Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Micron Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 24, 26, and 29 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,969,539 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’539 patent”). The President and Fellows
`of Harvard College (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at
`least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute
`inter partes review.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties note that the ’539 patent is at issue in President and
`Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. MAD-1-16-cv-
`11249 (D. Mass.), and in President and Fellows of Harvard College v.
`GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. MAD-1-16-cv-11252 (D. Mass.). Pet. 2; Paper
`3, 2. United States Patent No. 8,334,016 B2, which is related to the ’539
`patent, is being challenged in three inter partes review petitions, which have
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`been assigned case numbers IPR2017-00663, IPR2017-00664, and
`IPR2017-00666.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 24, 26, and 29 of the ’539 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 29–63):1
`Statutory
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Ground
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Buchanan2
`Buchanan
`Vaartstra3 and Min4
`
`24, 26, and 29
`24, 26, and 29
`24, 26, and 29
`
`D. The ’539 Patent
`The ’539 patent, titled “Vapor Deposition of Metal Oxides, Silicates
`and Phosphates, and Silicon Dioxide,” issued on November 29, 2005. Ex.
`1001, at [45], [54]. The ’539 patent “relates to novel reagents for use in thin
`film deposition processes such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and
`atomic layer deposition (ALD).” Id. at 1:22–24. The ’539 patent explains
`that prior deposition processes “deposit[ed] films containing residual
`chlorine, which can be deleterious to the properties of the film or to its
`adhesion to substrates or subsequent coatings” and can “corrode metal
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies on a declaration from Sanjay Banerjee, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1003.
`2 Buchanan et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,984,591 B1, issued Jan. 10, 2006
`(Ex. 1005, “Buchanan”).
`3 Vaartstra, U.S. Patent No. 6,159,855, issued Dec. 12, 2000 (Ex. 1006,
`“Vaartstra”).
`4 Jae-Sik Min, Young-Woong Son, Won-Gu Kang, Soung-Soon Chun, &
`Sang-Won Kang, Atomic Layer Deposition of TiN Films by Alternate Supply
`of Tetrakis(ethylmethylamino)-Titanium and Ammonia, 37 JAPANESE J.
`APPLIED PHYSICS 4999, 4999–5004 (Sept. 1998) (Ex. 1007, “Min”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`substrates or the apparatus used for the deposition.” Id. at 1:59–64. It is the
`aim of the ’539 patent to solve these problems. Id. at 1:64–65, 2:8–14. The
`’539 patent describes depositing layers of metal oxides, such as hafnium
`oxide, zirconium oxide, and tantalum oxide, by atomic layer deposition. Id.
`at 26:65–28:16. The deposition process for hafnium oxide is described as
`alternately injecting vapors of tetrakis(dimethylamido)hafnium and water
`“into a deposition chamber held at 250° C.” Id. at 26:65–27:3. The ’539
`patent also describes producing a hafnium oxide film using “tert-butanol
`vapor in place of water vapor.” Id. at 28:1–7. The deposition of zirconium
`oxide and tantalum oxide films using tetrakis(dimethylamido)zirconium and
`ethylimidotris(diethylamido)tantalum vapors in place of tetrakis(dimethyl-
`amido)hafnium vapor, respectively, are also described. Id. at 27:63–67,
`28:10–16.
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 24, 26, and 29 of the ’539 patent are challenged. Claim 24 is
`independent and illustrative; it recites:
`24. A process for forming a metal oxide, comprising:
`exposing a heated surface alternately to the vapor of one or more
`metal amides having an amido group selected from the group
`consisting of dialkylamido, disilylamido and (alkyl)(silyl)
`amido moieties, and then to the vapors of water or an alcohol.
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:17–22.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (upholding
`the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claim terms
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Neither party proposes construing any terms. Pet. 20–21; Prelim.
`Resp. 15–16. For the purposes of this decision, we determine that no term
`requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy”).
`
`B. Asserted Anticipation by Buchanan
`Petitioner argues that Buchanan anticipates claims 24, 26, and 29.
`Pet. 43–51.
