`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00469
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Lam Research Corporation (“Lam”), filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 51–63 and 68–71 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’264
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm”),
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments
`
`presented in Flamm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the
`
`information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Lam would prevail in challenging any of claims
`
`51–63 and 68–71 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties represent that the ’264 patent is presently at issue in a
`
`declaratory judgment action captioned Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L.
`
`Flamm, No. 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and in an infringement action
`
`captioned Daniel L. Flamm v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 1:15-cv-00613-
`
`LY (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`
`In addition to this Petition, Lam also filed other petitions challenging
`
`the patentability of certain subsets of claims of the ’264 patent in the
`
`following cases: (1) Case IPR2015-01759; (2) Case IPR2015-01764; (3)
`
`Case IPR2015-01766; (4) Case IPR2015-01768; (5) Case IPR2016-00468;
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`and (6) Case IPR2016-00470. Pet. 2. To date, another panel of the Board
`
`has entered a Decision Denying Institution in each of Cases IPR2015-01759
`
`and IPR2015-01766, and a Decision Granting Institution in each of Cases
`
`IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768.
`
`B. The ’264 Patent
`
`The ’264 patent, titled “Multi-Temperature Processing,” reissued
`
`April 29, 2008, from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/439,245 (“the ’245
`
`application”), filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
`
`The ’264 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,231,776 B1 (“the ’776
`
`patent”), which issued May 15, 2001, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/151,163 (“the ’163 application”), filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64].
`
`The ’264 patent is directed to a method “for etching a substrate in the
`
`manufacture of a device,” where the method “provide[s] different processing
`
`temperatures during an etching process or the like.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The apparatus used in the method is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 depicts a substrate (product 28, such as a wafer to be etched) on a
`
`substrate holder (product support chuck or pedestal 18) in a chamber
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`(chamber 12 of plasma etch apparatus 10). Id. at 3:24–25, 3:32–33, 3:40–
`
`41.
`
`Figures 6 and 7, reproduced below, depict a temperature-controlled
`
`substrate holder and temperature control systems.
`
`
`
`Figures 6 and 7 depict temperature-controlled fluid flowing through
`
`substrate holder (600, 701), guided by baffles 605, where “[t]he fluid [is]
`
`used to heat or cool the upper surface of the substrate holder.” Ex. 1001,
`
`14:28–63, 16:5–67. Figure 6 also depicts heating elements 607 underneath
`
`the substrate holder, where “[t]he heating elements can selectively heat one
`
`or more zones in a desirable manner.” Id. at 15:10–26. Referring to Figure
`
`7, the operation of the temperature control system is described as follows:
`
`The desired fluid temperature is determined by comparing the
`desired wafer or wafer chuck set point temperature to a measured
`wafer or wafer chuck temperature . . . . The heat exchanger, fluid
`flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck,
`etc. should be designed using conventional means to permit the
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`heater to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the
`temperature of
`the chuck and wafer
`to predetermined
`temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified
`uniformity limits.
`
`Id. at 16:36–39, 16:50–67.
`
`An example of a semiconductor substrate to be patterned is shown in
`
`Figure 9, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 9 depicts substrate 901 having a stack of layers including oxide layer
`
`903, polysilicon layer 905, tungsten silicide layer 907, and photoresist
`
`masking layer 909 with opening 911, from the treatment method shown in
`
`Figure 10, reproduced below. Ex. 1001, 17:58–18:57.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts the tungsten silicide layer being etched between
`
`points B and D at a constant temperature; the polysilicon layer being
`
`exposed between Points D and E; the polysilicon layer being etched at a
`
`constant temperature beyond point E; and the resist being ashed beyond
`
`Point I. Ex. 1001, 18:58–19:64. The plasma’s optical emission at 530
`
`nanometers is monitored to determine when there is breakthrough to the
`
`polysilicon layer (Point D) and a lower etch temperature is required to etch
`
`the polysilicon layer (Point E). Id. at 19:8–24, 19:45–52.
