petition. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759-60.
`
`-2-
`
`Page 11 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`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.
`
`5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-01578-BLF, 5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-BLF,
`
`5
`
`5:16-cv-1581-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-BLF, and 5:16-cv-02252-BLF1. In addition,
`
`Lam Research Corporation has 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; IPR2016-00469; and IPR2016-00470).
`
`10
`
`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 at issue in four other inter partes
`
`15
`
`reviews, Intel Corp. et al v. Daniel L. Flamm (IPR2017-00279, IPR2017-00280,
`
`
`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 12 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Patent (IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406), the ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279,
`
`IPR2017-00280, and IPR2017-00282).
`
`C. Notice of counsel and service information
`
`Petitioners’Petitioner’s respective counsel are:
`
`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
`
`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
`
`-4-
`
`Page 13 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`Telephone: 202.551.1990
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
`Portland, OR 97209
`503-727-2000 (phone)
`503-727-2222 (fax)
`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
`
`-5-
`
`Page 14 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`650-213-0300 (phone)
`650-213-8158 (fax)
`Attorney for GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`U.S., Inc.Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No.
`46,508)
`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: Intel-Flamm-Service-
`
`-6-
`
`Page 15 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`IPR@perkinscoie.com; micron.flamm.service@weil.com; and
`
`WCGlobalFoundries-FlammTeam@whitecase.com.PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. A Power of Attorney for PetitionersPetitioner will be
`
`filed concurrently with this Petition.
`
`5
`
`III. Requirements for inter partes review
`
`A. Ground for standing
`
`The ’264 patent qualifies for IPR, and Petitioners are not barred.2
`
` The ’264 Patent is available for inter partes review and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the Patent
`
`10
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 16 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`time period set forth in § 42.101(b) does not apply to a Petition accompanied by a
`
`request for joinder.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`Claims 37-50 and 67 should be cancelled as obvious based on:
`
`Ground References
`1
`Kadomura & Matsumura (Exs. 1003, 1005)
`2
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs. 1002-
`1003, 1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Kikuchi (Exs. 1003-
`1005)
`Kikuchi & Matsumura (Exs. 1003-1004)
`Kikuchi, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs. 1002-
`1004)
`Moslehi ’824, Oka, & Matsumura (Exs. 1003,
`1010-1011)
`
`
`Wright, Sato, Shinagawa, Hwang, and other references illustrate the state of
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 37-46
`Claims 40, 42, 45, 49,
`67
`Claim 50
`
`Claims 37-46, 50, 67
`Claims 41, 49
`
`Claims 37, 47, 48
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`5
`
`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
`
`10
`
`above 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 17 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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-
`
`66.) 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
`
`temperatures, and a controller (not shown in Figure 7) increases or lowers
`
`10
`
`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 ¶¶42-49.)
`
`-9-
`
`Page 18 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`Figure 10 below plots changes in temperature against processing time.
`
`(Ex.1006 ¶¶50-51.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 19 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`A. The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features
`
`Independent method claim 37 recites placing a substrate (e.g., wafer) with a
`
`film onto a substrate holder (e.g., chuck) and performing “film treatments” on the
`
`5
`
`substrate at two different selected temperatures in the same chamber. The claim
`
`also recites temperature control systems for the substrate and substrate holder that
`
`include a “temperature sensor” and a “control circuit” for adjusting temperature by
`
`heat transfer. The substrate temperature control circuit changes a “selected first
`
`substrate temperature” to a “selected second substrate temperature.” That change
`
`10
`
`must occur within a “preselected time period.” Claim 37 also requires heating the
`
`substrate holder to “above room temperature” during one of the film treatments.
`
`(Ex.1006 ¶¶25-26.)
`
`Dependent claims 38-50 and 67 recite minor, conventional variations to the
`
`general process outlined above:
`
`15
`
` using the same circuit to control substrate and substrate holder
`
`temperature (38, 39);
`
` treating a film with “the substrate temperature being less than the
`
`substrate holder temperature” (40);
`
` treating film portions with different “materials composition[s]” (41);
`
`-11-
`
`Page 20 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
` treating a film by transferring heat “from the substrate holder to the
`
`substrate” (42), including while maintaining substrate holder
`
`temperature “above room temperature” (44);
`
` treating a film by transferring heat “from the substrate to the substrate
`
`5
`
`holder” (43);
`
` treating a film by transferring heat to the substrate holder with the
`
`substrate holder control circuit, while the substrate holder control
`
`circuit maintains substrate holder temperature “above room
`
`temperature” (45);
`
`10
`
` treating a film using etching (46);
`
` treating a film using “chemical vapor deposition” (47);
`
` treating a film at 300ºC-500ºC (48);
`
` transferring heat based on “pressure of a gas behind the substrate”
`
`(49);
`
`15
`
` transferring heat based on “radiation” (50); and
`
` transferring heat “from the substrate holder with a heat transfer
`
`device” (67).
`
`B.
`
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997
`
`For purposes of this Petition, September 11, 1997 is the earliest possible
`
`20
`
`priority date for the challenged claims. Although the ’264 patent also recites a
`
`-12-
`
`Page 21 of 116
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00281)
`
`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.3
`
`For example, claim 37 requires changing the temperature of a substrate from
`
`5
`
`“the selected first substrate temperature to the selected second substrate
`
`temperature within a preselected time period.” Yet, the ’224 application failed to
`
`disclose changing temperature “within a preselected time period,” much less using
`
`the same substrate holder. (Ex.1006 ¶29.) Claim 37 also requires a “subst