Praxair Technology Inc v. Entegris Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-01845
• Patent #: 8,237,134
• Filed: September 19, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Praxair Technology, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Entegris, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Ion Implantation System and Process
• Brief Description: The ’134 patent describes ion implantation systems and processes for semiconductor manufacturing where performance and ion source lifetime are enhanced. The enhancement is achieved by using dopant compositions that are either isotopically enriched above their natural abundance or combined with supplemental gases (diluent or co-species gases).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rendon, ATMI VAC, and Gupta - Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-20 are obvious over Rendon, ATMI VAC, and Gupta.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rendon (a 2000 IEEE conference paper), ATMI VAC (a 2005 product brochure), and Gupta (Application # 2008/0237496).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rendon taught using isotopically enriched germanium tetrafluoride (GeF₄), specifically enriching the ⁷²Ge isotope to over 50% abundance, to reduce arsenic cross-contamination and improve ion source lifetime in implantation processes. ATMI VAC disclosed a commercially available source of GeF₄ isotopically enriched in ⁷²Ge to 52%, confirming the availability of Rendon’s solution. Petitioner asserted that Gupta taught addressing ion source degradation from fluorinated dopant gases (like GeF₄) by adding supplemental gases, including hydrogen-containing diluent gases to scavenge free fluorine, and co-species gases (e.g., germane, GeH₄) to counteract beam current reduction. The combination of these references allegedly disclosed all limitations of the independent claims, including using an isotopically enriched dopant gas (Rendon/ATMI VAC) with a supplemental gas (Gupta).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Rendon's known benefits of using enriched ⁷²Ge, would combine it with the commercially available product from ATMI VAC. To further address the known problem of ion source degradation caused by GeF₄ (a problem acknowledged in Rendon), the POSITA would be motivated to look to solutions like those in Gupta, which explicitly taught using supplemental diluent and co-species gases to extend source lifetime without sacrificing performance.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining these known techniques addressed well-understood problems with predictable results. Using a commercially available enriched gas (ATMI VAC) in Rendon’s process was straightforward, and adding Gupta’s supplemental gases to mitigate fluorine-based degradation was a known technique for improving source lifetime.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rendon, ATMI VAC, Gupta, and Tempel - Claims 3, 5, 8, and 10 are obvious over Rendon, ATMI VAC, Gupta, and Tempel.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rendon (a 2000 IEEE conference paper), ATMI VAC (a 2005 product brochure), Gupta (Application # 2008/0237496), and Tempel (Application # 2006/0060818).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 and added Tempel to address claims requiring isotopically enriched germane (GeH₄). Petitioner argued that while the primary combination taught using enriched GeF₄, claims 3, 5, 8, and 10 specifically require compositions comprising isotopically enriched GeH₄, either alone or in combination with enriched GeF₄. Tempel explicitly disclosed the use of various dopant gases for ion implantation, including "germane, germanium tetrafluoride, [] isotopically-enriched analogs, and mixtures thereof." This teaching allegedly supplied the missing element of using isotopically enriched GeH₄.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Rendon, ATMI VAC, and Gupta, would be motivated to apply the known benefits of isotopic enrichment to other dopant gases used for the same purpose. Tempel taught that both GeF₄ and GeH₄ could be used as dopants and could be isotopically enriched. A POSITA would therefore find it obvious to use an isotopically enriched version of GeH₄ (as suggested by Tempel) within the process of the primary combination to achieve the same known benefits (e.g., reduced contamination, improved lifetime) that Rendon demonstrated for enriched GeF₄.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect that the benefits of isotopic enrichment are not unique to GeF₄ and would apply equally to other germanium compounds like GeH₄, which Tempel taught as an alternative dopant. Applying this known principle to a different but analogous compound would yield predictable improvements.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on substituting the Trace reference (a 2008 website disclosing commercially available enriched isotopes) for the ATMI VAC brochure, arguing it similarly taught the commercial availability of ⁷²Ge enriched to levels meeting the claim limitations. These grounds (Grounds 4, 5, and 6) relied on the same combination logic as Grounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "dopant gas" / "supplemental gas": Petitioner argued for adopting the patent’s explicit definitions, where "dopant gas" is a gas-phase material with a dopant species, and "supplemental gas" is either a "diluent gas" (without the dopant species) or a "co-species gas" (with the same dopant species but a different non-dopant component, e.g., GeF₄ and GeH₄).
• Markush Group Interpretation: Petitioner contended that claims reciting "[X] selected from the group consisting of [A] and [B]" should be interpreted as "[X] is [A] or [B]," meaning disclosure of any single member of the group in the prior art satisfies the limitation. This was critical for claim 1, which presented two alternative dopant compositions.
• Dependent Claim Interpretation: Petitioner argued that phrases like "wherein the one or more...compounds comprise..." in dependent claims 3-5 and 8-10 must be interpreted as narrowing the parent claim by requiring the inclusion of the specified compound (e.g., isotopically enriched GeH₄), rather than merely listing it as a permissible but not required option.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. It contended that although the examiner considered Rendon and Gupta individually during prosecution, they were not considered in combination as presented in the petition. Furthermore, the petition introduced new prior art references—ATMI VAC, Trace, and Tempel—that were not before the examiner, thus presenting new arguments and evidence that warrant institution of an inter partes review.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 8,237,134 as unpatentable.