PTAB

IPR2018-01561

ASM IP Holding BV v. Kokusai Electric Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Substrate Processing Apparatus and Method of Manufacturing Semiconductor Device
  • Brief Description: The ’076 patent discloses a substrate processing apparatus, specifically a batch-type vertical Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) furnace. The invention focuses on the configuration of gas supply nozzles within the furnace’s reaction container to improve film deposition on semiconductor substrates.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Saito in view of Oosterlaken.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Saito (Patent 6,383,300) and Oosterlaken (Application # 2003/0111013).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saito disclosed a conventional vertical CVD apparatus that meets the foundational limitations of the challenged claims, including a reaction container, a heater, and a plurality of L-shaped gas supply nozzles. The petitioner contended that the ’076 patent itself admitted that these basic features were well-known in the prior art. The key limitations not present in Saito, primarily relating to the nozzle’s geometry (limitations [g], [h], and [i] of independent claim 8), were allegedly disclosed by Oosterlaken. Specifically, Oosterlaken taught using gas injector nozzles with a "substantially elliptical" or "oblong" cross-sectional shape (limitation [h]) to improve the deposition of Si-Ge films. Oosterlaken also disclosed that the vertical portion of its nozzles had a larger inner cross-sectional area than the horizontal gas feed conduits to reduce pressure and unwanted reactions (limitation [g]). For the final dimensional limitation requiring the elliptical nozzle’s short axis to be substantially equal to the diameter of a circular connecting portion (limitation [i]), Petitioner argued this was either a mere dimensional limitation not conferring patentability or an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to optimize the apparatus.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings of Saito and Oosterlaken to improve the versatility of Saito's apparatus. Petitioner asserted that Saito taught a versatile CVD furnace capable of depositing dielectric and conducting layers and disclosed a desire to add further capabilities. A POSITA would have been motivated to add the capability to deposit high-performance semiconducting Si-Ge layers, a known area of interest at the time. Oosterlaken expressly taught that its elliptically-shaped nozzles were advantageous for depositing Si-Ge films by reducing unwanted deposition inside the nozzles and improving film uniformity. Therefore, a POSITA would replace Saito's conventional nozzles with Oosterlaken's improved nozzles to gain this desirable capability. This combination was further motivated because Saito's in situ hydrogen fluoride (HF) cleaning capability would be beneficial for preparing substrates for the Si-Ge deposition process taught by Oosterlaken.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Saito and Oosterlaken disclosed conventional vertical CVD furnace structures, making the integration of Oosterlaken's nozzles into Saito's system a straightforward substitution of known components to achieve a predictable result. Oosterlaken demonstrated the successful use of its nozzles for depositing Si-Ge films and provided sufficient detail to allow a POSITA to implement them in a similar apparatus like Saito's.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "nozzle": Petitioner argued that the term "nozzle" should be construed as a genus that includes the various species described in the ’076 patent’s specification, such as "normal nozzles," "long nozzles," "straight nozzles," and "porous nozzles." This construction was relevant because Oosterlaken’s gas injector, which features a plurality of gas ejection ports along its length, would be understood by a POSITA to be a type of "porous nozzle" falling within the scope of the claimed term.
  • "apart": Petitioner proposed that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "apart," as used in limitations requiring the nozzle's vertical portion to be "apart from an inner wall," simply means that a gap exists between the nozzle and the inner wall. This construction aligns with the admitted prior art figures in the ’076 patent, which illustrate such a gap.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’076 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.