throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
` Entered: December 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KOKUSAI ELECTRIC CORPORATION,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASM IP HOLDING B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`1 We substitute Kokusai Electric Corporation for Hitachi Kokusai Electric,
`Inc. as the named Petitioner in this proceeding. According to Petitioner,
`Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc. divested its thin-films process solutions
`business through a company split in which a new company, Kokusai Electric
`Corporation, will now engage in the thin-films process solutions business.
`Paper 6, 1. This caption should be used by the parties on all subsequent
`papers filed in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc. filed a Petition to institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 9–13, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24–28 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,537,662 B2 (“the ’662 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Subsequent
`to the filing of the Petition, Kokusai Electric Corporation (“Petitioner”) was
`identified as a new company to which the pertinent business was divested.
`Paper 6, 1. Thereafter, ASM IP Holding B.V. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed
`a Preliminary Response which does not challenge the substitution of
`Kokusai Electric Corporation as the petitioner in this proceeding. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute
`an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court
`held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) may not institute
`review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with
`USPTO Guidance, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on
`all challenges raised in the petition.” See USPTO, Guidance on the Impact
`of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018) (Available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial) (“USPTO Guidance”).
`Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information
`presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that
`at least one claim of the ’352 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we
`institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (1–4, 6, 9–13, 17,
`18, 20, 21, and 24–28) of the ’662 patent, based on all grounds raised in the
`Petition.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’662 patent (along with U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,018,478 and 7,833,352) is presently asserted against Petitioner in ASM IP
`Holding B.V. v. Hitachi Kokusai Elec., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-6879
`(N.D. Cal.) filed December 1, 2017. Pet. 1; Paper 4. Petitioner is also
`identified as a real party in interest in two petitions (IPR2018-01357 and
`IPR2019-00099) challenging the patentability of related U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,833,352 and 7,018,478, respectively.
`Patent Owner additionally identifies as related proceedings the
`following two litigations asserted by Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc. against
`ASM International, N.V. involving the indicated patents (Paper 4, 1):
`(1) Hitachi Kokusai Elec., Inc. v. ASM Int’l, N.V., Civil Action No. 18-
`cv-00323 (D. Or.) (US 6,514,869, 7,622,007, 8,673,076, and 6,783,627).
`(2) Hitachi Kokusai Elec., Inc. v. ASM Int’l, N.V., Civil Action No. 18-
`cv-68880 (N.D. Cal.) (US 7,033,937, 6,576,063, 7,808,396, RE43,023,
`6,744,018, 8,409,988, and 9,318,316).
`
`C. The ’662 patent
`The ’662 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS
`FOR DEPOSITING THIN FILMS ON A SURFACE,” generally relates to
`an apparatus for processing semiconductors, and more specifically, an
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`apparatus for depositing thin films on a substrate surface. Ex. 1001, 1:6–9.
`The apparatus features two reactant gas injectors that are separately in fluid
`communication with a reactant gas source and a purge gas source. Id. at
`Abstract. According to the specification, atomic layer deposition (ALD),
`which involves the sequential introduction of precursor species to a substrate
`located within a reaction chamber to form no more than a monolayer so that
`the process is self-terminating or saturative, may be accomplished by
`alternating reactant steps and intervening purge steps in a plurality of cycles.
`Id. at 1:20–26, 3:45–49.
`Figure 1, an embodiment of the ALD reactor, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts reactor 10 in which wafer or substrate 16 is moved in and
`out by wafer handler 18. Id. at 4:56–61. The wafer handler also serves as
`the substrate support and, in a preferred embodiment, keeps the substrate
`stationary relative to gas injection structure 20 during operation. Id. at 4:58–
`61, 5:3–8.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`In illustrated reactor 10, gas injection structure 20 comprises a first
`gas inlet or injector 22 and a second gas inlet or injector 24. Id. at 5:28–29.
