Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 51
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 51
`Trials@uspto.gov Paper 52
`571-272-7822
` Entered: June 29, 2022
`_____
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,1 and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.2
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Intel Corporation was joined as a petitioner to this proceeding based on a
`petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021-01030.
`2 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was joined as a petitioner to this proceeding
`based on a petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021- 01090.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied Materials”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,544,276 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’276 patent”). Demaray LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 8).
`Pursuant to our authorization (Paper 9), Applied Materials filed a Reply
`(Paper 10), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 12). Applied
`Materials also filed a Petitioner’s Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions
`(Paper 2) to which Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 7).
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent
`on the grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 13 (“Dec.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response.
`Paper 29 (“PO Resp.”). Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd (“Samsung”) were then joined as a petitioners. See Paper 31
`(Intel); Paper 37 (Samsung). Applied Materials, Intel, and Samsung are
`collectively referred to as “Petitioner” in this Decision. Applied Materials
`filed a Reply. Paper 38 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper
`45 (“Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on February 9, 2022, with
`IPR2021-00104, which challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,3381, 657 B2. A
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Patent Owner identifies IPR2021-00104, which challenges U.S. Patent
`No. 7,381,657 B2, as a related matter. Paper 6, 1.
`The parties also identify Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.) (“Samsung Litigation”); Demaray LLC
`v. Intel Corporation, No. 6-20-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.) (“Intel Litigation”);
`and Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`(“California Litigation”) as related matters. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1. Each of these
`proceedings involves the ’276 patent. Id.
`B.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`Applied Materials identifies Intel Corporation, Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor,
`Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, and itself as real parties-in-
`interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party-in-interest.
`Paper 6, 1.
`The ’276 Patent
`C.
`The ’276 patent, titled “Biased Pulse DC Reactive Sputtering of
`Oxide Films,” relates to “deposition of oxide and oxynitride films and, in
`particular, to deposition of oxide and oxynitride films by pulsed DC reactive
`sputtering.” Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:12–14. The ’276 patent discloses that
`typically, radio frequency (“RF”) sputtering has been used for deposition of
`oxide dielectric films, but arcing can occur between sputtering target tiles
`used to make such films, which causes contamination of the deposited films.
`Id. at 2:25–30. The ’276 patent further states that reactors for RF sputtering,
`particularly their power systems, are complicated. Id. at 2:30–38. The ’276
`patent discloses that reactive DC magnetron sputtering of nonconductive
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`oxides “is done rarely” because insulating surfaces accumulate charge
`during deposition and result in arcing, which “can damage the power supply,
`produce particles and degrade the properties of deposited oxide films.” Id.
`at 4:44–52.
`Figure 1A of the ’276 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1A depicts a pulsed DC sputtering reactor. Id. at 3:26–27. The ’276
`patent describes reactor apparatus 10 for sputtering of material from
`target 12. Id. at 5:7–9. Magnet 20 is scanned across the top of target 12,
`which reduces local erosion of target 12 during sputtering. Id. at 5:28–29,
`8:47–55. Substrate 16 is opposite and parallel to target 12. Id. at 5:23–24.
`Substrate 16 is capacitively coupled to electrode 17 via insulator 54. Id.
`at 5:26–27. Electrode 17 can be coupled to RF power supply 18. Id.
`at 5:27–28. The ’276 patent explains that columnar structures in a deposited
`film can be detrimental for optical wave guide applications, but applying an
`RF bias on substrate 16 during deposition can substantially eliminate
`columnar structures. Id. at 5:60–67. The ’276 patent discloses that target 12
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`functions as a cathode when power is applied to it, which creates plasma 53.
`Id. at 5:24–26.
`Target 12 is electrically coupled through filter 15 to pulsed DC power
`supply 14. Id. at 5:19–20. The ’276 patent discloses that the polarity of the
`power supplied to target 12 by the pulsed DC power supply 14 oscillates
`between negative and positive potentials. Id. at 5:30–33. According to
`the ’276 patent, the insulating layer on the surface of target 12 discharges
`during the positive period, which prevents arcing. Id. at 5:33–35. The ’276
`patent discloses that the pulsing frequency must exceed a critical frequency,
`which depends on a target material, cathode current, and reverse time. Id.
`at 5:35–37.
`Reactor apparatus 10 further includes filter 15, which prevents RF
`power supply 18 from coupling into pulsed DC power supply 14. Id.
`at 5:50–51. According to the ’276 patent, filter 15 can be a 2 MHz band
`rejection filter when a 2 MHz power supply is used for RF power supply 18.
`Id. at 5:51–55. The ’276 patent discloses that “the band width of the
`filter 15 can be approximately 100 kHz.” Id. at 5:55–57.
