PTAB

IPR2018-01561

ASM IP Holding B.V. v. Kokusai Electric Corp.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Substrate Processing Apparatus and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’076 patent relates to a substrate processing apparatus, specifically a batch-type vertical Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) furnace. The invention claims an apparatus with specific gas supply nozzles having distinct portions with different cross-sectional shapes and areas, purportedly to improve film deposition uniformity.

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 the combination of Saito and Oosterlaken rendered all challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition contended that Saito, a versatile vertical CVD furnace capable of depositing dielectric and conductive layers and performing in-situ cleaning, taught the foundational elements of the claimed apparatus, corresponding to limitations [a] through [f] of independent claims 1 and 8. These elements included the reaction container, heater, and a plurality of L-shaped gas supply nozzles. The petition asserted that the allegedly novel features of the ’076 patent—specifically the nozzle geometry recited in limitations [g], [h], and [i]—were expressly taught by Oosterlaken. Oosterlaken, which was not cited during prosecution, disclosed using nozzles with a "substantially elliptical" or "oblong" shape to reduce unwanted deposition inside the nozzle. Petitioner mapped Oosterlaken's teachings to the specific claim limitations, arguing it disclosed a vertical nozzle portion (the first portion) with a larger, elliptical cross-sectional area opposed to the heater, and a horizontal or feed portion (the second portion) with a smaller, circular cross-sectional area. This combination, Petitioner argued, disclosed every element of the independent claims. The dependent claims were argued to be obvious for reciting minor variations also taught or suggested by the combination, such as using porous nozzles (claim 14) or defining temperatures for reaction generation (claims 5 and 12).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Saito and Oosterlaken to improve the versatility of Saito's apparatus. Saito itself taught the desirability of adding capabilities for depositing new types of films. A POSA would have sought to add the capability of depositing desirable semiconducting Si-Ge films, a process for which Oosterlaken’s elliptically-shaped nozzles were shown to be particularly advantageous. Oosterlaken's nozzles reduced unwanted gas-phase reactions and improved deposition uniformity, solving a known problem in Si-Ge deposition. Furthermore, a POSA would recognize a synergistic benefit, as Saito's in-situ HF cleaning capability would provide a pristine surface for the Si-Ge deposition taught by Oosterlaken, improving the overall process.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Both Saito and Oosterlaken described conventional vertical CVD furnace architectures, making their respective components compatible. Oosterlaken demonstrated the successful use of its nozzles, provided engineering formulas for their implementation, and disclosed they could be scaled for different wafer sizes found in systems like Saito's. The integration was a combination of known elements to achieve predictable results.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued the final limitation of claims 1 and 8—requiring the short axis of the elliptical portion to be "substantially equal" to the diameter of the circular portion—was a mere dimensional limitation that did not confer patentability. It argued this dimension did not result in a different function or operation. Alternatively, Petitioner contended that a POSA would have been motivated to select this specific dimension to optimize the apparatus by minimizing the reactor's lateral clearance, thereby reducing gas consumption and the furnace's physical footprint, both of which were known economic drivers in semiconductor manufacturing.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "nozzle": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a genus that includes the species disclosed in the ’076 patent specification, such as "normal nozzles," "long nozzles," and "porous nozzles." This construction was important for arguing that Oosterlaken's gas injector, which uses a plurality of small holes to eject gas, constituted a "porous nozzle" and thus fell within the scope of the claims.
  • "apart": For the limitation "[a vertical portion] disposed in said reaction container apart from an inner wall," Petitioner argued the plain meaning was simply that a gap exists between the nozzle's vertical portion and the reaction container's inner wall. This construction supported mapping both Saito's and Oosterlaken's disclosures, which show nozzles positioned with a clearance from the chamber wall.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 8,673,076 as unpatentable.