`Purge gas is shown by white arrows and reactant gas is shown by black
`arrows. Id. at 5:41–43. A small amount of purge gas flows during the flow
`of the first precursor, for example, 5–20% of the flow rate of the purge gas
`during the following purge step. Id. at 5:63–6:6. After the first precursor
`molecules are chemisorbed onto the wafer or substrate, purging gas flows
`from the purging gas supply source and a second precursor is supplied to the
`reaction chamber through second gas inlet or injector 24. Id. at 5:53–6:22.
`During the second precursor flow, a small amount of purge gas can
`simultaneously flow, for example, 5–20% of the flow rate of the purge gas
`during the following purge step. Id. at 6:50–60. Excess first precursor,
`excess second precursor, reaction by-products, and/or purging gas is
`removed from reaction chamber 12 via gas exhaust or outlet 56. Id. at 7:5–
`8.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, the only independent claim challenged, illustrates the
`claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
`1. An apparatus for depositing a thin film on a substrate,
`comprising:
`a reaction chamber having a reaction space;
`a substrate holder for holding the substrate within the
`reaction space;
`a gas outlet in fluid communication with the reaction
`space;
`a gas injector structure positioned with the reaction
`chamber fixed relative to the substrate during deposition, the
`gas injector structure comprising:
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`a first gas injector being in fluid communication with a
`first reactant gas source and a purge gas source; and
`a second gas injector being in fluid communication with
`a second reactant gas source and a purge gas source;
`wherein the first and second gas injectors include hollow
`tubes extending in the reaction space, the hollow tubes
`including a plurality of gas flow apertures spaced along
`respective tube axes of elongation, the apertures opening to the
`reaction space.
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds.2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Basis3
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 20, 26
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 20, 24–27
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Shinriki4
`
`Shinriki
`
`2
`
`3
`
`10
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Shinriki and Sakai5
`
`Shinriki and Kondo6
`
`Shinriki and Maruyama7
`
`
`2 Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration of Eric T. Eisenbraun,
`Ph.D., dated May 24, 2018 (Ex. 1003, “Eisenbraun Decl.”).
`3 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, took effect on March 16, 2013. Because the application
`to which the ’662 patent claims priority was filed before that date, our
`citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`4 WO 02/15243 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002 (Ex. 1004) (citations herein are
`to the English language translation Ex. 1005 as paginated by Petitioner).
`5 US 3,717,439, issued Feb. 20, 1973 (Ex. 1006).
`6 JP 2000-58534, published Feb. 25, 2000 (Ex. 1007) (citations herein are to
`the English language translation Ex. 1008).
`7 US 6,001,175, issued Dec. 14, 1999 (Ex. 1009).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`6, 13
`
`17
`
`18
`
`21
`
`28
`
`
`
`Basis3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Shinriki and Du Bois8
`
`Shinriki and Shishiguchi9
`
`Shinriki and Liu10
`
`Shinriki and Chern11
`
`Shinriki and Suntola12
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had at least an undergraduate degree in physics or engineering, and at
`least two years of work experience with semiconductor manufacturing or
`similar processes involving thin film deposition.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner
`does not dispute or offer an alternative description of the level of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We
`also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not
`give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
`
`
`8 US 2007/0243317 A1, published Oct. 18, 2007 (Ex. 1010).
`9 US 4,992,301, issued Feb. 12, 1991 (Ex. 1011).
`10 US 6,485,564 B1, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1012).
`11 US 4,033,286, issued July 5, 1977 (Ex. 1013).
`12 US 4,413,022, issued Nov. 1, 1983 (Ex 1014).
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods.,
`Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review proceeding filed prior to November 13,
`2018,13 claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted 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) (2014). “Therefore, we look to
`the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
`otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “That is not to say, however, that the
`Board may construe claims during IPR so broadly that its constructions are
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification
`“reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s
`lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
`
`13 The revised claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter
`partes review proceedings as set forth in the final rule published October 11,
`2018, does not apply to this proceeding because the new “rule is effective on
`November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR, and CBM petitions filed on
`or after the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt.