`D.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 6 of the ’276 patent are independent. Claim 1 is
`representative and is reproduced below:
`1[a]. A reactor according to the present invention, comprising:
`1[b] a target area for receiving a target;
`1[c] a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a
`substrate;
`1[d] a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area,
`the pulsed DC power supply providing alternating negative and
`positive voltages to the target;
`1[e] an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 7 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`1[f] a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency
`of the [RF]3 bias power supply coupled between the pulsed DC
`power supply and the target area.
`Ex. 1001, 22:40–50 (showing Petitioner’s annotations and bracketing);
`Ex. 3001, 1.
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent on
`the following grounds:
`References
`Barber,4 Hirose5
`
`Basis § Claim(s) Challenged
`103(a)6 1–3, 6–8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Aokura7
`
`Barber, Hirose, Yamazaki8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Dogheche9
`
`103(a)
`
`4, 5
`
`103(a)
`
`9
`
`103(a)
`
`9, 10
`
`
`3 A Certificate of Correction issued for this patent on December 3, 2019,
`changing “RE” to “RF” in claim 1, col. 22 l. 49. Ex. 3001, 1.
`4 US 6,342,134 B1, issued Jan. 29, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`5 US 6,485,602 B2, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006).
`6 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’276 patent has an
`effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`7 JP H10102247 A, published Apr. 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068) (English translation
`(pp. 1–12); Verified Statement of Translation (p. 13); Japanese language
`document (pp. 14–24)).
`8 US 6,657,260 B2, issued Dec. 2, 2003 (Ex. 1046).
`9 E. Dogheche, Growth and optical characterization of aluminum nitride
`thin films deposited on silicon by radio-frequency sputtering, Appl. Phys.
`Lett. 74, 1209 (1999) (Ex. 1029).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 8 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`References
`Barber, Hirose, Sproul10
`
`Barber, Hirose, Laird11
`
`Barber, Hirose, Segal12
`
`Basis § Claim(s) Challenged
`103(a)
`11, 12
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 13
`
`103(a)
`
`11–13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind13
`
`103(a)
`
`1–3, 6–8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Aokura
`
`103(a)
`
`4, 5
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Yamazaki
`
`103(a)
`
`9
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Dogheche
`
`103(a)
`
`9, 10
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Sproul
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 12
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Laird
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Segal
`
`103(a)
`
`11–13
`
`Petitioner relies on the declarations of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`(Ex. 1002; Ex. 1108) and Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Ex. 1042). Patent Owner
`relies on the declarations of Dr. Alexander Glew (Ex. 2002; Ex. 2009), Dr.
`HongMei Zhang (Ex. 2019), and Dr. Rajiv Pethe (Ex. 2020).
`
`
`10 W. Sproul, High-rate reactive DC magnetron sputtering of oxide and
`nitride superlattice coatings, Elsevier Science Ltd. 51, 641 (1998)
`(Ex. 1036).
`11 US 2001/0041252 A1, published Nov. 15, 2001 (Ex. 1034).
`12 US 2001/0047838 A1, published Dec. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1069).
`13 A. Belkind et al., Pulsed-DC Reactive Sputtering of Dielectrics: Pulsing
`Parameter Effects, Society of Vacuum Coaters, 43rd Annual Technical
`Conference Proceedings, 86 (2000) (Ex. 1008).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 9 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Legal Standards
`A.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1375–78 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing the burden of proof in inter
`partes review proceedings). Petitioner must demonstrate unpatentability by
`a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes
`review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports
`the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). A petitioner cannot satisfy
`its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 10 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.14 Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “An obviousness determination
`requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876
`F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had,
`at the time of the ’276 patent (March 2002): a Master’s degree
`in Electrical Engineering or Material Science (or an equivalent
`subject) plus at least two years of relevant experience, or a
`Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Material Science
`(or an equivalent subject) plus at least four years of relevant
`experience.
` More education can substitute for practical
`experience, and vice versa and “relevant experience,” in the
`context of the ’276 patent, refers to experience with sputtering
`deposition of films on substrates.
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our
`Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of
`one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least”
`to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience.
`Inst. Dec. 10.
`
`
`14 Because we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the
`challenged claims would have been obvious, we do not reach Patent
`Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness. PO Resp. 70–72.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 11 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally
`PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ
`based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in
`the art. Accordingly, we retain our modified adoption of Petitioner’s
`definition. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the
`level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself
`reflects an appropriate 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))).
`C.
`Claim Construction
`We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary
`and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and
`customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner does not assert a claim construction for any term of the
`challenged claims. Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner addresses the terms “a narrow
`band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply,”
`and “a narrow band rejection filter operating at a frequency of the RF bias
`power supply.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that these terms “should
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 12 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which the
`parties to the litigation agree requires the claimed filter to have a rejection
`band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” Id. More particularly,
`Patent Owner argues that a “POSITA would not understand the claim term
`“narrow band-rejection filter that rejects/operating at a frequency of the RF
`bias power supply” to encompass a filter whose pertinent operating
`frequency is materially offset from the RF bias frequency by design.” Id.