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 51, 56, and 60 are the only
`
`independent claims at issue. Independent claim 51 is directed to a method of
`
`processing a substrate in the manufacture of a device; independent claim 56
`
`is directed to a method for processing layers that are included in a stack of
`
`layers positioned on a substrate; and independent claim 61 is directed to a
`
`method for manufacturing a device comprising an integrated circuit. Claims
`
`52–55, 68, and 69 directly depend from independent claim 51; claims 57–59
`
`directly depend from independent claim 56; and claims 61–63, 70, and 71
`
`directly depend from independent claim 60. Independent claim 51 is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`51. A method of processing a substrate in the manufacture of
`a device, the method comprising:
`placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate
`holder in a processing chamber; the processing chamber
`comprising the substrate holder, a substrate control circuit
`operable to adjust the substrate temperature, a substrate holder
`temperature sensor, and a substrate holder control circuit
`operable to maintain the substrate holder temperature;
`performing a first etching of a first portion of the film at a
`selected first substrate temperature;
`performing a second etching of a second portion of the
`film at a selected second substrate temperature, the second
`temperature being different from the first temperature;
`wherein at least one of the film portions is etched while
`heat is being transferred to the substrate holder with the substrate
`holder control circuit; and
`the substrate temperature control circuit effectuates the
`change from the first substrate temperature to the second
`substrate temperature within a preselected time period.
`
`Ex. 1001, 24:4–26 (italics omitted).
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Lam relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Inventor1 or
`Applicant
`Thomas
`
`Narita
`
`Wang (“Wang
`’391”)
`Hwang
`
`Wang (“Wang
`’485”)
`Kawamura
`
`Kadomura
`
`Tegal
`
`Patent or
`Publication No.
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,680,086
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,913,790
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,992,391
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,174,856
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,219,485
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,892,207
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,063,710
`EP Patent Pub.
`No. 0 399 676
`A1
`
`Printed Publication
`
`Relevant Dates
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`issued July 14, 1987,
`filed Mar. 20, 1986
`issued Apr. 3, 1990,
`filed Mar. 21, 1989
`issued Feb. 12, 1991,
`filed Nov. 29, 1989
`issued Dec. 29, 1992,
`filed Aug. 26, 1991
`issued June 15, 1993,
`filed Oct. 17, 1991
`issued Apr. 6, 1999,
`filed Nov. 27, 1996
`issued May 16, 2000,
`filed Feb. 21, 1997
`published Nov. 28,
`1990, filed May 1, 1990
`
`1009
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1010
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1002
`
`1006
`
`D.S. Fischl et al., Etching of Tungsten and Tungsten Silicide
`Films by Chlorine Atoms, 135 J. ELECTROCHEM. SOC.,
`2016–19 (Aug. 1988) (“Fischl”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Lam challenges claims 51–63 and 68–71 of the ’264 patent based on
`
`the asserted grounds of unpatentability (“grounds”) set forth in the table
`
`below. Pet. 15–60.
`
`1 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura § 103(a) 51–58, 68, and 69
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`Wang ’391, and Thomas
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`and Fischl
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`Fischl, and Tegal
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`Fischl, and Narita
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura,
`Fischl, and Hwang
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) 59
`
`§ 103(a) 60, 61, and 71
`
`§ 103(a) 62
`
`§ 103(a) 63
`
`§ 103(a) 70
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As an initial matter, we determine the proper standard of construction
`
`to apply. The term of a patent grant begins on the date on which the patent
`
`issues and ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for
`
`the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a
`
`specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section
`
`120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such
`
`application was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2002). The earliest patent
`
`application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for
`
`the ’264 patent, was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term
`
`extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than
`
`December 4, 2015.
`
`Because, on this record, we conclude that the term of the ’264 patent
`
`expired prior to the filing of the Petition, for purposes of this Decision we
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`construe the claims of the ’264 patent under the standard applicable to
`
`expired patents. For claims of an expired patent, our claim interpretation is
`
`similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (en banc)). There is, however, a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
`
`The parties do not propose constructions for any claim terms recited
`
`in the challenged claims of the ’264 patent. See generally Pet. 13–16,
`
`Prelim. Resp. 1–12. Because there is no dispute between the parties
`
`regarding claim construction, we need not construe explicitly any claim term
`
`of the ’264 patent at this time. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those
`
`claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`B. Priority Date for the Challenged Claims of the ’264 Patent
`
`
`
`As explained previously, the ’264 patent reissued from the ’245
`
`application, filed on May 14, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [21], [22]. The ’245
`
`application is a reissue of the ’776 patent, which issued May 15, 2001, from
`
`the ’163 application, which was filed September 10, 1998. Id. at [64]. The
`
`’163 application is a continuation-in-part of the following two applications:
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`(1) the U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/058,650 (“the ’650 provisional
`
`application”), filed on September 11, 1997; and (2) U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/567,224 (“the ’224 application”), filed on December 4, 1995. Id. at
`
`[60], [63], 1:11–15.