`42).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
`1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The context of the claim itself can also inform
`the meaning of a particular claim term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. We
`apply this standard to the claims of the ’662 patent.
`Petitioner asserts that the term “controls for alternately providing”
`recited in dependent claim 27 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because it is
`functional claiming without sufficient structure disclosed other than
`“software programming or hardwiring.” Pet. 12–15 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:48–52). In the alternative, Petitioner proposes the following construction
`for the claim term in addition to a proposed construction for the term “end
`effector” recited in dependent claim 3 (id. at 15–17):
`Term (Claim)
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`Controls for alternately
`Software programming or hardwiring arranged
`providing (claim 27)
`to open and close gas control valves in the
`desired sequence and equivalents thereof
`
`End effector (claim 3)
`
`A wafer handler that contacts the
`wafer/substrate
`
`Patent Owner responds that neither of Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions is relevant to the issue of whether to grant or deny the Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent Owner proposes instead the following claim
`construction for “fixed” which is recited in claim 1 (id. at 5–8):
`Term (Claim)
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`Fixed (claim 1)
`To prohibit translational movement of either the
`substrate or the gas injection structure relative to
`the other structure
`
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition presumes that the term “fixed”
`means the substrate is “not rotated” or “without rotation.” Id. at 5.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`According to Patent Owner, it is not necessary to determine at this stage in
`the proceeding whether “fixed” permits or precludes rotation and, instead,
`proposes a claim construction that is limited to translational movement. Id.
`at 7. Patent Owner asserts that its proposed construction of “fixed” is
`consistent with the following disclosure in the ’662 patent:
`The gas injection structure 20 is preferably readily replaceable,
`but is arranged to remain fixed relative to reactor walls, and
`preferably also fixed relative to the substrate 16, during
`deposition, facilitating rapid gas spreading by diffusion across
`the substrate during each reactant or purge pulse.
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:22–27).
`We conclude that, with the exception of whether claim 27 invokes
`§ 112 ¶ 6, only the term “fixed” requires construction to resolve the question
`of whether to institute as we agree with Patent Owner that it is not necessary
`to our decision to provide an explicit construction for the remaining terms.
`See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (only terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy).
`Based on the limited record in this proceeding, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has rebutted the presumption that the term “controls for
`alternately providing” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Williamson v.
`Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). To
`rebut this presumption, Petitioner would have to “demonstrate[] that the
`claim term fails to ‘recite[] sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites
`‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’”
`Id. at 1349 (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir.
`2000)). On this record, we are not convinced that “controls” are “nonce
`words” or otherwise fail to recite sufficiently definite structure.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`Furthermore, even if the claim term was considered to invoke 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, we are not persuaded by the present record that the term is
`indefinite for failing to disclose corresponding structure or an algorithm. As
`Petitioner notes, the ’662 patent discloses not only software programming,
`but also hardwiring to accomplish controlling the flow sequence. Ex. 1001,
`4:48–52; Pet. 13. Petitioner does not contend that hardwiring requires an
`algorithm for opening and closing gas control valves in an alternating
`manner, but only that algorithms are required for software programming.
`Pet. 13–14. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that
`the failure to disclose an algorithm for performing the recited function
`renders claim 27 indefinite.
`We determine the appropriate construction by initially looking to the
`specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) (Claim limitations must be read “in light of the specification as it
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”). The quoted
`portion of the specification uses the term “fixed” to describe preferred
`embodiments wherein the gas injection system is “readily replaceable” but
`“fixed” relative to the walls of the reactor “and preferably also fixed”
`relative to the substrate. Ex. 1001, 5:22–27. The specification further
`describes this “fixed” position as being “during deposition.” Id. Thus, the
`specification indicates that “fixed” refers to the status of a component during
`operation of the apparatus, specifically, during the deposition step in an
`ALD reactor. At the same time, the “fixed” component is also said to be
`“readily replaceable” indicating that “replaceable” and “fixed” are not
`mutually exclusive positions or functions of the component.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`In addition to the portion quoted by Patent Owner, the specification
`also uses the term “fixed” in the Summary of the Invention section as
`follows:
`The apparatus includes a reaction chamber having a reaction
`space, a substrate holder, a gas outlet in fluid communication
`with the reaction space and a gas injector structure positioned
`with the reaction chamber fixed relative to the substrate during
`deposition.
