Intel Corp v. Flamm Daniel

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00281
• Patent #: RE40,264 E
• Filed: December 2, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Daniel L. Flamm
• Challenged Claims: 37-50 and 67

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multi-Temperature Processing
• Brief Description: The ’264 patent discloses methods and apparatus for processing semiconductor substrates, such as wafers, within a single chamber. The core invention involves performing film treatments (e.g., etching) on the substrate at two or more different, preselected temperatures for preselected periods to improve processing results.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kadomura and Matsumura - Claims 37-46 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 37, including a multi-temperature plasma etching process for a semiconductor wafer on a substrate holder. Kadomura taught a temperature control system with a substrate temperature sensor (a thermometer) and a control circuit to adjust the wafer temperature between a first and second temperature (e.g., 20°C and -30°C). However, Petitioner contended Kadomura did not explicitly teach a substrate holder temperature sensor or changing temperature within a "preselected time period." Matsumura was argued to supply these missing elements by teaching a programmable control system that used predetermined recipes to control processing times and temperatures, and which used a temperature sensor on the substrate holder. The combination of Kadomura’s process with Matsumura’s control system rendered claim 37 obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Matsumura's programmable control system and recipe approach with Kadomura’s similar processing tool to achieve greater process control, reliability, and efficiency. Using predetermined recipes, as taught by Matsumura, was a well-known technique to make manufacturing processes predictable and was a natural improvement to Kadomura's system. This combination would also provide the "preselected time period" limitation.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved incorporating a well-understood, programmable control methodology (Matsumura) into a known plasma processing tool (Kadomura) to achieve the predictable benefit of improved process control.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kikuchi and Matsumura - Claims 37-46, 50, and 67 are obvious over Kikuchi in view of Matsumura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikuchi (Patent 5,226,056) and Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kikuchi served as an alternative primary reference, disclosing a multi-temperature process for ashing (a type of etching) a photoresist film on a wafer. Kikuchi taught using a hot plate or heat lamps to change the wafer temperature from a first low temperature (e.g., 70°C-160°C) to a second higher temperature (200°C). Kikuchi disclosed embodiments with sensors for both the substrate (wafer) and the substrate holder (hot plate). As in Ground 1, Matsumura was introduced to supply the programmable control circuit that follows predetermined recipes to ensure temperature changes occur within a preselected time period and to provide a system capable of both heating and cooling.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to improve Kikuchi's tool by incorporating Matsumura’s more advanced, recipe-driven control system. Matsumura's cooling capability would provide tighter temperature control, especially to counteract heat generated during plasma etching, and would allow for faster cycle times by more quickly returning the holder to a lower temperature, thereby increasing throughput—a stated goal of Kikuchi.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as both references address temperature control in semiconductor processing, and integrating a known control system (Matsumura) to enhance a known process (Kikuchi) was a common engineering practice.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Moslehi, Matsumura, and Oka - Claims 37, 47-48 are obvious over Moslehi ’824 in view of Matsumura and Oka.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Moslehi ’824 (Patent 5,446,824), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), and Oka (Patent 6,235,563).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targeted claims related to chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Petitioner argued that Moslehi ’824 disclosed a suitable plasma processing tool with temperature sensors and control circuits for both the wafer and the chuck. Oka taught a specific multi-temperature recipe for a CVD process, involving steps at different temperatures (e.g., 400°C-800°C and 150°C-300°C). Petitioner argued that the combination of Moslehi '824 and Oka taught nearly all claim elements. To the extent the combination did not explicitly teach performing temperature changes within a "preselected time period," Matsumura was added to provide its known teaching of using predetermined recipes to precisely control the timing of temperature changes.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Oka’s known multi-temperature CVD recipe in a suitable, commercially relevant tool like that disclosed in Moslehi ’824. To improve process control and repeatability for this multi-step recipe, it would have been obvious to incorporate the well-known, recipe-based, programmable control system taught by Matsumura.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining a known process recipe (Oka) with a suitable processing tool (Moslehi ’824) and a standard control methodology (Matsumura) was presented as a straightforward integration that would yield the expected, predictable result of performing the Oka recipe with enhanced precision.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on combining Kadomura, Matsumura, and Muller (Patent 5,605,600) to teach continuous etching during temperature changes, and combining Kadomura, Matsumura, and Kikuchi to teach the use of radiation for heating.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 37-50 and 67 of Patent RE40,264 E as unpatentable.