`
`
`
`Lam contends that Flamm may only claim the benefit of the filing
`
`date of the ’650 provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997, because
`
`this is the earliest filed application in the priority chain that includes
`
`sufficient written description support for certain limitations recited in the
`
`challenged claims. Pet. 4. Relying upon the testimony of its Declarant Dr.
`
`Joseph L. Cecchi, Lam explains how the ’224 application fails to disclose
`
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 51,
`
`56, and 60. Id. at 9–13 (citing Ex. 1012, 45, 46;2 Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 43–50).
`
`Consequently, Lam asserts that, because the ’224 application does not
`
`provide sufficient written description support for these limitations, the
`
`challenged claims only are entitled to the priority date of the ’650
`
`provisional application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Id. at 13. Flamm does not
`
`present arguments as to whether the ’264 patent is entitled to claim a priority
`
`date earlier than September 11, 1997.
`
`2 All references to the page numbers in the ’224 application refer to page
`numbers inserted by Lam at the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in
`Exhibit 1012.
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`On this record, we are persuaded by Lam’s argument that the ’224
`
`application does not provide sufficient written description support for
`
`etching the film at the selected first temperature and etching a second
`
`portion of the film at a selected second temperature while on the same
`
`substrate holder, using a substrate temperature control circuit, and using a
`
`substrate holder temperature sensor, as required by independent claims 51,
`
`56, and 60. For purposes of this Decision, Lam has presented sufficient
`
`evidence indicating that the challenged claims of the ’264 patent only are
`
`entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of the ’650 provisional
`
`application, i.e., September 11, 1997. Consequently, on this record, it
`
`appears that both Kadomura and Kawamura qualify as prior art to the
`
`challenged claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura
`
`
`
`Lam contends that claims 51–58, 68, and 69 are unpatentable under
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`Pet. 16–38. Lam explains how this proffered combination purportedly
`
`teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or modify the
`
`references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Cecchi to
`
`support its positions. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 63–97. On this record, we are not
`
`persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time period,” as
`
`recited in independent claims 51 and 56.
`
`
`
`We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply
`
`to a ground based on obviousness, followed by brief overviews of
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura, and then we address the parties’
`
`contentions with respect to independent claims 51 and 56.
`
`1. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`
`the art;3 and (4) when in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this
`
`asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in
`
`mind.
`
`2. Kadomura Overview
`
`Kadomura generally relates to a dry etching method used primarily for
`
`the production of semiconductor devices and, in particular, to a dry etching
`
`method and apparatus that provides compatibility for anisotropic fabrication
`
`and high selectivity. Ex. 1002, 1:6–10. According to Kadomura, one
`
`objective of the disclosed dry etching method is to apply an etching
`
`3 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Cecchi, Lam offers an assessment as to
`the level of skill in the art. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 27–30). Flamm
`does not challenge this assessment of the level of skill in the art or propose
`an alternative. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary,
`we accept the assessment offered by Lam and Dr. Cecchi.
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`treatment that includes a plurality of steps to a specimen within the same
`
`processing apparatus, wherein the temperature of the specimen is changed
`
`between etching in a first step and etching in a second step. Id. at 2:65–3:5.
`
`Because the disclosed dry etching method conducts each of the etching
`
`treatments in the same processing apparatus, the time for changing the
`
`specimen temperature between the steps may be shortened. Id. at 4:46–49.
`
`Moreover, by conducting the change of specimen temperature within a short
`
`period of time, dry etching treatment may be applied without deteriorating
`
`the throughput. Id. at 4:49–54.
`
`Kadomura discloses three embodiments, each of which applies its dry
`
`etching method in a different manner. Ex. 1002, 5:44–56, Figs. 1A–1C, 2A–
`
`2C, 3A–3C. Of particular importance to this case is the first embodiment
`
`discussed in relation to Figures 1A–1C. This embodiment applies the dry
`
`etching method to a method of fabricating a W polycide using a two-step
`
`etching treatment. Id. at 6:1–7:18. The main etching in the first step is
`
`applied at a normal temperature (20ºCelsius (“C”)), whereas the overetching
`
`in the second step is applied at a much cooler temperature (-30ºC). Id. at
`
`6:17–28, 6:63–7:7 According to Kadomura, it is possible in this
`
`embodiment to attain both high selectivity and assurance for the anisotropic
`
`shape, as well as change the temperature of the specimen in a short period of
`
`time, by conducting each of the steps in the same etching device. Id. at
`
`7:19–23.