`Id. at 2:30–35 (emphasis added). In this instance, the term “fixed” is used to
`describe the positional relationship between the substrate and the gas
`injector structure only (without regard to the reactor walls), but again
`specifies that “fixed” occurs during the deposition step. Claim 1 similarly
`uses the term “fixed” in the context of the deposition step and in relation to
`the substrate alone (emphasis added): “a gas injector structure positioned
`with the reaction chamber fixed relative to the substrate during deposition.”
`The gas injection system is described in the specification as
`“replaceable” and movement of the substrate or wafer by a moveable
`substrate support is described as facilitating loading and unloading of
`substrates between depositions. Id. at 5:3–8. The substrate support of
`Figure 1 serves as wafer handler 18 that moves wafer 16 in and out of the
`reaction chamber and touches the wafer itself. Id. at 4:3–6. The wafer
`handler is also disclosed as functioning to keep the substrate “stationary
`relative to the gas injection structure . . . during operation.” Id. at 5:6–8.
`The specification does not disclose any particular type of movement
`of the substrate and gas injection structure components within the reactor
`other than (1) describing the wafer as being “held on top or on the bottom of
`the handler” when operated on the Bernoulli principle, (2) describing the
`wafer as being “lowered relative to the reaction chamber” when the handler
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`is a robot end effector and a separate robot end effector exchanges the wafer,
`and (3) describing the gas injection structure as being positioned below or to
`the side of a wafer and “on an adjacent plane to the substrate’s major
`surface” (shown in Figure 2a). Id. at 4:66–67, 5:2–3, 5:13–20. Therefore, it
`is not apparent from the specification that only translational movement as
`opposed to rotational movement is restricted by the term “fixed” as Patent
`Owner contends.
`Moreover, the context in which the term “fixed” is used in both claim
`1 and the specification reflects that the “fixed” relationship between two
`components is temporal, i.e. “during deposition.” Therefore, we decline to
`read into the claims either a permanently fixed relationship or a fixed
`relationship for a particular axis of movement between the substrate and the
`gas injector structure, which limitations the specification does not indicate
`are necessary to practice the invention. Our claim construction of this term
`is also informed by the fact that the subject apparatus claims must be
`distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In
`re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we construe the term
`“fixed” to mean stationary or immobile and a “fixed” structure to be a
`structure that has the capability of being prohibited from movement relative
`to another structure for at least a period of time during operation, i.e. during
`deposition.
`
`C. Anticipation by Shinriki
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability to
`determine whether Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`§ 314(a). We begin with a description of Shinriki, which is asserted in each
`ground argued in the Petition.
`1. Overview of Shinriki
`Shinriki relates to a substrate processing apparatus having first and
`second processing gas supply ports opposing each other across a substrate to
`be processed. Ex. 1005, 2 (Abstract). First and second exhaust ports are
`provided substantially orthogonal to the flows of first and second processing
`gases and opposing the first and second process gas supply ports. Id.
`Shinriki states that high dielectric film of one molecular layer is formed by
`the second processing gas reacting with molecules of the adsorbed first
`processing gas. Id.
