PTAB

IPR2017-00279

Intel Corp v. Flamm Daniel

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Temperature Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’264 patent discloses methods for etching semiconductor substrates at multiple, distinct temperatures within a single process. The core concept involves selecting a substrate holder with a specific thermal mass to facilitate and control the rate of temperature change between different etching steps within a predetermined time interval, thereby improving process outcomes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman - Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 64-65 are obvious over the combination of these references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Muller (Patent 5,605,600), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration H1145), and Hinman (Patent 3,863,049).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Muller taught the foundational two-temperature etching process for a semiconductor wafer held on an electrostatic chuck in a chamber. However, Muller did not explicitly teach selecting the substrate holder’s thermal mass to achieve a predetermined temperature change in a specific time. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to Anderson, which taught using a low thermal mass substrate holder for rapid temperature changes ("in a matter of seconds"), and Hinman, which taught the general principle of preselecting the thermal mass of a component to achieve a specific temperature change within a defined time interval. Finally, Matsumura was introduced for its disclosure of a control system with temperature sensors and predetermined recipes to precisely set and adjust substrate holder temperatures.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Muller's process with Anderson's teaching on low thermal mass to increase processing speed and throughput, a key objective in semiconductor manufacturing. A POSITA would then apply the well-known engineering principles from Hinman to calculate and select the precise thermal mass needed to achieve the predictable, time-based temperature changes required for process stability. Matsumura’s control system would be a logical addition to automate and improve the accuracy and reliability of this process.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying predictable principles of heat transfer and process control to known semiconductor equipment, providing a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman - Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 64-65 are obvious over this alternative combination.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadomura (Patent 6,063,710), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration H1145), and Hinman (Patent 3,863,049).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented Kadomura as an alternative primary reference to Muller. Petitioner asserted that Kadomura also taught a multi-temperature etching process, describing specific examples of etching at a first temperature (e.g., 20°C) and then a second temperature (e.g., -30°C) within specific timeframes (e.g., 30 seconds). The roles of Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman were identical to those in Ground 1: Matsumura provided the programmable control system, while Anderson and Hinman collectively taught selecting a specific thermal mass to achieve a predetermined temperature change within a specified time.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was the same as the Muller-based combination. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the throughput and reliability of Kadomura's known multi-temperature process by integrating Matsumura's superior recipe-based control system and applying the established thermal mass selection principles taught by Anderson and Hinman. The references are from analogous arts and address the common goal of rapid, controlled temperature changes in chemical processes.
    • Expectation of Success: As the combination relied on integrating known solutions to solve predictable problems in a single field, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Muller-based Combination and Moslehi - Claims 24-26 are obvious over the combination of these references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Muller (Patent 5,605,600), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration H1145), Hinman (Patent 3,863,049), and Moslehi ’849 (Patent 5,192,849).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Ground 1 to address the limitations of dependent claims 24-26. These claims require features like two separate fluid passages for cooling (claim 24) and a plurality of selectively controlled heating zones (claims 25-26). Petitioner argued Moslehi ’849 explicitly taught these features, disclosing an electrostatic chuck with multiple coolant channels for rapid cooling and a "multizone" resistive heater configuration to improve thermal uniformity across the wafer.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Moslehi '849's features to the Muller-Matsumura system to solve known industry problems. Muller itself noted its cooling method was not fast enough for high-volume manufacturing. Moslehi's multiple coolant channels directly addressed this by enabling more rapid and uniform cooling. Similarly, Moslehi's multi-zone heaters would be incorporated to solve the well-known problem of non-uniform etch rates across a wafer's surface, a direct improvement to process control.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Moslehi's improved chuck design with the Muller-based system was a predictable integration of compatible technologies within the same field of plasma etching, ensuring an expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations incorporating Wright (for teaching a known relationship between wafer and chuck temperatures) and Kikuchi (for teaching radiative heating with lamps). Further grounds paralleled the Muller-based challenges but used Kadomura as the primary reference.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Selected thermal mass": Petitioner argued for the construction previously adopted by the Board in a related matter: "thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both." This construction was argued to make explicit the link between the claimed "thermal mass" and the physical properties an engineer would select.
  • "The thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time": Petitioner proposed construing this phrase to mean "the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second temperature within a specific time period." This construction emphasizes that the selection must be for a specific, targeted change, not merely for the general goal of reducing temperature transition times.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 13-26 and 64-65 of Patent RE40,264 E as unpatentable.