PTAB

IPR2017-00280

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 processing a semiconductor substrate in a single chamber by etching it at two or more different, sequentially-selected temperatures. The process utilizes conventional components like temperature sensors and control circuits to change substrate temperatures within preselected time intervals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kadomura and Matsumura - Claims 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 66 are obvious over Kadomura in view of Matsumura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadomura (Patent 6,063,710) and Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kadomura disclosed the core elements of independent claim 27, including a multi-temperature etch process within a single chamber. Kadomura taught heating a substrate holder to etch a wafer at a first temperature (e.g., 20°C) and then at a different second temperature (e.g., -30°C), using a thermometer to measure wafer temperature. Petitioner contended that to the extent Kadomura did not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor on the substrate holder itself or the use of a "preselected time interval" for the temperature change, Matsumura supplied these features. Matsumura taught a processing tool with a temperature sensor embedded within the substrate holder and disclosed using "predetermined recipes" that specified precise processing times, temperatures, and temperature change times.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matsumura's teachings with Kadomura's system to achieve greater process control, predictability, and efficiency—all well-known goals in semiconductor manufacturing. Integrating Matsumura’s substrate holder sensor into Kadomura’s tool, which already measured wafer temperature, would provide a more complete understanding of heat transfer and allow for improved process optimization. Similarly, applying Matsumura’s programmable recipe-based control would make Kadomura's process more reliable and would maximize throughput.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both references addressed similar temperature control technologies in the same field. Implementing a known sensor type and a programmable recipe controller were considered routine optimizations with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kadomura, Matsumura, and Kikuchi - Claims 31 and 35 are obvious over Kadomura and Matsumura in view of Kikuchi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadomura (’710 patent), Matsumura (’871 patent), and Kikuchi (Patent 5,226,056).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Kadomura and Matsumura, which Petitioner argued taught the elements of claim 27. Dependent claims 31 and 35 add the requirement that the temperature change or etching involves "transferring energy using at least radiation." Petitioner asserted that Kikuchi taught this element by disclosing the use of infrared lamps to provide infrared radiation for rapidly heating a wafer, such as increasing its temperature up to 130°C in just 5 seconds.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Kikuchi’s infrared lamps into the Kadomura-Matsumura system to achieve faster heating and thereby increase process throughput, a stated goal of Kadomura. The lamps offered a well-known, alternative method for rapid heating, providing greater flexibility and speed compared to using only an embedded chuck heater as in Kadomura.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as incorporating an alternative and well-known heating source like infrared lamps into a semiconductor processing chamber was a routine design choice aimed at improving performance.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kikuchi and Matsumura - Claims 27-28, 31-36, 51-54, 66, and 68-69 are obvious over Kikuchi in view of Matsumura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikuchi (’056 patent) and Matsumura (’871 patent).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented an alternative invalidity theory with Kikuchi as the primary reference. Kikuchi taught a multi-temperature etching process (ashing) in a single chamber, including heating a substrate holder (hot plate) with an integrated temperature sensor and etching a photoresist film at a first temperature range (70°C-160°C) followed by a second, higher temperature (200°C). For any elements not expressly disclosed in Kikuchi, such as preselecting the time interval for the temperature change, Petitioner argued Matsumura supplied the teaching. Matsumura disclosed using "predetermined recipes" with a programmable control system to precisely manage process times.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matsumura’s programmable recipe control with Kikuchi’s process to improve predictability and efficiency. Kikuchi’s objective was to shorten etching time, and using Matsumura's recipe-based approach would ensure that temperature changes occurred within a precise, programmed interval, thereby removing process variability and maximizing throughput. The references were analogous and focused on similar problems of temperature control in semiconductor processing.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a programmable controller with a thermal process was a conventional and well-understood practice in the art, making the integration straightforward with a high likelihood of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Muller (Patent 5,605,600), which taught continuous etching during temperature changes and the use of backpressure gas for rapid heat transfer.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 as unpatentable.