`at 11. Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)”
`but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do
`not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1.
`On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to
`construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute
`does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the
`same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid
`Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in
`an inter partes review).
`D.
`Principal Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner asserts fourteen grounds relying on ten different references.
`See Pet. 3–5. Each of Petitioner’s grounds, however, relies on two principal
`prior art references––Barber and Hirose, which are addressed below. Id.
`Other than Hirose, Patent Owner does not challenge the prior art status of
`any of the asserted references. See PO Resp. 11–41 (asserting that Hirose
`does not qualify as pre-AIA § 102(e) prior art to the challenged claims).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 13 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Barber
`1.
`Barber is a patent titled “Method for Producing Piezoelectric Films
`with Rotating Magnetron Sputtering System.” Ex. 1005, code (54).
`Barber’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a reactive sputtering arrangement. Id.
`at 3:22–24. The arrangement includes chamber 210 and a pair of electrodes
`(target 260 and anode ring 225) within the chamber. Id. at 6:4–6. Barber
`discloses that an “electric potential applied to the electrodes may be
`controlled by a pulsed DC power source 230 or other suitable source.” Id.
`at 6:6–8. First flow control source 240 provides noble gases to chamber 210
`and second flow control source 250 provides a reactive gas to chamber 210.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 14 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Id. at 6:9–12. Substrate 110 is positioned within chamber 210 adjacent to
`rotating magnet assembly 280. Id. at 6:14–18. Barber discloses RF power
`supply 235 to apply a bias voltage to substrate platen 115 to control tensile
`film stress. Id. at 6:29–31. Barber further describes using a cross-over
`curve to optimize its reactive sputtering deposition process. Id. at 7:2–5.
`Specifically, Barber discloses introducing noble gas into its chamber and
`then introducing reactive gas incrementally so the flow rate of the reactive
`gas is a rate corresponding substantially to, but greater than, the flow rate for
`a cross-over point between producing a metallic film and an insulator. Id.
`at 7:17–29.
`Hirose
`2.
`Hirose is a patent titled “Plasma Processing Apparatus.” Ex. 1006,
`code (54). Hirose “relates to a plasma processing apparatus capable of
`suppressing a damage due to sputtering to a wall surface of a processing
`chamber during plasma occurrence.” Id. at 1:14–17. Hirose discloses a
`conventional plasma processing apparatus that applies high-frequency power
`with two types of frequency. Id. at 1:19–23. Hirose teaches that
`simultaneously applying two types of high-frequency power decreases an
`effective ground area to one electrode in comparison to when a single
`frequency is used, and this causes sputter rate to increase for the ground area
`and results in more damage to the wall of a processing chamber. Id. at 2:1–
`9.
`
`Hirose’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 15 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a configuration chart showing an embodiment of a plasma
`processing apparatus. Id. at 3:1–3. Hirose describes plasma processing
`apparatus 10 that includes processing chamber 11, upper electrode 12, and
`lower electrode 13.15 Id. at 3:45–51. Hirose discloses that lower
`
`
`15 Hirose discloses lower electrode 13 for the embodiment depicted in
`Figure 1. Ex. 1006, 3:50. However, Figure 1 does not include reference
`numeral 13. The embodiment depicted in Figure 7 includes lower
`electrode 33. Id. at 6:29. Therefore, Figure 1’s reference numeral 33 may
`be a typographical error and represent the lower electrode 13.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 16 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`electrode 13 functions as a mount for a processing object, such as a
`semiconductor wafer. Id. at 3:56–58. Upper electrode 12 is connected to
`first high-frequency power supply 14 and lower electrode 13 is connected to
`second high-frequency power supply 15. Id. at 3:51–56. Hirose discloses
`that first high-frequency power supply 14 may apply, for example, 60 MHz
`power to upper electrode 12, and second high-frequency power supply 15
`may apply, for example, 2 MHz power to lower electrode 13. Id. at 3:59–60,
`3:64–65.
`Hirose describes first filter circuit 20 and second filter circuit 21. Id.
`at 4:9–11. First filter circuit 20 includes an inductor-capacitor (LC) resonant
`circuit with a varying circuit constant. Id. at 4:11–13. Hirose states that
`“[t]he LC series resonant circuit selectively filters a high-frequency current
`output from the second high-frequency power supply 15 for preventing the
`current from reaching the first high-frequency power supply 14.” Id.
`at 4:13–16. Hirose also discloses that second filter circuit 21 prevents high-
`frequency current from first high-frequency power supply 14 from reaching
`second high-frequency power supply 15. Id. at 4:18–21.