`Figures 1A and 1B of Shinriki (reproduced below) illustrate a
`principle of Shinriki’s invention whereby an inert gas is supplied from one
`of the gas supply ports when a processing gas is introduced from the
`opposing gas supply port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`Figure 1A shows the step of processing gas A being introduced from
`port 3A and Figure 1B shows the step of processing gas B being introduced
`from port 3B. Id. at 7. Arrows depict the path of the processing gases from
`the ports where they are introduced, flowing across substrate 2 to be
`processed, and through either exhaust port 4A or 4B where they are
`exhausted downward. Id. Referring to Figure 1A, an inert gas is supplied
`from the second raw-material switching valve 5B to the second processing
`gas supply port 3B while processing gas A is introduced from port 3A (step
`of Fig. 1A) in order to avoid the first processing gas A from intruding into
`the opposing second processing gas supply port 3B and forming a
`precipitate. Id. Similarly, during the step of Figure 1B, an inert gas is
`supplied from first raw-material switching valve 5A to first processing gas
`supply port 3A. Id. Figures 1A and 1B also show that neither of the exhaust
`valves are completely blocked, but, rather, during the step of Figure 1A
`exhaust valve 6A is open to a large degree while exhaust valve 6B is open to
`a small degree. Id. at 7–8. Conversely, during the step of Figure 1B,
`exhaust valve 6B is open to a large degree while exhaust valve 6A is open to
`a small degree. Id. at 8.
`In preferred embodiments illustrated by examples, Shinriki discloses
`variations on the basic principle of the processing apparatus including
`alternatingly using the gas supply nozzles and interposing purging steps
`therebetween. Id. at 25. A tenth example illustrated by Figure 19
`(reproduced below) depicts substrate holding stand 203.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 19 shows substrate holding stand 203, which is described as
`being held in a rotatable manner and a vertically movable manner by
`substrate conveyance unit 204. Id. at 20. Conveyance arm 204B, inserted
`from substrate transport opening 204A, holds and extracts substrate W to be
`processed, sends substrate W to the next step, and introduces a new substrate
`W to be process into substrate conveyance unit 204 via substrate opening
`portion 204A, placing it on substrate holding stand 203. Id. at 20–21.
`According to Shinriki, because the substrate holding stand can be moved up
`and down, the position of the surface of the substrate can be optimized for
`processing in inner processing container 202. Id. at 23. The rotational
`mechanism is said to provide an extremely even film thickness on the
`surface of the substrate to be processed. Id. at 24.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`Shinriki describes the first and second processing gases as alternately
`flowing from gas nozzle 210A to exhaust groove portion 201a or from gas
`nozzle 210B to exhaust groove portion 201b. Id. at 22. A configuration of
`Figure 19’s gas nozzle 210B is shown in Figure 22 with a large number of
`nozzle opening portions facing exhaust groove portion 201b permitting
`processing gas introduced to be discharged as a sheet-shaped gas flow B
`from the nozzle opening portions. Id. A similar configuration is also
`provided to gas nozzle 210A and corresponding exhaust portion 201a. Id.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 20, and 26 are
`anticipated by Shinriki. Pet. 17–46.
`Regarding claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Shinriki teaches each of the
`claim limitations as shown by Shinriki’s Figures 2, 19, 20, 22, 28, Abstract,
`and elsewhere in the reference. Id. at 18–36. Petitioner also provides side
`by side comparisons of Shinriki’s Figure 19 to the apparatus depicted in
`Figures 1, 2a, and 3 of the ’662 patent. Id. Petitioner contends that Shinriki
`discloses that the deposition process may be performed while the substrate
`holder either rotates or does not rotate and, thus, describes in Figure 28 an
`embodiment where the apparatus of Figure 19 was performed with a
`stationary wafer. Id. at 23–24.
`Regarding the dependent claims, Petitioner contends that Shinriki’s
`substrate holding stand 203, which supports the wafer and is moved up and
`down by rotational shaft 205B, is a robotic end effector as required by claim
`3. Id. at 36–37 (citing Shinriki, Fig. 19). Claim 4, which requires that the
`substrate holder is a heated susceptor plate, is asserted to be disclosed by
`Shinriki’s substrate holding stand 203 that is provided with a heating
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`mechanism. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005, 18, 26 [20, 28]). Petitioner
`contends that Shinriki’s figures show circular nozzle opening portions and
`disclose diameters of opening portions, therefore, Shinriki discloses
`apertures that have a circular shape as required by claim 9. Id. at 38–39
`(citing Ex. 1005, 21 [23], Figs. 23A, 23B). Referring to Figure 19,
`Petitioner contends that Shinriki’s gas nozzles 210A, 210B on opposite sides
`of substrate holding stand 203 are distributor tub sections of first and second
`gas injectors as required by claim 11. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005, 2 [4], Fig.
