Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Flamm Daniel

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01746
• Patent #: 6,017,221
• Filed: July 10, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Daniel L. Flamm
• Challenged Claims: 1-7

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Process for Controlling Capacitive Coupling of an Inductively-Coupled Plasma Source
• Brief Description: The ’221 patent discloses a process for fabricating products using an inductively-coupled plasma source. The process aims to control undesirable capacitive coupling by selectively balancing phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents from the inductive coupling structure using a wave adjustment circuit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lieberman - Claims 1 and 5-7 are obvious over Lieberman under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lieberman (Michael A. Lieberman and Richard A. Gottscho, Design of High-Density Plasma Sources for Materials Processing, 1994).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Lieberman, a foundational text on plasma sources, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Lieberman teaches driving an inductive coil "push-pull using a balanced transformer" to reduce undesired capacitively coupled current. Petitioner asserted this "balanced transformer" is a "wave adjustment circuit" that creates a "virtual ground" in the middle of the coil. This arrangement inherently results in substantially equally distributed phase and anti-phase potentials, thus meeting the "selectively balanced" limitation. Lieberman also discloses using the plasma process in a chamber for etching and deposition, meeting the limitations of dependent claims 5-6, and its push-pull arrangement creates a half-wave multiple, meeting claim 7.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, this section focuses on the motivation to apply known principles. A POSITA would have been motivated to use Lieberman's push-pull configuration because it was a well-known and advantageous method for reducing capacitive coupling, a known problem in the art.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as Lieberman explicitly teaches that its balanced design "reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two."

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lieberman and Dible - Claims 1 and 5-7 are obvious over Lieberman in view of Dible under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lieberman (as in Ground 1) and Dible (Patent 5,573,595).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Lieberman provides the base inductively-coupled plasma system with a balanced transformer. Dible teaches a control circuit that provides dynamic, user-variable control over the phase difference between signals driving a plasma source. Petitioner argued that incorporating Dible's control circuit into Lieberman's system would provide dynamic and fine-tuned control over the balancing of capacitive currents. This combination explicitly teaches a wave adjustment circuit (the control circuit from Dible) used to adjust the phase portions, as claimed.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Lieberman and Dible to improve the functionality of Lieberman's static system. Dible's dynamic control circuit offered the recognized advantage of flexibility, allowing for fine-tuning of the phase portions to optimize the plasma process for different applications, such as minimizing capacitive coupling or adjusting the inductive/capacitive characteristics on the fly.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was predictable because both references operate in the same technical field of plasma processing and address related problems. Integrating a known control circuit (Dible) into a known plasma source configuration (Lieberman) was a straightforward modification.

Ground 5: Obviousness over Qian - Claims 1 and 5-7 are obvious over Qian under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Qian (Patent 5,683,539).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Qian, which discloses an inductively coupled RF plasma reactor, teaches every limitation of claim 1. Qian uses an "isolation transformer" with a ferrite core between the RF power supply and the inductive coil to reduce capacitive coupling. Petitioner argued this transformer functions as a balun, driving the coil in a push-pull manner that is functionally identical to the "balanced transformer" of Lieberman and the wave adjustment circuit of the ’221 patent. Qian confirms with experimental data that this configuration reduces capacitive coupling by "more than a factor of two," demonstrating the claimed balancing effect. Qian also discloses the process occurring in a "reactor chamber 10" for a "plasma etch process," meeting claims 5-6, and its push-pull drive creates a half-wave multiple, meeting claim 7.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation lies in applying Qian's teachings directly. A POSITA would have been motivated to use Qian's design because it provided a proven solution to the known problem of capacitive coupling in plasma reactors.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Expectation of success was high, as Qian not only teaches the system but also provides quantitative experimental results demonstrating its effectiveness.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Lieberman or Qian with Hanawa (Patent 5,688,357) to add a variable frequency power supply (for claims 2-3) and combining Lieberman or Qian with Collins (Patent 5,065,118) to add a transmission line to the wave adjustment circuit (for claim 4).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "selectively balanced": This term from claim 1 was identified as central to the dispute.
  • Petitioner argued the correct construction is "chosen to be made substantially equally distributed." This construction is based on the specification's explicit distinction between "balanced" and "imbalanced" embodiments, suggesting "balanced" means an equal distribution of phase and anti-phase currents.
  • Petitioner also argued that the prior art is invalidating even under the Patent Owner's broader construction from a related IPR, which contended the term "covers a range, per one's selection, between 100% balanced to various lesser percentages." Petitioner maintained that Lieberman and Qian teach a 100% balanced configuration, which falls within this range.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner filed this petition concurrently with a Motion for Joinder to an already-instituted IPR (IPR2017-00391) involving the same patent. Petitioner argued that because the petition was filed with a joinder motion within one month of the institution of the earlier IPR, the one-year time bar under §315(b) does not apply, and discretionary denial would be inappropriate.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’221 patent as unpatentable.