Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Flamm Daniel

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: RE40,264 E
• Filed: July 10, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Daniel L. Flamm
• Challenged Claims: 37-50 and 67

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multi-Temperature Processing
• Brief Description: The ’264 patent relates to methods for processing a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer, at multiple distinct temperatures within a single process chamber. The invention focuses on systems and methods using temperature sensors and control circuits to perform film treatments at different, preselected temperatures for preselected time periods.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 37-46 are obvious over Kadomura and 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 in a single chamber. Kadomura taught using a temperature sensor and control circuit to adjust a wafer's temperature between two different etch steps (e.g., from 20°C to -30°C). However, Petitioner contended Kadomura did not explicitly disclose using predetermined recipes to control the timing of the temperature change. Matsumura was argued to supply this missing element, as it taught a temperature control system using predetermined, recipe-based time-temperature profiles for semiconductor processing, including etching.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matsumura’s recipe-based control system with Kadomura’s multi-temperature etching process to achieve predictable and reliable results. Petitioner asserted that both references address the same technical problem of temperature control in semiconductor processing. Implementing Matsumura’s programmable recipe control into Kadomura’s system was presented as an obvious path to improve process control, accuracy, and throughput, which were well-known goals in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining a programmable, recipe-based controller with a process tool was a standard and well-understood practice in semiconductor manufacturing. Petitioner also argued that incorporating a substrate holder temperature sensor, as taught by Matsumura, to supplement Kadomura’s wafer sensor was a known method for improving thermal process monitoring and control.

Ground 2: Claims 37-46, 50, and 67 are obvious over Kikuchi and 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 taught a multi-temperature photoresist ashing (etching) process, satisfying the main limitations of claim 37. Kikuchi disclosed a first step at a lower temperature (e.g., 70-160°C) followed by a rapid temperature increase (e.g., within 5-10 seconds) to a higher temperature (200°C) for a second step. Kikuchi further taught using sensors for both the wafer and the substrate holder (hot plate). The combination with Matsumura was argued to provide a more advanced, programmable control circuit and the capability for both heating and cooling, which improved upon Kikuchi’s heating-only system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matsumura’s teachings with Kikuchi’s process to improve thermal management and process efficiency. While Kikuchi’s hot plate only heated, Matsumura’s stage could both heat and cool, allowing for better control to counteract plasma-generated heat and to more rapidly cool the chamber for the next wafer, thereby increasing throughput. Further, incorporating Matsumura’s programmable recipe-based control was argued to be an obvious way to ensure Kikuchi’s rapid temperature changes occurred precisely within a preselected time period, enhancing process reliability.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as straightforward. A POSITA would predictably integrate Matsumura's superior heating/cooling stage and recipe-based controller into Kikuchi's process chamber to gain more precise control over the existing multi-temperature process.

Ground 3: Claims 37 and 47-48 are obvious over Moslehi '824, 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 focused on a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) embodiment of the claimed method. Petitioner argued that Oka disclosed a multi-temperature CVD recipe with distinct temperature steps (e.g., 400-800°C deposition, 150-300°C deposition, and 550-650°C baking). Moslehi ’824 was argued to provide a suitable apparatus: a rapid thermal processing reactor with lamp heating, separate wafer and chuck temperature sensors, and a PID control system capable of operating within the temperature ranges of Oka's recipe. The combination of Moslehi '824 and Oka taught nearly all elements of claim 37. Matsumura was added to explicitly teach using pre-programmed recipes to control temperature changes within a preselected time period.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to perform Oka’s known deposition recipe in Moslehi’s advanced, high-temperature apparatus, as both relate to forming polysilicon layers via CVD. The addition of Matsumura's recipe-based time control was argued to be a common and obvious improvement to ensure temperature changes occurred at an optimal rate, thereby improving process control and throughput, which were known industry objectives.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as this combination involved running a known process (Oka) on a compatible, known apparatus (Moslehi '824) and improving it with a standard control strategy (Matsumura).

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Kadomura, Matsumura, and Muller (to add teachings of continuous etching during temperature changes) and Kadomura, Matsumura, and Kikuchi (to add teachings of using radiation for heating).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) would be inappropriate. It was noted that this petition challenges several claims (e.g., 38, 39, 42, 43, 49) not at issue in a previously instituted inter partes review (IPR) on the same patent. Furthermore, Petitioner stated it was seeking joinder with an ongoing IPR (IPR2017-00281) and agreed to take an "understudy" role, which would minimize any additional burden on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Patent Owner.

5. Relief Requested

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