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. IPR2017-00282
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,264 E
`
`Claims 56-63 & 70-71
`
`Page 1 of 114
`
`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 ..................................................................... 4
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent ............................................................................ 5
`A.
`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
`B.
`V. Overview of the prior art ............................................................................... 11
`A. Kadomura (Ex. 1005) .......................................................................... 12
`B. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ......................................................................... 14
`C. Muller (Ex. 1002) ................................................................................ 18
`D. Kikuchi (Ex. 1004) .............................................................................. 21
`E. Wang (Ex. 1010) ................................................................................. 24
`F.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 24
`VI. Claims 56-63 and 70-71 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable........................ 25
`A. Ground 1: Claims 56 and 58 are obvious over Kadomura and
`Matsumura ........................................................................................... 25
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 58 .................................................................................... 43
`B. Ground 2: Claim 57 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`and Muller ........................................................................................... 44
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 44
`2.
`Claim 57 .................................................................................... 44
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2 of 114
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 59-61 and 71 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, and Wang ........................................................................ 48
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 48
`2.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 49
`3.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 52
`4.
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 56
`5.
`Claim 71 .................................................................................... 57
`D. Ground 4: Claim 62 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Muller, and Wang ................................................................................ 57
`1.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 57
`2.
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 57
`Ground 5: Claims 63 and 70 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Kikuchi, and Wang ......................................................... 58
`1.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 63 .................................................................................... 58
`3.
`Claim 70 .................................................................................... 61
`Ground 6: Claims 56-62 and 71 are obvious over Muller,
`Matsumura, and Wang ........................................................................ 62
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 62
`2.
`Claim 57 .................................................................................... 77
`3.
`Claim 58 .................................................................................... 78
`4.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 79
`5.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 82
`6.
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 84
`7.
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 86
`8.
`Claim 71 .................................................................................... 87
`G. Ground 7: Claims 63 and 70 are obvious over Muller,
`Matsumura, Wang, and Kikuchi ......................................................... 88
`
`F.
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3 of 114
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 88
`1.
`Claim 63 .................................................................................... 88
`2.
`Claim 70 .................................................................................... 90
`3.
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 92
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4 of 114
`
`

`

`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 ..................................................................... 7
`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 ............................................................................... 14
`A. Kadomura (Ex. 1005) .......................................................................... 15
`B. Matsumura (Ex. 1003) ......................................................................... 17
`C. Muller (Ex. 1002) ................................................................................ 21
`D. Kikuchi (Ex. 1004) .............................................................................. 24
`E. Wang (Ex. 1010) ................................................................................. 27
`F.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 28
`VI. Claims 56-63 and 70-71 of the ’264 patent are unpatentable........................ 28
`A. Ground 1: Claims 56 and 58 are obvious over Kadomura and
`Matsumura ........................................................................................... 29
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 29
`2.
`Claim 58 .................................................................................... 47
`B. Ground 2: Claim 57 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`and Muller ........................................................................................... 48
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 48
`2.
`Claim 57 .................................................................................... 48
`
`-i-
`
`Page 5 of 114
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 59-61 and 71 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, and Wang ........................................................................ 52
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 52
`2.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 53
`3.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 56
`4.
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 60
`5.
`Claim 71 .................................................................................... 61
`D. Ground 4: Claim 62 is obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura,
`Muller, and Wang ................................................................................ 61
`1.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 61
`2.
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 61
`Ground 5: Claims 63 and 70 are obvious over Kadomura,
`Matsumura, Kikuchi, and Wang ......................................................... 62
`1.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 62
`2.
`Claim 63 .................................................................................... 62
`3.
`Claim 70 .................................................................................... 65
`Ground 6: Claims 56-62 and 71 are obvious over Muller,
`Matsumura, and Wang ........................................................................ 66
`1.
`Claim 56 .................................................................................... 66
`2.
`Claim 57 .................................................................................... 81
`3.
`Claim 58 .................................................................................... 82
`4.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 83
`5.
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 86
`6.
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 88
`7.
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 90
`8.
`Claim 71 .................................................................................... 91
`G. Ground 7: Claims 63 and 70 are obvious over Muller,
`Matsumura, Wang, and Kikuchi ......................................................... 92
`
`F.
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 6 of 114
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 60 .................................................................................... 92
`1.
`Claim 63 .................................................................................... 92
`2.
`Claim 70 .................................................................................... 94
`3.
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 96 
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 7 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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
`
`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. 4,992,391 (“Wang”)
`
`Fischl, D.S. et al., Etching of Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide
`Films by Chlorine Atoms, J. Electrochemical Soc.: Solid-State
`Science and Technology, Vol. 135, No. 8 (August 1988), pp.
`2016-2019 (“Fischl”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,331,485 (“Gat”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,393,374 (“Sato”)
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Lam
`Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2016-00469, Paper 6
`(July 1, 2016)
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 8 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`(continued)
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`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)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,242,536 (“Schoenborn”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,174,856 (“Hwang”)
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1008
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Exhibit 1011
`
`RESERVED
`
`Other
`Abbreviations
`and
`ConventionsEx.
`1021
`
`PetitionersEx.
`1022
`
`Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and
`Micron Technology, Inc.RESERVED
`
`Patent
`OwnerEx. 1023
`
`
`Daniel FlammComparison between the Current Petition and
`Petition in IPR2017-00282
`
`-v-
`
`Page 9 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Dr. Daniel Flamm sued Petitioners Intel Corporation,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc.,Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”),
`
`and Micron Technology, Inc. forother partiesfor allegedly infringing U.S. Patent
`
`5
`
`No. RE40,264. Petitioners request (“the ’264 Patent”). Petitioner requests that the
`
`Board institute an IPR trial on claims 56-63 and 70-71 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, IPR2017-00282 (“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
`
`IPR2017-00282.)
`
`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 10 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`predetermined process times were known long before the critical date. The claims
`
`also tack on conventional semiconductor tool components (temperature sensors
`
`and control circuits), ordinary semiconductor materials (silicon-containing,
`
`polysilicon, or silicide layers), well-known etching methods (etching with chlorine
`
`5
`
`and heat transfer based on radiation or gas pressure), or temperature ranges (above
`
`49ºC, above room temperature, 180ºC-220ºC, or 50ºC-100ºC), but there was
`
`nothing unexpected or inventive about the addition of 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
`
`10
`
`claims are obvious.
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`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.
`
`20
`
`B. Related matters
`
`-2-
`
`Page 11 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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-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 has filed a
`
`5
`
`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). Finally, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.
`
`has filed IPR petitions on the ’264 patent (IPR2016-01510 and IPR2016-01512).),
`
`10
`
`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
`
`15
`
`which was instituted on June 13, 2017. Finally, the ’264 Patent is at issue in Tokyo
`
`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 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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
`
`Patent (IPR2017-00392 and IPR2017-00406), the ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00279,
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-00280, and IPR2017-00281).
`
`C. Notice of counsel and service information
`
`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)
`
`-4-
`
`Page 13 of 114
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`650-213-0300 (phone)
`650-213-8158 (fax)
`
`-5-
`
`Page 14 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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-
`
`IPR@perkinscoie.com; micron.flamm.service@weil.com; and
`
`WCGlobalFoundries-FlammTeam@whitecase.com.PH-Samsung-Flamm-
`
`-6-
`
`Page 15 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`IPR@paulhastings.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.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`
`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 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`Claims 56-63 and 70-71 should be cancelled as obvious based on:
`
`Ground References
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`Claims 56, 58
`Claim 57
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`Kadomura & Matsumura (Exs. 1003, 1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Muller (Exs. 1002-1003,
`1005)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, & Wang (Exs. 1003, 1005,
`1010)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Muller, & Wang (Exs. 1002-
`1003, 1005, 1010)
`Kadomura, Matsumura, Kikuchi, & Wang (Exs.
`1003-1005, 1010)
`Muller, Matsumura, & Wang (Exs. 1002-1003,
`1010)3
`Muller, Matsumura, Wang, & Kikuchi (Exs. 1002-
`1004, 1010)
`
`
`Wright, Fischl, Sato, Schoenborn, Hwang, and other references illustrated
`
`Claims 59-61,
`71
`Claim 62
`
`Claims 63, 70
`
`Claims 56-62,
`71
`Claim 63, 70
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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
`
`
`3 Wang is not being relied upon for claims 56-58 as noted by the Board in the
`
`institution decision in IPR2017-00282. For purposes of consistency with the Intel
`
`Petition, Petitioner maintains the ground as in the Intel Petition.
`
`-8-
`
`Page 17 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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.
`
`IV. Overview of the ’264 patent
`The ’264 patent issued April 29, 2008 from a reissue application filed
`
`5
`
`May 14, 2003. The sole named inventor is Daniel L. Flamm. The patent discloses
`
`processing (e.g., etching) a semiconductor wafer at two different temperatures on a
`
`substrate holder (e.g., chuck) in a single tool chamber. (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12, 18:54-
`
`56.) Specifically, the patent describes temperature control system 700, shown in
`
`10
`
`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)
`
`adjusts 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.)
