`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 12, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
`CHETAN BANSAL, ESQ.
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
`Paul Hastings LP
`875 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`ROLF STADHEIM, ESQ.
`Stadheim & Grear Ltd.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`
`and
`
`CHRISTOPHER FRERKING, ESQ.
`University of New Hampshire School of Law
`2 White Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`
`October 12, 2017, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ZECHER: Please be seated. Good morning. This is a
`hearing for IPR2016-01512. The patent at issue is reissued patent
`number 40,264 E. We have a number of challenged claims at issue, 27,
`31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48 and 50.
`So, in our oral argument order, I believe we allotted each party
`30 minutes of oral argument time in total, so we're going to stick with
`that today. Petitioner is going to present their case first. They can
`reserve rebuttal time, at which point Patent Owner will go and then
`Petitioner can use their remaining rebuttal time at the end.
`So, let's start by having the parties introduce themselves. Let's
`start with Petitioner, please.
`MR. MODI: Good morning, Your Honors. Naveen Modi from
`Paul Hastings. With me I have my colleagues Chetan Bansal and Joe
`Palys on behalf of Samsung.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. FRERKING: Christopher Frerking for Patent Owner, and
`my colleague, Rolf Stadheim.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you. So, we will turn the floor over
`to Petitioner and would you like to reserve some rebuttal time up front?
`MR. MODI: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to save 10 minutes
`for rebuttal.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. MODI: Your Honor, before I begin, I do have hard copies
`of the demonstratives, if you would like, I can give you copies.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes, you can approach. Thank you.
`MR. MODI: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honors, may it
`please the Board. Based on the petition and supporting evidence, the
`Board instituted review of certain claims of the '264 patent. The record
`now includes even more evidence than before, and that supports the
`Board's institution decision. The Board should now issue a final decision
`cancelling the claims at issue. Let me explain why.
`So, if you can go to slide 2, please. So, as the Board is aware,
`there are four grounds at issue in this proceeding. For purposes of my
`opening presentation, I plan to focus on Patent Owner's argument, main
`argument, that one of ordinary skill would not have combined Kadomura
`and Matsumura.
`I'm happy to answer any other questions the Board has on any
`of the claims, the dependent claims, but that's what I was going to focus
`on today, for purposes of my opening presentation.
`So, if you go to slide 3, again, as the Board is aware, there are
`two independent claims at issue here, claims 27 and 37. I believe the
`parties' disputes really don't matter with respect to the claims, whether it's
`27 or 37, so again, for purposes of today, I will focus on independent
`claim 27. Again, I'm happy to address any questions the Board may have
`on claim 37 or any of the other claims.
`So, if you look at claim 27, I just want to put this claim in
`context for purposes of the discussion today. It's a method of etching a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`substrate, and the method includes various steps: Heating a substrate
`holder to a first substrate holder temperature; placing a substrate having a
`film thereon, on the substrate holder; etching a first portion of the film at
`a preselected first substrate temperature; etching a second portion of the
`film at a preselected second substrate temperature, wherein substrate
`temperature is changed within a preselected time interval for processing.
`Obviously I skipped some of the claim language, but for
`purposes of today, I'm going to focus on the "preselecting" language, as
`you know, that's where the dispute centers around. And I will note for
`the record, we don't believe there is a dispute terms of whether the prior
`art really discloses the features, I think the dispute centers around
`whether one of ordinary skill would have combined the references.
`So, let's turn to the references, and let's start with Kadomura.
`So, we are now on slide 4. Again, I think it's undisputed that Kadomura
`discloses controlling the temperature of specimen W, which is the
`substrate, by controlling the temperature of stage 12, a substrate holder.
`So, if you go to slide 5, again, I think it's undisputed that
`Kadomura discloses at least three embodiments, which are shown here.
`The figure 1 embodiment, the figure 2 embodiment and then the figure 3
`embodiment. And in each of these embodiments, Kadomura applies its
`dry etching method, of course in a different manner, but in each
`embodiment, there are three things that happen.