`19). Petitioner contends that claim 12’s requirement that apertures of the
`first and second gas injectors substantially face each other in a plane
`adjacent the substrate is met by Shinriki’s gas nozzles 210A, 210B shown in
`Figure 19, which are on opposite sides of the substrate and discharge a
`sheet-shaped gas flow toward substrate W. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 20
`[22], Fig. 19).
`Regarding dependent claim 20, which requires that the hollow tubes
`be positioned for the exhaust to flow from the substrate, between the hollow
`tubes of the first and second gas injectors, and into the gas outlet, Petitioner
`contends that because Shinriki’s exhaust flows from substrate W to exhaust
`209 and all are located between gas nozzles 210A and 210B, the exhaust
`flows between the two gas injectors as required by the claim. Id. at 43
`(citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–149). Regarding dependent
`claim 26, which requires a gas flow restrictor between the reaction space and
`the gas outlet, Petitioner contends that Shinriki teaches one of four flow
`straightening plates 2091–2094 to promote a variety of gas flow restriction to
`realize uniform exhausting across the entire length of the gas exhaust
`opening portions. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, 19, 20 [21, 22], Fig. 19).
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that Shinriki cannot anticipate a single claim
`of the ’662 patent because the “fixed” limitation of independent claim 1
`prohibits translational movement, “[b]ut the petition does not set forth
`whether or how Shinriki teaches the required lack of translational movement
`during deposition.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner asserts that Shinriki
`discloses translational movability of the substrate up and down as well as
`non-rotation of the tenth example shown in Figure 19, but is silent regarding
`excluding translational movement. Id. at 9–13.
`Patent Owner additionally asserts that the petition improperly “mixes-
`and-matches together” multiple examples of Shinriki “to form an ensemble
`anticipation position.” Id. at 14. Regarding Shinriki’s tenth example,
`specifically, Patent Owner contends that Figure 19 does not show a purge
`gas source in fluid communication with the first and second injectors as
`required by claim 1. Id. at 15. Figures 20 and 26, which Patent Owner
`refers to as the same embodiment as Figure 19, show three and five unique
`opening portions, respectively, that are available to feed reactant and inert
`gases, thus, the purge gas need not enter the same nozzle as the reactant gas
`as required by claim 1. Id. at 17–19. Patent Owner’s position is that
`because the purge gas could be introduced through separate inlets and
`Petitioner fails to explain why it is not or could not be, the anticipation
`challenge also fails. Id. at 20–22. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s
`citation to Shinriki for disclosing the situation where only gas nozzle 210A
`is used is ambiguous as it does not explicitly require providing the purge gas
`via the same nozzle as the reactant gas, it also ignores the description of the
`tenth example having a “plurality of gas nozzles 210A,” and the assertion
`that Figure 2 is the same as the tenth example except for sonic sensors is not
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01151
`Patent 7,537,662 B2
`
`supported by the record because the systems also contain a different number
`of gas inlets to the reaction chamber. Id. at 26–29.
`After review of the positions and evidence presented by both
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the Petition sets forth
`sufficient basis for an anticipation challenge to the ’662 patent claims.
`We are not persuaded that the Petition fails to set forth the “fixed”
`limitation required by claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, not a
`method of using the apparatus. Therefore, how the claimed apparatus is
`intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a
`prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural
`elements of the claim. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909
`F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device
`is, not what a device does.”). As the Federal Circuit has recently reiterated,
`this means that “a prior art reference may anticipate or render obvious an
`apparatus claim—depending on the claim language—if the reference
`discloses an apparatus that is reasonably capable of operating so as to meet
`the claim limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limit

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket