Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Flamm Daniel

1. Case Identification

• Case #: The petition seeks joinder with IPR2017-00279.
• Patent #: RE40,264 E
• Filed: July 10, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Daniel L. Flamm
• Challenged Claims: 13-26 and 64-65

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multi-Temperature Processing
• Brief Description: The ’264 patent discloses methods for processing a semiconductor substrate, such as a wafer, at multiple distinct temperatures within a single process chamber. The invention's purported novelty lies in selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder (chuck) to facilitate a change between temperatures within a preselected period of time to improve process control.

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 (U.S. Statutory Invention Registration No. H1145), and Hinman (Patent 3,863,049).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Muller and Matsumura taught all elements of the multi-temperature etching process recited in independent claim 13, except for the "selected thermal mass" limitation. Muller disclosed a two-temperature etching process using an electrostatic chuck to improve etch profiles. Matsumura taught a similar multi-temperature process but added a sophisticated control system with temperature sensors and predetermined recipes to precisely control temperature changes over specific time intervals. The final limitation of claim 13, selecting a substrate holder's thermal mass to achieve a predetermined temperature change in a specific time, was explicitly taught by Anderson and Hinman. Anderson disclosed selecting a low thermal mass heater to achieve rapid temperature changes (e.g., 100-500°C in seconds) in semiconductor processing, while Hinman taught the general principle and calculation of selecting a material's thermal mass to effect a specific temperature change in a specific time for chemical analysis.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Muller and Matsumura to gain the benefits of Matsumura's precise, recipe-based temperature control for Muller's multi-temperature etching process. A POSITA would then look to Anderson and Hinman to optimize the speed and control of these temperature changes—a known goal in semiconductor manufacturing to increase throughput. Because Anderson and Hinman taught selecting thermal mass to achieve this exact goal, the combination was obvious.
  • Expectation of Success: All references relate to semiconductor processing or the analogous art of thermal control for chemical processes. A POSITA would have reasonably expected that applying the thermal mass selection principles from Anderson and Hinman to the etching systems of Muller and Matsumura would predictably result in faster, more controlled temperature transitions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kadomura, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman - Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 64-65 are obvious over the combination of these references.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadomura (Patent 6,063,710), Matsumura (Patent 5,151,871), Anderson (U.S. 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 for the etching process. Petitioner asserted that Kadomura, like Muller, disclosed a multi-temperature etching process, describing specific examples of changing wafer temperature (e.g., from 20°C to -30°C in about 30 seconds) using a heater and chiller system. The remaining references, Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman, were argued to supply the same missing elements as in Ground 1: Matsumura provided the recipe-based control system, and Anderson and Hinman provided the explicit teaching of selecting thermal mass to control the rate of temperature change.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA would combine the teachings of Matsumura, Anderson, and Hinman with Kadomura's etching process to achieve the known benefits of improved process control, precision, and throughput. Kadomura and the secondary references are all directed at solving common problems in semiconductor manufacturing and thermal management.
  • Expectation of Success: As with the first ground, the combination involved integrating well-understood principles of thermal management into a known semiconductor etching process, leading to a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on variations of the primary combinations. These grounds added Wright (for teaching precise temperature correspondence between a wafer and chuck), Kikuchi (for using infrared radiation as a heating method), and Moslehi ’849 (for teaching multi-zone heating elements and multiple coolant channels) to the core Muller and Kadomura combinations to address various dependent claims.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Selected thermal mass": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both." This construction was previously adopted by the Board in a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the ’264 patent and makes explicit the link between thermal mass (mass x specific heat) and the physical properties of the holder.
• "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 "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 is not merely to reduce temperature transition time, but to achieve a specific, quantitative temperature change over a discrete, predetermined time interval (e.g., 10°C per minute), a distinction the Board found critical in prior proceedings.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) would be inappropriate. First, Petitioner contended that the current petition does not present the "same or substantially the same prior art or arguments" as a previously denied petition (IPR2016-01510), as it relies on different primary references (Muller, Kadomura) and key secondary references (Hinman) that explicitly teach the selection of thermal mass, a feature the Board previously found lacking. Second, Petitioner asserted that granting the petition would not create an undue burden, as it was filed with a motion for joinder to an already-instituted IPR (IPR2017-00279) where Petitioner agreed to an "understudy" role, thus streamlining the proceeding.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 13-26 and 64-65 of Patent RE40,264 as unpatentable.