`There is an etching at a first temperature in the presence of gas;
`then the temperatures changed to a second temperature while the gas is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`exhausted and fresh gas is introduced into the chamber; and then there is
`etching at a second temperature.
`Kadomura makes clear, and I'll get to some of the language in
`Kadomura, but it makes clear that the time to change the temperature is
`less than or equal to the time to change the gases.
`As such, it is our view that a mechanism would -- is necessary
`to ensure that the relationship, namely that the time to change the
`temperature does not exceed the time to change the gases, because if it
`did, throughput would be affected, and there's evidence in the record that
`supports that.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counsel, can you speak to Patent Owner's
`argument that the time to change the temperature is not a factor in these
`embodiments?
`MR. MODI: Absolutely. Your Honor, I was going to get to
`that next, and I will go ahead and jump to that right now. So, if you look
`at -- if you can jump to slide 7. Actually, let's jump to slide 11, if we can.
`So, if we look at slide 11, there is testimony in the record -- so,
`just to remind the Board, so Petitioner submitted a declaration from
`Dr. Shanfield, an expert in the field. Patent Owner chose not to cross
`examine Dr. Shanfield. Patent Owner submitted a declaration from the
`inventor, Dr. Flamm, and we deposed Dr. Flamm. And you see that
`some of that testimony on the screen here.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Just to follow up, I was looking through the
`record this morning and I noticed at least a notice of deposition for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`Shanfield that was filed, I believe on April 10th. So that was filed but he
`was not cross examined?
`MR. MODI: Yes, Your Honor, they chose not to cross examine
`
`him.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`MR. MODI: So, if you look at slide 11, we think this testimony
`is dispositive of this issue that Your Honor is referring to. So, during his
`deposition, we asked Dr. Flamm, we said, whether throughput would be
`affected if the time to change the temperature, which was referred to as
`B, is greater than the time to change gases, which was referred to as A.
`And his answer was clear, he said it would be affected.
`And I do want to focus on the testimony, just because I think it
`is dispositive of this issue. So, if you look at the testimony, again, it's on
`slide 11, and it's from Exhibit 1011 at 101, lines 20 to 25.
`"Question: So, if B -- again, that's the time to change the
`temperature -- was greater than A -- the time to change the gases -- then
`B would be rate limiting, correct?
`"Answer: In those -- in that terminology, yes.
`"Question: And if B exceeded A, then B would lower the
`throughput?
`"Answer: Sure.
`So, we think this testimony ends any doubt whether the
`throughput would be affected and whether the change in temperature is a
`factor. And, in fact, there is testimony in the -- in the record from
`Dr. Shanfield. So if we can go to slide 12.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`He explained that a person of ordinary skill would have
`understood the need to accurately control the time for a temperature
`change and would have been motivated to use Matsumura's recipes to
`improve Kadomura's process, because his recipes would provide better
`temperature control and allow the substrate temperature to be changed in
`a control and preselected manner.
`And let's go to slide 13 and I will actually show you some of
`that testimony. So, this is from Dr. Shanfield's rebuttal declaration, and
`as you can see, he said, "The disclosure of Kadomura suggests and
`supports the understanding that the time required to change the substrate
`temperature is an important factor in Kadomura's process and must be
`controlled accurately to achieve Kadomura's goal of not lowering
`throughput."
`He went on and explained, one of ordinary skill in the art
`reviewing Kadomura would have realized that controlling the specific
`time interval for changing temperature is important in the processes
`disclosed by Kadomura because if the time interval for changing
`temperature were not controlled accurately and it exceeded the time to
`change gases, the throughput would be affected.
`So, again, Kadomura itself -- you know, I believe the Patent
`Owner disputes this, but Kadomura itself we believe discloses this, and
`I'll point the Board to column 7, lines 19 through 30 of Kadomura. And
`again, that's cited in our papers.
`So we believe that there's more than enough evidence here that
`supports the showing that the time to change temperature is a factor. It's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`an important factor that must be controlled, and that's where Matsumura
`comes in. It provides recipes that can be combined with the Kadomura
`system to achieve the better control that our expert referred to.
`So, if I can go to slide 14, please. Now, unless Your Honors
`have any other question on that, the factor point, I will move on to some
`of the other arguments Patent Owner made.
`So, some of the other arguments the Patent Owner makes is --
`well, Kadomura teaches away, and that the Matsumura system and
`Kadomura system are not compatible. We believe each of these
`arguments should be rejected, and I will quickly go through them.
`So, their first argument is, well, Patent Owner -- they argue that
`Kadomura teaches away because the specification of the '264 patent, now
`we're talking about the patent at issue, teaches a much shorter time than
`the time to change the temperature in Kadomura. First the claims don't
`require any time intervals. Second, the standard of teaching away is
`pretty high, as the Board is aware. Patent Owner has not and cannot in
`our view show that Kadomura criticizes, discredits or otherwise
`disparages the invention.
`Now I'm on slide 16. They next argue that, well, a proposal
`that Kadomura be modified to eliminate its gas exchanges, the gas
`exchange procedure would change the principal operation of Kadomura.
`Well we never made that argument, so I think that can be quickly
`disposed of.
`Slide 17, they argue that Matsumura's recipes would not have
`been beneficial for Kadomura and that they have no utility for plasma
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`etching. That's just not correct. If we look at Matsumura itself, and you
`can see the cites here, Matsumura explicitly discloses that its processes
`can be applied to any of ion implementation, CBD etching and ashing
`processes, and we asked Dr. Flamm, we said, "what would one of
`ordinary skill have understood in terms of an ashing process?" And he
`testified, "an ashing process is a plasma etching process." So, again,
`Matsumura clearly discloses plasma etching, and that its processes can be
`applied to plasma etching.
`Slide 18. Their next argument is, well, Matsumura's system
`would not have been compatible with Kadomura because it's an open
`loop system and does not use feedback like Kadomura. Again, that's just
`simply not correct. If we look at slide 19, as we pointed out in the
`passages here from Matsumura, it does use feedback control. And, in
`fact, one of ordinary skill would have understood that Matsumura's
`system accounts for external heating, which is what they complained
`about, because it explicitly discloses that its process can be used for
`plasma etching.
`With that, I actually will save the rest of my time for rebuttal,
`unless Your Honors have any questions. Or if you want me to address
`any of the dependent claims, I am happy to do that. We feel the briefing
`is pretty clear on that point, but again, I am happy to address any
`question.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, so you have 19 minutes left for
`rebuttal.
`MR. MODI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. FRERKING: We have copies of our demonstratives, if I
`may approach.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes, please.
`MR. STADHEIM: Good morning, Your Honors. I am Rolf
`Stadheim for the Patent Owner.
`We're going to focus on the one issue that I think is paramount
`in this case, and that is whether there would be any benefit from using
`Matsumura with Kadomura and, of course, what follows from that is
`whether there would be any motivation for the man skilled in the art to
`combine the two.
`These issues are addressed in Patent Owner's response at pages
`9 and 10, as well as 15 through 23, and they're addressed in Petitioner's
`reply at pages 1 through 10.
`As we just heard, the claim language in question that is not in
`Kadomura is whether there is a preselected time for the temperature
`change. Now, let me turn to Kadomura, and this will be somewhat
`repetitive, but I think it's critical for understanding this issue.
`Kadomura has a two-step etching process. When the first step
`is completed, the process is stopped. When it is stopped, two things
`happen: One, the gas from the first step is evacuated, a new gas is
`introduced, the new gas is stabilized. In the meantime, the temperature
`of the substrate is changed, so there's a different substrate temperature for
`the second etch.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`When those two procedures are completed, then the second etch
`begins. So you have a process, stopping of the process, and a second
`process.
`There's three embodiments in Kadomura, and in each of those
`embodiments, the time to change out and stabilize the gas was longer
`than the time to change the temperature of the substrate. And
`accordingly, Kadomura on three occasions, one for each of the
`embodiments, makes the observation that as long as the time to change
`out the gas is equal to or longer than the time to change the temperature,
`then the time to change the temperature is not a factor in throughput.
