PTAB

IPR2017-00279

Intel Corporation v. Flamm, Daniel

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Temperature Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’264 patent discloses methods for processing a semiconductor wafer at different temperatures within a single tool chamber. The invention's core concept involves selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder (chuck) to facilitate and control the rate of temperature change between processing steps, allowing a change from a first to a second temperature within a characteristic time period.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 64-65 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Muller (Patent 5,605,600), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration No. 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 semiconductor wafers. Matsumura was argued to supply the missing elements of a substrate holder temperature sensor and a programmable control system for implementing predetermined, recipe-based temperature changes. To meet the central limitation of claim 13, Petitioner asserted that Anderson and Hinman taught the concept of selecting a substrate holder’s thermal mass (e.g., using a "low thermal mass" material) to achieve a predetermined temperature change within a specific, rapid time interval.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matsumura's control system with Muller's process to gain more precise control and reliability, as both references are in the same field of semiconductor processing. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate the thermal mass selection principles from Anderson and Hinman to increase processing speed and throughput in the combined Muller-Matsumura system, which were well-known objectives in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that success was predictable because the combination involved applying known, conventional techniques (recipe-based control, thermal mass selection) to a standard process (multi-temperature etching) to achieve the expected benefits of improved speed and process stability.

Ground 2: Claims 19-20 are obvious over Muller, Matsumura, Anderson, Hinman, and Wright.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Muller (Patent 5,605,600), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration No. H1145), Hinman (Patent 3,863,049), and Wright (a 1992 technical article on closed-loop temperature control).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground augmented the combination from Ground 1 to specifically address limitations in dependent claims 19 and 20. Petitioner argued that to the extent the primary combination did not explicitly teach a "known relationship" between wafer and holder temperatures or control within approximately 1°C, Wright supplied this teaching. Wright disclosed a system that separately measured wafer and chuck temperatures, provided experimental data showing their correspondence, and demonstrated temperature control to within ±1°C.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Wright's advanced temperature measurement and control methods into the Muller-Matsumura system to improve the precision and accuracy of the etching process. This was a straightforward application of a known control technique to enhance a known manufacturing process.

Ground 5: Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 64-65 are obvious over Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadomura (Patent 6,063,710), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (Statutory Invention Registration No. H1145), and Hinman (Patent 3,863,049).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1, substituting Kadomura for Muller as the primary reference. Petitioner argued that Kadomura disclosed a multi-temperature etch process that used both a heater and chiller to change temperatures. As in Ground 1, Matsumura was combined to provide a more sophisticated recipe-based control system and temperature sensor, while Anderson and Hinman were combined to teach the selection of a specific thermal mass to control the rate of temperature change.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation mirrored that of Ground 1. A POSITA would combine the analogous art to optimize a known process. Specifically, a POSITA would integrate the control systems from Matsumura and the thermal mass selection principles from Anderson and Hinman with Kadomura's etching tool to improve process speed, reliability, and throughput, all predictable outcomes.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations that added Kikuchi (Patent 5,226,056) for its teachings on radiation heating or Moslehi '849 (Patent 5,192,849) for its disclosure of multi-zone heaters and multiple coolant channels to improve temperature uniformity. Other grounds also argued for combining Muller with the Kadomura-based system to teach a continuous in-situ etching process.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "selected thermal mass": Petitioner argued for adopting the Board's construction from a prior inter partes review (IPR), defining the term as "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 a POSITA could actually 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 entire phrase to mean that "the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature... within a specific time period." This construction emphasizes that the selection must be an intentional design choice for a specific outcome, not merely an incidental result of other design changes.

5. Relief Requested

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