PTAB

IPR2019-00375

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

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Semiconductor Manufacturing Apparatus and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’063 patent describes a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus featuring a remote-plasma, horizontal-flow reactor. The technology is directed at improving thin film quality by generating active species in a plasma source located outside the main reaction chamber and then introducing them to flow horizontally and parallel to the surfaces of multiple semiconductor wafers being processed simultaneously.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 15 are anticipated by Shimada under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shimada (JP H05-251391).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shimada teaches every limitation of independent claim 1. Shimada's Figure 1 allegedly discloses a "semiconductor manufacturing apparatus" with a plasma generation vessel (the "plasma source") arranged outside of and adjacent to a processing vessel (the "reaction chamber"). Active species (radicals) are generated in the source and flow through inlet ports into the chamber, horizontally across multiple wafers, and out an exhaust port on the opposite side. This arrangement inherently satisfies the limitations of simultaneous processing of multiple substrates disposed between the inlet and exhaust with parallel active species flow. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Shimada's separation of the plasma source to prevent ions from reaching the wafers inherently discloses placing wafers where the active species concentration is "substantially constant" (claims 3, 11).

Ground 2: Claims 3, 7, 11, and 12 are obvious over Shimada in view of Noble.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shimada (JP H05-251391), Noble (Patent 6,450,116).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent Shimada does not explicitly teach the "substantially constant concentration" limitation of claims 3 and 11, Noble remedies the deficiency. Noble explicitly discloses a remote-plasma reactor where the substrate is spaced from the plasma source by a "distance longer than the lifetime of the ions." This ensures that damaging, short-lived ions are eliminated, and only the desired, long-lived radicals (whose concentration is therefore stable) reach the substrate.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Noble’s explicit teaching on ion lifetime and wafer spacing with Shimada’s similar remote-plasma reactor. The motivation was to augment the known benefit of preventing ion damage, a goal explicitly shared by both references, thereby achieving more uniform and higher-quality film processing.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because both references describe comparable remote-plasma systems aimed at solving the same problem (ion damage). Applying Noble's specific spacing principles to Shimada's apparatus was a straightforward implementation of a known solution to a known problem.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, and 16 are obvious over Watanabe in view of Sivaramakrishnan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Watanabe (JP H07-094419), Sivaramakrishnan (EP 0 843 347).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Watanabe discloses a horizontal-flow, hot-wall batch reactor for processing multiple wafers but uses an in-situ plasma. Sivaramakrishnan teaches a unitary reactor that combines both chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and remote-plasma treatment in the same chamber, which it notes can be a batch chamber. The proposed combination substitutes Watanabe’s in-situ plasma with Sivaramakrishnan's remote-plasma system, resulting in a batch reactor with a remote plasma source and horizontal flow, as claimed. Watanabe’s disclosure of switching gas flow direction to improve uniformity further teaches the alternating flow limitations of claims 2 and 16.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Sivaramakrishnan’s remote-plasma unit into Watanabe's batch reactor to achieve the significant benefits of a unitary system. These benefits, explicitly taught by Sivaramakrishnan, include reduced capital equipment costs, improved film quality by avoiding wafer exposure to the atmosphere between steps, and increased throughput by eliminating process queuing.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success. Combining a known remote-plasma source module with a known reaction chamber was a predictable engineering task. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that Shimada's successful implementation of a horizontal-flow remote-plasma system provided additional evidence that such a configuration in the modified Watanabe reactor would function as expected.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted obviousness of claim 5 over Shimada alone, arguing Shimada suggests modifying its circular inlet ports to slits. Petitioner also asserted obviousness of claims 9 and 14 over Watanabe, Sivaramakrishnan, and Kimura, arguing Kimura teaches performing post-deposition plasma treatment at a temperature equal to the deposition temperature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "means for supplying a gas for use in depositing a film..." (Claims 8, 13): Petitioner argued this is a means-plus-function term under §112, sixth paragraph. The claimed function is supplying a deposition gas. The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’063 patent was identified as the gas manifolds and reactive gas inlets shown in Figures 6 and 16, and their equivalents.
  • "a distance where the concentration of the active species ... becomes substantially constant" (Claims 3, 11): Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean a distance downstream from the plasma source at which the concentration of short-lived, damaging species (ions) has decreased to zero, leaving only long-lived species (radicals). This interpretation was based on the ’063 patent’s specification (e.g., Fig. 7) and what a POSITA would understand about plasma physics, where the overall active species concentration stabilizes after the volatile ion component decays.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’063 patent as unpatentable.