`
`1. Buchanan
`Buchanan relates to “[a] precursor source mixture useful for CVD or
`ALD of a film.” Ex. 1005, at [57]. In the manufacture of semiconductors,
`Buchanan teaches that it is important to be able to deposit uniformly thick
`layers of oxides. Id. at 1:15–27. Buchanan notes that the chemical
`precursors used in conventional CVD and ALD processes to deposit films of
`uniform thickness suffer from drawbacks, including the difficulty in
`maintaining constant temperature and thermal degradation of the precursors.
`Id. at 1:28–54. To solve these problems, Buchanan discloses a “precursor
`source mixture” comprising “at least one precursor composed of an element
`selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr, Be, Mg, Ti, Zr,
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Hf, Sc, Y, La, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Re, Fe, Ru, Os, Co, Rh, Ir, Ni, Pd,
`Pt, Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, Cd, Hg, B, Al, Ga, In, Tl, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, As, P, Sb and
`Bi,” with the element “bound [to] at least one ligand.” Id. at 4:1–7. The
`ligand is “selected from” a list of ligands that includes “amido” groups. Id.
`at 4:7–12. The bound element and ligand are “dissolved, emulsified or
`suspended in an inert liquid.” Id. at 4:12–18. Buchanan discloses using its
`precursor source mixture “in any CVD or ALD process.” Id. at 7:30–32.
`Among other precursors, Buchanan discloses that “tetrakis(dimethylamino),
`tetrakis(diethylamino) Ti, Zr, Hf, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb” are “[h]ighly preferred
`precursor source mixtures comprised of at least one amino-containing
`precursor.” Id. at 14:55–58.
`One of Buchanan’s specific examples discloses depositing a metal
`oxide film in an ALD reactor. Id. at 19:60–21:2. In this example, Buchanan
`discloses pulsing precursor and reactant vapors alternately into the reactor,
`with inert purge gas introduced between the precursor and reactant vapors.
`Id. at 20:25–40. The substrate on which the oxide film is deposited “is about
`100°–1200° C., and preferably 150°–500° C.” Id. at 20:26–27. For
`depositing an oxide film, the reactant is “an oxidant” such as “oxygen,
`ozone, water, hydrogen peroxide, nitrous oxide and combinations thereof.”
`Id. at 20:16–20. The precursors used in this example are zirconium nitrate
`and hafnium tertbutoxide. Id. at 20:7–11. Buchanan discloses altering the
`example process “to include growth of any single component . . . metal
`oxide . . . film deposited by atomic layer deposition utilizing one precursor
`source mixture which contains only one precursor.” Id. at 20:63–67.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that all limitations of claims 24, 26, and 29 are
`disclosed in Buchanan. Pet. 44–51. Specifically, Petitioner argues that
`Buchanan discloses a process in Example 3 in which a heated surface is
`exposed alternately to two reactant vapors; that Buchanan discloses that the
`first reactant vapor may comprise tetrakis(dimethylamino) or
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium or hafnium, which are metal dialkyamides;
`and that Buchanan discloses that the second reactant vapor may comprise
`water. Id. at 44–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 133–34, 140, 143–46; Ex. 1005,
`5:66–6:1, 6:45–46, 7:30–32, 9:45, 10:56, 11:60, 13:59–63, 14:55–57, 19:60–
`21:2). In addition, Petitioner argues that Buchanan’s tetrakis(diethylamino)
`zirconium is a liquid at room temperature. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1016, 5; Ex.
`1017, 1).
`Patent Owner argues that Buchanan’s disclosure of a large number of
`precursor compounds that may be used as the first reactant vapor in
`Example 3 falls short of enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to “‘at
`once envisage’ the claimed process,” which uses a particular category of
`metal amides. Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (quoting Pet. 43). Specifically, Patent
`Owner argues that Buchanan discloses “thousands of precursors that can be
`used to form a precursor mixture” and that Buchanan does not provide a
`person of ordinary skill in the art with a reason to select metal dialkylamide
`precursors for use in the ALD process of Example 3 for forming a metal
`oxide film. Id. at 23–39.