`
`3. Wang ’485 Overview
`
`Wang ’485 generally relates to a process for etching conductive layers
`
`used in semiconductor integrated circuits and, in particular, to a method for
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`etching metal silicides, polycrystalline silicon, and composite silicide-
`
`polysilicon structures, as well as reactive plasma gas chemistry for use in
`
`such methods. Ex. 1003, 1:13–19. Of particular importance to this case are
`
`Figures 20 and 21, reproduced below, that depict the effect of hexode
`
`temperature on polysilicon etch rate and on molybdenum silicide etch rate
`
`for etching gases that are devoid of and contain a small volume percentage
`
`of additive gas, respectively. Id. at 6:1–5.
`
`Figures 20 and 21 each show an increase of silicide etch rates over a range
`
`from 45ºC to 75ºC for the substrate holder temperature. Id. at 10:14–30.
`
`
`
`4. Kawamura Overview
`
`Kawamura generally relates to a treatment unit and, in particular, to a
`
`temperature control apparatus for controlling the temperature of a support
`
`for a substance to be treated, such as a semiconductor wafer. Ex. 1004, 1:6–
`
`10. According to Kawamura, the treatment unit includes at least one
`
`temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the support. Id. at
`
`1:47–51.
`
`5. Claims 51 and 56
`
`
`
`Our analysis focuses on the following limitation recited in
`
`independent claim 51, and similarly recited in independent claim 56:
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`“effectuat[ing] the change from the first substrate temperature to the second
`
`substrate temperature within a preselected time period.” Ex. 1001, 24:23–
`
`26, 24:55–61 (emphasis added). We view the parties’ arguments regarding
`
`“a preselected time period” as dispositive to Lam’s Petition.
`
`In its Petition, Lam relies on Kadomura’s first embodiment,
`
`particularly its disclosure of adjusting the temperature of the specimen
`
`between etching steps in a short time period of about thirty (30) seconds, to
`
`teach “a preselected time period,” as recited in independent claims 51 and
`
`56. Pet. 22, 25, (citing Ex. 1002, 6:18–62, 7:19–30; Ex. 1013 ¶ 77); see also
`
`id. at 33–34 (arguing the same). In response, Flamm contends that Lam only
`
`relies upon Kadomura to teach this particular limitation required by
`
`independent claims 51 and 56. Prelim. Resp. 5; see also id. at 10 (arguing
`
`the same). Flamm argues that, although Kadomura discloses a short time
`
`period of about 30 seconds, there is no disclosure in Kadomura that this time
`
`period was preselected. Id. at 5. According to Flamm, this time period
`
`disclosed in Kadomura merely teaches what the time period would be or
`
`likely would be—not what it was “preselected” to be. Id.
`
`We agree with Flamm that Lam does not account properly for “a
`
`preselected time period,” as recited in independent claims 51 and 56.
`
`Kadomura discloses that, in its first embodiment, the temperature of the
`
`specimen is cooled rapidly between etching steps “within a short period of
`
`time of about 30 [seconds].” Ex. 1002, 6:52–55. Kadomura further
`
`discloses that, by conducting the etching steps in the same etching device,
`
`the temperature of the specimen may be adjusted in “a short period of time.”
`
`Id. at 7:22–24. Lam, however, does not direct us to, nor can we find, a
`
`disclosure in Kadomura indicating that its control device is capable of pre-
`
`Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`selecting the time period for adjusting the temperature of the specimen
`
`between etching steps. In other words, Kadomura is silent with respect to
`
`the control device adjusting the temperature of the specimen between
`
`etching steps to a certain temperature within a pre-selected time period.
`
`We also do not find Dr. Cecchi’s supporting testimony on this
`
`particular issue to be persuasive. Ex. 1013 ¶ 77. Dr. Cecchi’s analysis
`
`essentially repeats the arguments advanced in the Petition, and does not
`
`explain adequately how Kadomura’s short time period of about 30 seconds
`
`amounts to “a preselected time period,” as recited in independent claims 51
`
`and 56. For these reasons, we do not credit his testimony that the combined
`
`teachings of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura properly account for all
`
`the limitations recited in independent claims 51 and 56.