`It's actually kind of an obvious thing when you think about it.
`There's no processing going on, you're doing these two operations, you
`need both operations to be complete before you can start processing
`again, so it matters not whether the time to change the temperature is one
`second or 20 seconds or a minute or whatever it is, as long as it's equal to
`or less than the time to change out the gas.
`So now we look at what Kadomura would -- how Kadomura
`would be improved or changed by adding Matsumura's preselected time
`for changing the temperature of the substrate.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Let me ask you a question about
`Kadomura. I recognize that in each embodiment there is this language
`that talks about how the time to change the temperature is not a factor for
`delaying. How do you reconcile that for each embodiment with the
`discussion that Petitioners pointed to us in column 7, lines -- I believe it's
`11 through 30, where it talks about the temperature for the specimen can
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`be changed easily in a short period of time by conducting each of the
`steps in one identical etching device.
`So, you're reading, you know, what each embodiment says with
`that, I guess I'm struggling to see how the time to change the temperature
`is not a factor?
`MR. STADHEIM: We have never said that the time to change
`the temperature is not a factor. They have tried to make us say that by --
`and I'll get to this later -- diluting quotes from our brief. What we have
`said is that it is only a factor in the sense that there is the one criterion
`that the time to change the substrate temperature is equal or less than the
`time to change out the gas.
`As long as it meets that criterion, it is not a factor at all. And if
`you stop and think about it, if the time to change the gas, or let's say 120
`seconds, it wouldn't make a difference whether the time to change the
`temperature of the substrate were 120 seconds or 117 seconds or 27
`seconds or 54 seconds, none of them would make any difference. The
`only thing is that the criterion that the -- it's less than or equal to the time
`to change out the gas.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, when I read your brief, you're basically
`saying that you always tie it -- the temperature change -- to the time to
`change out the gas, but when I look at your brief, consistently you guys
`highlight that it does not constitute a factor. I mean, that language is
`highlighted multiple times in Patent Owner's brief. So, when I read that,
`the emphasis there tells me that you're saying that it's not a factor at all.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. STADHEIM: If we said that, then that was a mistake, but
`I don't think we ever said that. I think what we were saying is that as
`long as it meets the one criterion, it's not a factor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`MR. STADHEIM: So now we have a combination of
`Matsumura's preselected time to change the temperature being added to
`Kadomura, and the question is how would that change -- how would that
`combination be different than Kadomura. The answer is, it wouldn't be
`different at all, because Kadomura teaches what the time should be,
`namely equal to or less than the time to change the gas, and after that, it
`doesn't make any difference what that time is.
`So by getting a preselected time, you have added nothing. If
`you preselect one second or 10 seconds or 25 seconds or whatever it is, it
`doesn't make any difference, because there is no processing going on.
`The only thing going on is you're doing these two operations to get ready
`for the second etch.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Counsel, let me ask you. So, in
`Kadomura, would you agree with me that when you start the processing
`of Kadomura, you know how long it's going to take you to change out the
`gas? You know what that time interval is going to be, because you've
`planned out your etch process. So you know it's going to take you 30
`seconds to change out your gas?
`MR. STADHEIM: I don't know that Kadomura teaches that.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. STADHEIM: But I'm willing to assume that that's the
`
`case.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Let me go at it a slightly different way.
`I understand your point to be that all that matters is you need the
`temperature change time to be less than the gas change time. That's what
`Kadomura is teaching us?
`MR. STADHEIM: That's correct.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Well, in order to do that, I need to
`know what the gas change time is going to be, right? I need to know
`what the gas change time is going to be, and so I can pick a temperature
`change time that is less than that.
`MR. STADHEIM: Well, I don't think Kadomura does any
`picking of what the time to change the temperature is. I think what he is
`saying is, here's what I did. In this experiment, I did this, this and this.
`The time for this was this, the time for that was this. In this experiment, I
`do this, this and this, and so on. I don't think he started with, all right, it's
`going to take 57 seconds to change the gas and I can change the
`temperature in 53 seconds. I don't think that's what he's talking about at
`all.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. Maybe I'm probably not
`being clear in my question, but my sense is that -- I mean, I take your
`point that if you're worried about delay, it only matters what the longest
`time period is.
`MR. STADHEIM: Correct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: But I need to know what that -- what
`the longest time period is, right, because if I don't want to delay the
`process of Kadomura, then I can't pick a temperature change time that is
`greater than the gas change time. Would you agree with me that's true?
`MR. STADHEIM: Well, if -- what I wouldn't agree with you is
`that there's nothing that I've read in Kadomura that he picks anything. I
`think he's just doing what he did. And when he did what he did, he found
`out that the --
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. So you're --
`MR. STADHEIM: -- one time was always longer than the
`
`other.
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: You're saying that Kadomura is the
`reporting of an experiment, therefore there is no preselection in your
`view happening in Kadomura, it's just he's telling us what happened?
`MR. STADHEIM: I believe that's the case.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: But Matsumura, on the other hand,
`does teach us about preselecting, because that's the whole point of those
`recipes is preselecting different time periods.
`MR. STADHEIM: Correct.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So, wouldn't it therefore be an
`advantage to combine the two in order to have those preselected time
`periods happening, because that way I know that I'm not going to delay
`the process of Kadomura because I know that my temperature change
`will not be longer than my gas change time?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. STADHEIM: The problem is that what Kadomura is
`teaching is that A is always longer than B, and he's doing that from -- I
`would assume -- from reading Kadomura, that that's an empirical
`statement. It's not that he planned to do it that way, that's what happened.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay.
`MR. STADHEIM: So, if the time to change the temperature is
`not a factor, as long as it meets the one criterion, then having a
`preselected time to change the temperature has to be also not a factor.
`So, if you added Matsumura's preselected time, it wouldn't make any
`difference to Kadomura because Kadomura is teaching it's not a factor.
`So basically, Kadomura is saying as long as you meet this one
`criterion, which he found that he always met, or that the data always met,
`it's not a factor. And when you stop and think about it, what possible
`difference would it make?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counsel, can I take a step back? And you
`opened up this part of your oral argument with whether or not there was a
`benefit to combine Matsumura's recipes with the system of Kadomura. Is
`benefit the proper test for rationale to combine?
`MR. STADHEIM: Actually, Your Honor, the reason that we
`talked about the benefit is that that leads to motivation.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, you would agree that benefit isn't the
`test for determining whether or not there's a sufficient rationale to
`combine?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`MR. STADHEIM: I suspect that's true, but it -- as I said, it's
`the way of getting to the question of motivation, which is clearly a
`criterion for determining obviousness.
`JUDGE ZECHER: I agree with you there.
`MR. STADHEIM: If there's no benefit, what we're basically
`saying, if there's no benefit, there's probably not any motivation to do it.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, it's almost as if it's a prerequisite to get
`to a rationale to combine? Is that what you're arguing?
`MR. STADHEIM: I believe so, yes.
`JUDGE ZECHER: And is there any case law that would
`suggest that?
`MR. STADHEIM: I would think just common sense would
`suggest that. I haven't looked at any case law. But I can say this with
`regard to motivation: If I know how to run my computer, the Board's
`institution decision does not say anything about motivation, the petition
`says precious little about motivation, and the only thing in the decision
`granting institution and in the brief or the petition with regard to
`motivation is the two items that have to do with the advantages of
`making the combination.
`And let me turn to that. The institution decision at page 19 says
`that relying on the testimony of Samsung's expert, and now I'll read from
`it, "According to Samsung, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that such a modification" -- combining the two -- "would
`improve the flexibility of Kadomura's dry etching apparatus by, one" --
`and I'm inserting the numbers -- "by one, allowing it to process one of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`several different types of materials and substrates; and two, providing
`better control both of the temperature of the wafer and the
`heating/cooling process."