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, on the
`present record and for purposes of the present decision, that Buchanan
`discloses all the limitations of claims 24, 26, and 29. First, there is no
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`dispute that Buchanan’s Example 3 discloses forming a metal oxide film by
`exposing a heated substrate alternately to a precursor vapor and an oxidant
`vapor, or that Buchanan’s Example 3 discloses that the oxidant vapor may
`be water. Ex. 1005, 19:62 (disclosing forming a metal oxide layer), 20:27–
`28 (disclosing a substrate temperature of between 100 degrees C and 1200
`degrees C), 20:31–49 (disclosing repeatedly exposing the substrate
`alternately to precursor and oxidant vapors), 20:16–20 (disclosing that the
`oxidant may be water). Thus, the only question with respect to the
`anticipation of claim 24 is whether Buchanan adequately discloses that the
`precursor used in Example 3 may be “one or more metal amides having an
`amido group selected from the group consisting of dialkyamido,
`disilylamido and (alkyl)(silyl) amido moieties,” as recited in claim 24.
`Buchanan’s Example 3 discloses the use of two precursors, zirconium nitrate
`and hafnium tertbutoxide. Id. at 20:7–11. Neither of these is a metal amide.
`But Example 3 also discloses that its “inventive method . . . can be expanded
`to include growth of any single . . . metal oxide . . . film deposited by atomic
`layer deposition utilizing one precursor source mixture which contains only
`one precursor.” Id. at 20:63–67. Although Example 3 itself does not list the
`precursors that may be chosen for such a process, Buchanan lists these
`precursors elsewhere. Id. at 8:49–18:34.
`The list of possible precursor choices in Buchanan is voluminous,
`covering nearly 10 columns of the patent. Id. Patent Owner argues that,
`given such a large list of possible compounds, there would have been no
`reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected metal amides
`generally, or metal amides in which the amido group had a dialkyl, disilyl,
`or (alkyl)(silyl) amino moiety specifically. Prelim. Resp. 23–39. But the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`size of the list of disclosed precursor compounds does not itself rule out the
`anticipation of those compounds that are specifically named. Perricone v.
`Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting
`the notion that the disclosure of one ingredient “cannot anticipate because it
`appears without special emphasis in a longer list” and finding anticipation
`where the prior art “does not merely disclose a genus of skin benefit
`ingredients,” but specifically discloses the claimed compound). Here,
`Buchanan specifically names tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium as precursors. Ex. 1005, 14:55–57.
`Accordingly, the fact that Buchanan also specifically names many other
`compounds as precursors does not, on this record, preclude anticipation.
`Even if Buchanan’s voluminous list of specifically named compounds
`could be treated as a disclosure of a genus without any corresponding
`disclosure of how to select appropriate species from within that genus,
`Buchanan would still anticipate claim 24 if a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would “at once envisage” a specific compound within the scope of claim
`24 from Buchanan’s generic disclosure. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681
`(CCPA 1962). Dr. Banerjee testifies that a person of ordinary skill “would
`have at once envisaged” the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in
`Buchanan’s Example 3. Ex. 1003 ¶ 134. Although this is disputed by
`Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Gladfelter, Ex. 2101 ¶ 127, we must resolve
`factual disputes in the light most favorable to Petitioner at this stage of the
`proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Moreover, in determining whether a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage a particular
`compound, we look to the disclosure of preferred compounds within a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`reference’s generic disclosure. Petering, 301 F.2d at 681. Here, each of
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium is
`described by Buchanan as “[h]ighly preferred.” Ex. 1005, 14:55–57.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, on the
`present record and for purposes of the present decision, that Buchanan
`adequately discloses the use of tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium as the precursor vapor in the method of
`Example 3.
`Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in demonstrating the anticipation of claim 24 by Buchanan. With
`respect to claim 26, which requires that the metal amide or amides be chosen
`from Table 1 of the ’539 patent, the tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium of Buchanan each appear in Table 1. Ex.
`1001, 11:16–18, 15:11–17. With respect to claim 29, which requires that the
`metal amide is liquid at room temperature, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium is liquid at room temperature. Ex.
`1016, 5; Ex. 1017, 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the anticipation of claims 26 and
`29 by Buchanan.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Buchanan
`Petitioner argues that the subject matter of claims 24, 26, and 29
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the
`teachings of Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`art. Pet. 29–43. As in the anticipation ground discussed above, Petitioner
`argues that each limitation of each of the challenged claims is taught or
`suggested by the combination of Buchanan’s Example 3 and Buchanan’s
`disclosure of preferred precursor compounds for ALD processes. Id. at 29–
`34. Petitioner also argues that the disclosure of Buchanan and the
`knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`provided a reason for the person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
`Buchanan’s Example 3 to use tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium instead of the zirconium nitrate and hafnium
`tertbutoxide disclosed in that example. Id. at 34–43.
`As discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Buchanan discloses the limitations of claim 24. As for a
`reason to substitute tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium for the zirconium nitrate and hafnium
`tertbutoxide of Buchanan’s Example 3, Petitioner argues that Buchanan
`itself teaches that zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide “hav[e]
`suboptimal thermal stability and air sensitivity characteristics” not possessed
`by the metal dialkylamides. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:23–38, 2:49–53).
`Given further that Example 3 states that “the inventive method described can
`be expanded to include growth of any single component . . . metal oxide . . .
`film . . . utilizing one precursor source mixture which contains only one
`precursor,” that Buchanan elsewhere says that its precursor source mixtures
`“can be used in any CVD or ALD process,” and that Buchanan describes the
`metal dialkylamides as “[h]ighly preferred,” Petitioner argues that a person
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute the metal
`dialkylamides for the zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide of Example
`3. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:30–32, 7:41–43, 14:55–58, 20:50–67). In
`addition, based on the testimony of Dr. Banerjee, Petitioner argues that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to explore
`possible ALD processes for forming metal oxide films, providing a reason to
`combine Buchanan’s Example 3 process with Buchanan’s disclosure of
`precursors other than zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide. Id. at 36–
`38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 62–63, 69–72, 134, 136; Ex. 1005, 2:23–44, 2:49–
`58; Ex. 1012, 19; Ex. 1018, 7; Ex. 1019, 7).
`Patent Owner argues that the reasons Petitioner proffers for a person
`of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Buchanan’s Example 3 to use
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium are
`insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 18–37. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that a
`showing of obviousness requires demonstrating a reason why the person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have chosen tetrakis(dimethylamino)
`zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino)
`hafnium, or tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium from among the many
`compounds Buchanan discloses, and Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has
`not shown such a reason sufficiently. Id. Given the thousands of
`compounds Buchanan identifies as suitable for use in its ALD processes and
`the 10 classes of compounds Buchanan identifies as “preferred,” Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner must do more than merely show that Buchanan
`identifies compounds within the scope of the compounds recited in claim 24.
`Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`We are persuaded, on the present record and for purposes of the
`present decision, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Buchanan’s
`teaching of an ALD process in Example 3 with Buchanan’s teaching of
`using tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium in an
`ALD process. As discussed above, although Buchanan’s Example 3 uses
`zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide, it also articulates the possibility
`of using “one precursor” to “grow[] any single component . . . metal
`oxide . . . film.” Ex. 1005, 20:63–67. And Buchanan suggests using
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium,
`because it describes these compounds as “[h]ighly preferred.” Id. at 14:55–
`57. Further, Buchanan describes all of its disclosed precursors as suitable
`for use in any ALD process. Id. at 7:30–32.
`It is true that Buchanan teaches the use of many compounds in ALD
`processes, and that Buchanan describes tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, or
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium as “[h]ighly preferred” only among “amino-
`containing precursor[s].” Id. at 14:55–57. Petitioner has not directed us to
`evidence of record showing any reason why these compounds in particular
`would have been selected as better in Buchanan’s Example 3 than any of the
`other compounds disclosed by Buchanan. We are not persuaded, however,
`that such evidence is necessary in order to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had a reason to combine Buchanan’s teaching of an ALD process with
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Buchanan’s teaching that tetrakis(dimethylamino) zirconium,
`tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and
`tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium could be used in that ALD process. On the
`present record, and particularly in light of Buchanan’s teachings that
`Buchanan’s disclosed precursors, including tetrakis(dimethylamino)
`zirconium, tetrakis(diethylamino) zirconium, tetrakis(dimethylamino)
`hafnium, and tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium, are suitable for use in all ALD
`processes, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of succeeding in showing the obviousness of the challenged
`claims over the combination of Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Vaartstra and Min
`Petitioner argues that the subject matter of claims 24, 26, and 29
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the
`teachings of Vaartstra and Min. Pet. 51–63.
`
`1. Vaartstra
`Vaartstra relates to preparing “[m]ulti-metallic films . . . from multi-
`metallic mixtures of metalloamide compounds.” Ex. 1006, at [57]. “Multi-
`metallic . . . oxide . . . films may be prepared by appropriate choice of
`metalloamide compounds and reactant gas(es).” Id. Vaartstra teaches using
`CVD to form “a multi-metallic oxide . . . by reacting the metalloamide vapor
`with oxygen, nitrous oxide, water vapor or ozone.” Id. at 10:58–65, 11:8–
`10. In Vaartstra’s CVD process, a precursor such as tetrakis-(diethylamido)-
`hafnium or tetrakis-(diethylamido)-zirconium “is exposed to a heated
`substrate on which deposition will occur.” Id. at 6:19–56, 10:42–57.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`2. Min
`Min describes an ALD process in which gaseous tetrakis(ethylmethyl-
`amino)titanium and ammonia vapor are alternately exposed to a substrate
`“between 150°C and 400°C” to form a titanium nitride film. Ex. 1007, 7.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that all the limitations of claims 24, 26, and 29 are
`taught or suggested by the combination of Vaartstra and Min and that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the
`teachings of Vaartstra with those of Min. Pet. 51–63. Regarding the reason
`to combine, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have been motivated to combine Vaartstra with Min to use Min’s ALD
`method to form a metal oxide using the metal dialkylamide precursors and
`water as taught in Vaartstra.” Id. at 57. That is, the combination of the two
`references would have used Min’s process with Vaartstra’s precursor and
`reactant.
`Petitioner argues that Min’s ALD process was necessary in order to
`achieve “precise control of film thickness and the ability to deposit a
`stoichiometric film.” Id. at 57–58. We are not persuaded by this argument.
`First, this argument proposes advantages of choosing an ALD process rather
`than a CVD process, but Petitioner presents those as reasons to modify
`Min’s ALD process by using Vaartstra’s chemical precursors rather than as
`reasons to modify Vaartstra’s disclosure by incorporating Min’s ALD
`process. Id. Petitioner does not argue that the proposed modification to Min
`would provide any advantages not already present in Min, because the
`advantages proposed both come from using an ALD process, which is
`already a feature of Min. Second, even if we were to treat the proposed
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`modification as starting with Vaartstra’s precursors and applying Min’s
`process to them, Vaartstra teaches that a CVD process already possesses the
`advantages of an ALD process to which Petitioner directs us. Ex. 1006,
`1:49–52 (CVD processes are “particularly advantageous . . . because [they]
`allow[] for strict control of the thickness of the formed layer”), 2:39–45
`(Vaartstra’s CVD process “addresses [the] need] for a process “to produce
`multi-metallic films having metal stoichiometries within tight
`specifications”). Given that Vaartstra’s CVD process has the advantages of
`precisely controlling film thickness and depositing a stoichiometric film, the
`fact that Min’s ALD process has these same advantages5 does not provide a
`reason to use its process instead. Similarly, we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`been motivated to use Min’s ALD technique . . . to form metal oxide films
`because of the industry’s need for metal oxides and because Vaartstra
`teaches that metal dialkylamide precursors can be used interchangeably to
`form oxides or nitrides as desired.” Pet. 60–62. Vaartstra’s teaching that
`CVD processes provide the advantages touted by Petitioner for ALD
`processes means that Petitioner has not provided a reason why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would abandon Vaartstra’s CVD process for Min’s
`ALD process.