`
`15
`
`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 ¶¶46-50.)
`
`-9-
`
`Page 18 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`
`
`The patent describes a single embodiment of a semiconductor substrate (e.g.,
`
`wafer) that includes layers of silicon dioxide, polysilicon, tungsten silicide, and
`
`photoresist, as shown below in Figure 9. (Ex. 1001, 17:58-60; Ex. 1006 ¶51.)
`
`5
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 19 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`Figure 10 below plots changes in temperature against processing time. (Ex.
`
`1001, 18:22-19:64.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`A. The claims recite two-temperature etch processes and add only
`conventional features
`
`Independent method claims 56 and 60 both recite putting a substrate (e.g.,
`
`wafer) on a substrate holder (e.g., chuck) and etching the substrate at two selected
`
`temperatures in the same chamber. The claims also recite “sensing a substrate
`
`holder temperature” and using a control circuit to set and change substrate
`
`10
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶26-27.) The claims further require changing
`
`temperature within a “pre-selected” time and performing etch at “above 49ºC.”
`
`(claim 56) or “above room temperature” (claim 60). In addition, claims 56 and 60
`
`-11-
`
`Page 20 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`recite that the substrate must include layers. Claim 56 requires processing “a stack
`
`of layers” and each step etches a “silicon-containing layer.” Claim 60 requires
`
`etching “a stack of layers including a silicide layer” where the silicide layer is
`
`etched second.
`
`5
`
`The claims that depend from claim 56 (57-59) and claim 60 (61-63, 70-71)
`
`recite minor, conventional variations to the general process outlined above:
`
` temperature change time of “less than about 5 percent of the total
`
`etching process time” (57);
`
` etching using “a chlorine-containing ambient” (58);
`
`10
`
` etching a layer stack containing a polysilicon layer on top of a silicide
`
`layer, with the second etching temperature higher than the first, and
`
`one layer “selectively etched relative” to an oxide layer (59);
`
` temperature change is “by at least heat transfer to the substrate using
`
`at least an electrostatic chuck” (61);
`
`15
`
` heat transfer based on “a pressure of a gas behind the substrate” (62);
`
` heat transfer using “radiation” (63);
`
` substrate temperature of 180ºC-220ºC during processing (70); and
`
` substrate temperature of 50ºC-100ºC during processing (71).
`
`B.
`
`The earliest priority date for the ’264 patent is September 1997
`
`-12-
`
`Page 21 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`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 20
`
`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
`
`5
`
`disclose the claimed subject matter.4
`
`For example, claim 56 requires changing the temperature of a substrate on a
`
`substrate holder from a “first” to a “second substrate temperature with a control
`
`circuit operable to effectuate the changing within a preselected time period.” But
`
`the ’224 application did not disclose changing temperature “within a preselected
`
`10
`
`time interval,” much less with the same substrate holder. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶30-31.)
`
`Claim 56 also requires maintaining substrate temperatures and a “control circuit”
`
`for adjusting substrate temperatures. The claimed approach requires a sensor to
`
`measure substrate temperature. (Id. ¶¶32-33.) The ’224 application disclosed a
`
`thermocouple to measure the substrate holder temperature, not one to measure
`
`
`4 In earlier IPRs, the Board found that September 11, 1997 is the earliest priority
`
`date for the claims. (Ex. 1014, 10-12.) Although unimportant to this Petition,
`
`Petitioners doPetitioner does not concede that the claims are entitled to priority as
`
`of September 11, 1997.
`
`-13-
`
`Page 22 of 114
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of ’264 Patent (IPR2017-00282)
`
`substrate temperature. (Id. ¶33.) The ’224 application also did not disclose using a
`
`control circuit to effectuate changes to substrate temperature. (Id.)
`
`Claim 60 includes requirements similar to those in claim 56. For the reasons
`
`explained above for claim 56, claim 60 is also not entitled to priority before
`
`5
`
`September 1997.
`
`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. Kadomura, Muller,
`
`Wright, and Wang also show that etching different wafer layers at different
`
`10
`
`temperatures was well known and a matter of routine process optimization. Those
`
`references disclosed what is recited in independent claims 56 and 60 and their
`
`dependents. (Id. ¶¶35-41.)
`
`In particular, Kadomura, Matsumura, Kikuchi, and Muller disclosed
`
`controlling temperature changes (Ex. 1002, Abstract; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:8-13;
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1005, Title, Abstract) through heating (Ex. 1004, 7:25-34; Ex. 1005, 11:42-47)
`
`and cooling (Ex. 1002, 4:51-5:25; Ex. 1003, 6