`At the end of that sentence, it cites to the petition pages 32 and
`33. If one goes to the petition at pages 32 and 33, they find that the
`whole support, total support for these two statements are found in
`paragraph 61 of Samsung's expert's declaration.
`First of all, it's kind of striking that the declaration is almost 100
`pages long, and on this issue of whether there is a motivation to combine,
`we have one paragraph. And then when we look at the paragraph, there
`is one sentence for each of these two statements in the decision.
`So let's take them one at a time. The first one, and I'll read it,
`this is the total support that Samsung has given for this: "Such flexibility
`would have improved the utility of Kadomura's system by allowing it to
`process several different types of materials and substrates."
`That's all there is. There's no explanation about how that would
`happen, why that would happen, and what materials and substrates there
`would be.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Now, doesn't the sentence before that say
`"in a controlled manner?" I mean, I was understanding Petitioner to
`argue to insert the recipes, the controlled recipes, that is, into Kadomura's
`system because it allowed this predetermination, this control that you can
`impose upon the system that otherwise wasn't there.
`MR. STADHEIM: Okay, that's -- that, Your Honor, is the
`second point, which I will get to in just a moment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay.
`MR. STADHEIM: So, for this one, with regard to several
`different types of materials and substrates, there's no identification of, no
`explanation of why that would happen, and if you look at Kadomura, he
`has several different types of materials that would be etched.
`So, under the law, this is simply a conclusory statement with no
`support at all.
`So now we go to the second one, which happens to be the
`sentence Your Honor just referred to, the sentence before that in
`paragraph 61. "One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`that the above modifications would improve the flexibility of the
`Kadomura system and processing by allowing the specimen W to be set
`to several different temperatures in a controlled manner."
`Again, there's no explanation of why that would happen or how
`that would happen or what would happen, and it totally ignores the fact
`that Kadomura already teaches that.
`In the three embodiments in Kadomura, the first one had the
`first temperature of 20 degrees centigrade and a second temperature of
`minus 30 degrees centigrade. In the second embodiment, the first
`temperature was minus 20 degrees centigrade and the second one was
`minus 50 degrees centigrade. And then the third one, the first
`temperature was minus 30 degrees centigrade, and the second was 50
`degrees centigrade.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`So, this is the totality of the evidence from the Petitioner to
`show motivation, both of these are conclusory statements, and in both
`cases, Kadomura already taught these.
`Let me finally move to the two exhibits that we submitted. And
`what this is about are two straw men that Samsung sets forth. If you look
`at the first exhibit, Exhibit 1, that is a verbatim copy of the statement
`from Kadomura's brief -- I mean Samsung's brief, at pages 6 and 7, I
`believe. And the second one is a repeat of the first one, except where
`Kadomura -- or Samsung has quoted from our brief, they left out certain
`material. And so in Exhibit 2, the material that is left out is in red at the
`top.
`
`So let's look at each of those statements. The first one, which I
`will refer to as straw man one, or conclusory or contradictory straw man,
`in its brief, Samsung says, "In sum, Patent Owner's argument that 'the
`specific time interval to change the temperature between etches is of no
`importance' is contradicted by Dr. Flamm's own testimony and
`Kadomura'."
`Now we turn to Exhibit 2, and you see that there's, in red, that
`completes the quote from our brief, the portion that Samsung left out. So
`now it reads, "In sum, Patent Owner's argument that "the specific time
`interval to change the temperature between etches is of no importance,
`since the time interval to change the temperature is equal or less than the
`time interval to change the gas" is contradicted by Dr. Flamm's own
`testimony and Kadomura."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`Now that the entire quote is put into the sentence, it's absolutely
`wrong when it says it's contradicted by Dr. Flamm, because he never
`contradicted the statement that's in our brief. Moreover, it's not
`contradicted by Kadomura, it's precisely what Kadomura teaches.
`Let's go to the next one, we look at Exhibit 1. It says,
`"Moreover, Patent Owner's assertion that the time interval to change the
`temperature do
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