`
`In summary, based on the record before us, Lam has not demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that independent
`
`claims 51 and 56 would have been obvious over the combination of
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura.
`
`6. Claim 52–55, 57, 58, 68, 69
`
`By virtue of their dependency, claims 52–55, 57, 58, 68, and 69 each
`
`include the same limitations as one of independent claims 51 and 56.
`
`Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent
`
`claims 51 and 56, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`will prevail on its assertion that dependent claims 52–55, 57, 58, 68, and 69
`
`would have been obvious over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`
`and Kawamura.
`
`Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness Over Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Fischl
`
`
`
`Lam contends that claims 60, 61, and 71 are unpatentable under
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and
`
`Fischl. Pet. 45–55. Lam explains how this proffered combination
`
`purportedly teaches the subject matter of each challenged claim, and asserts
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine or
`
`modify the references. Id. Lam also relies upon the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Cecchi to support its positions. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 111–31. On this record, we
`
`are not persuaded that Lam properly accounts for “a preselected time,” as
`
`recited in independent claim 60.
`
`Fischl generally relates to a method of patterning tungsten and
`
`tungsten silicide for microelectronics circuits using a halogen-based dry
`
`processing etching technique that relies upon chlorine atoms discharged
`
`upstream. Ex. 1005, 1.4 According to Fischl, a silicon dioxide layer forms
`
`on tungsten silicide when it is exposed to air. Id. at 3, 4.
`
`1. Claim 60
`
`Similar to independent claims 51 and 56, independent claim 60 recites
`
`that “the first substrate temperature is changed to the second substrate
`
`temperature with a substrate temperature control circuit within a preselected
`
`time to etch the silicide layer.” Ex. 1001, 25:28–31 (emphasis added). Lam
`
`relies upon essentially the same contentions with respect to independent
`
`claims 51 and 56 discussed above in the context of the asserted ground based
`
`on the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura to support its
`
`4 All references to the page numbers in Fischl refer to page numbers inserted
`by Lam at the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in Exhibit 1005.
`
`Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`assertion that this particular limitation recited in independent claim 60 would
`
`have been taught by Kadomura. Compare Pet. 22, 25, 33–34 with id. at 51–
`
`52. For the same reasons discussed above, Lam does not account properly
`
`for “a preselected time,” as recited in independent 60. Based on the record
`
`before us, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail on its assertion that independent claim 60 would have been obvious
`
`over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Fischl.
`
`2. Claim 61 and 71
`
`By virtue of their dependency, claims 61 and 71 each include the
`
`same limitations as independent claim 60. Therefore, for the same reasons
`
`discussed above with respect to independent claim 60, Lam has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that
`
`dependent claims 61 and 71 would have been obvious over the combination
`
`of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Fischl.
`
`E. Remaining Grounds
`
`Lam also contends that (1) claim 59 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
`
`over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Wang ’391, and
`
`Thomas; (2) claim 62 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over combination of
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Fischl, and Tegal; (3) claim 63 is
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`
`Kawamura, Fischl, and Narita; and (4) claim 70 is unpatentable under
`
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Fischl,
`
`and Hwang. Pet. 38–45, 56–60. By virtue of their dependency, each of
`
`claims 59, 62, 63, and 70 include the same limitations as one of independent
`
`claims 56 and 60. As applied by Lam, Wang ’391, Thomas, Tegal, Narita,
`
`Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`and Hwang do not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, and Kawamura, much less the combined teachings
`
`of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, and Fischl, identified above.
`
`Consequently, Lam has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will
`
`prevail on its assertion that (1) claim 59 would have been obvious over the
`
`combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Wang ’391, and
`
`Thomas; (2) claim 62 would have been obvious over the combination of
`
`Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Fischl, and Tegal; (3) claim 63 would
`
`have been obvious over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485,
`
`Kawamura, Fischl, and Narita; and (4) claim 70 would have been obvious
`
`over the combination of Kadomura, Wang ’485, Kawamura, Fischl, and
`
`Hwang.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking into account the arguments presented in Flamm’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does
`
`not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Lam will prevail in
`
`challenging any of claims 51–63 and 68–71 of the ’264 patent as
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a).
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is
`
`DENIED and no trial is instituted.
`
`Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel K. Lu
`Irell & Manella LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`LamFlammIPR@irell.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 21
`
`