`
`
`5 We note that Dr. Banerjee testifies that ALD provides additional
`advantages over CVD, including the ability to “provide a high-quality film
`at low temperatures,” “uniform film growth over large areas,” and
`“[s]uperior conformality and step coverage.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–54. It would
`be improper, however, to permit Petitioner to rely on these additional
`advantages, because Petitioner does not discuss them in the Petition. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (incorporation by reference is not permitted).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`Next, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the genus of
`dialkylamide precursors and water as taught in Vaartstra with the ALD
`process taught in Min.” Pet. 58–60. This may be true, but it speaks to the
`ability of the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vaartstra’s and
`Min’s teachings, not a reason for that person to do so. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that it is “important to
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
`does”); Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have
`made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or
`modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).
`Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that the use of Vaartstra’s “metalloamide compounds” in
`“Min’s ALD method” would merely constitute the use of known
`metalloamide precursors and oxidants in a known ALD process to achieve
`“predictable and beneficial” results. Pet. 62–63. In support of this
`argument, Petitioner contends it was known in the art that ALD was
`desirable for forming metal oxides in gates and capacitors; that the
`reactivity, volatility, and thermal stability of Vaartstra’s M(NR2) precursors
`made them “prime candidates for an ALD process”; and that Min’s TEMAT
`precursor belongs to the same genus of metal dialkylamides disclosed in
`Vaartstra. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63, 69, 166–67; Ex. 1006, 10:66–
`11:10, 13:51–54).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`A patent that “simply arranges old elements with each performing the
`same function it had been known to perform,” and which yields “no more
`than one would expect from such an arrangement,” is likely obvious. KSR,
`550 U.S. at 417. Petitioner proposes, however, to apply the metal
`dialkylamides of Vaartstra in a manner that differs from that disclosed in
`Vaartstra (decomposition vs. deposition). Ex. 1003 ¶ 49 (distinguishing
`between CVD and ALD processes on the basis of the likelihood of thermal
`decomposition, which is higher in CVD processes); Ex. 1006, 1:28–45
`(describing Vaartstra’s process as “decomposition”); Ex. 1007, 8 (describing
`ALD processes as occurring between 170 °C and 210 °C), 9 (describing
`decomposition as not occurring at temperatures below 230 °C). In addition,
`the fact that the compounds of Vaartstra were known to have properties that
`might make them candidates for an ALD process does not explain why their
`use in Min’s process would be either “beneficial” or would provide results
`superior to Min’s TEMAT precursor. Moreover, to the extent one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have sought an oxide layer for use in
`semiconductor applications, Pet. 60–62, Petitioner does not explain
`sufficiently why this artisan would not have simply switched from a
`nitriding reactant to an oxidizing reactant in Min. Thus, Petitioner’s
`arguments demonstrate at most that Vaartstra’s compounds could have been
`used in Min, not why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do
`so.
`
`Finally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have sought to use Vaartstra’s metal dialkylamides in Min’s ALD process,
`because ALD processes “may be carried out at a temperature lower than the
`temperature at which the metal dialkylamide may begin to thermally
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00662
`Patent 6,969,539 B2
`
`decompose.” Pet. 62 n.18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). In support of this
`argument, Dr. Banerjee testifies that certain semiconductor components may
`not be thermally stable at the temperatures required in CVD processes. Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 34, 49. Vaartstra indicates, however, that the disclosed multi–
`metallic mixture may be applied successfully to a semiconductor substrate.
`Ex. 1005, 11:22–35, 12:27–29. Thus, it is not evident why the low
`temperatures of Min’s ALD process would have caused one of ordinary skill
`in the art to implement Vaartstra’s successful multi–metallic deposition
`process in Min’s single precursor ALD process.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 24, 26,
`and 29 of the ’539 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Buchanan or as
`obvious over Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on those grounds. We
`determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing that claims 24, 26, and 29 of the ’539 patent are
`unpatentable as obvious over t
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