`Hirose describes how to set the circuit constant of first filter circuit
`20. Id. at 4:39–40. First and second high-frequency power supplies 14, 15
`apply power to upper electrode 12 and lower electrode 13, respectively, and
`a capacitor capacity of first filter circuit 20 is varied by measuring a voltage
`waveform. Id. at 4:42–47. Hirose teaches that when first and second high-
`frequency power supplies 14, 15 provide power at respective frequencies of
`60 MHz and 2 MHz, a capacitor capacity of 2500 pF for first filter circuit 20
`provides an optimum resonance point. Id. at 4:51–57, 5:1–3. This effect is
`depicted in Hirose’s Figure 6, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 17 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 “shows a decrease in the sputter rate.” Id. at 3:24. Hirose is
`concerned with sputtering the chamber wall of its device, and examines the
`relationship between the sputter rate and the capacitor capacity. Id. at 2:1–
`10, 5:3–6, 5:11–12. Hirose determines that a capacitor capacity of 2000 pF
`for first filter circuit 20 “greatly decreases the sputter rate” compared to a
`capacitor capacity of 2500 pF, and first filter circuit 20 with a capacitor
`capacity of “2000 pF is superior to the optimally resonant filter circuit”
`with 2500 pF. Id. at 5:49–52, 5:58–62. Comparing first filter circuit 20 with
`a capacitor capacity of 2000 pF with first filter circuit 20 with a capacitor
`capacity of 2500 pF, “the former is slightly inferior to the latter with respect
`to the resonance phenomenon.” Id. at 5:61–62.
`E. Hirose as Prior Art
`The parties dispute whether Hirose qualifies as prior art to the ’276
`patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts
`that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 18 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 filing date
`of the ’276 patent. See Pet. 5.
`Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to
`the ’276 patent because the inventors of the ’276 patent conceived and
`reduced to practice the ’276 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of
`July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12.
`An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the
`invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed
`by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to
`practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose,
`which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’276 patent, was prior
`art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic
`Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden
`of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of
`invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent
`Owner presented evidence it contends shows a date of conception prior to
`July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. PO Resp. 11–
`41.
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we do not determine whether Hirose
`qualifies as prior art to claims 1–13, because, as explained below, even if
`Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of
`the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting
`Hirose.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 19 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Asserted Obviousness based on Barber and Hirose
`F.
`All of Petitioner’s asserted grounds are based wholly or in part on the
`combination of Barber and Hirose. Pet. 3–5. In Ground 1, encompassing
`both independent claims 1 and 6, Petitioner argues that claims 1–3 and 6–8
`are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Barber and
`Hirose. Pet. 13–44. Patent Owner challenges certain aspects of Petitioner’s
`grounds based on Barber and Hirose. PO Resp. 41–72. Our analysis of
`Ground 1, below, discusses issues that affect every ground in the Petition.
`1. Petitioner’s Challenge
`Petitioner argues that every element of claim 1 is found in the
`combination of Barber and Hirose, as set forth below. Pet. 13–36.
`a) 1[a] A reactor according to the present invention,
`comprising:
`Petitioner contends that Barber discloses claim 1’s preamble. Pet. 13–
`15 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56–58).16
`b) 1[b] a target area for receiving a target;
`Petitioner asserts that “Barber discloses that a target material 260 is
`positioned within chamber 210 and is ‘mounted adjacent a rotating magnet
`assembly 280.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:14–18, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 59).
`Petitioner contends that the area associated with target 260, including the
`region that receives target 260, meets the claimed “target area for receiving
`the target,” comparing Barber’s target configuration with that disclosed by
`the ’276 patent. Id. at 15–17 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 59;
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 1B, 2).
`
`
`16 We do not express any opinion on whether the preamble is limiting.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 20 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`c) 1[c] a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving
`a substrate;
`Petitioner argues that Barber discloses substrate 110 that is positioned
`on substrate platen 115 opposite from Barber’s target 260. Pet. 17 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:15–17, 6:29–31, Fig. 2). Petitioner further compares Barber’s
`configuration with that disclosed by the ’276 patent. Id. at 18–19 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60; Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B).
`d) 1[d] a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area,
`the pulsed DC power supply providing alternating negative
`and positive voltages to the target;
`Petitioner asserts that Barber discloses pulsed DC power source 230
`that applies a bias across target 260 and anode ring 225, and that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the target area is coupled
`to the pulsed-DC power source because the pulsed-DC bias is applied to
`target 260. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:6–11, 7:30–34, 8:49–52; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 61–71). Petitioner argues that Barber discloses providing positive DC
`pulses to target 260 at a pulse frequency, and that Barber’s reference to
`“reverse-bias pulse width” refers to the pulse of a positive bias. Id. at 20–21
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:21–26, 7:14–17, 8:45–48, 8:66–9:3, 9:6–11, 9:17–22,
`9:48–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have also understood that Barber’s pulsed DC power supply
`“necessarily provides a negative bias to the target such that the voltage on
`target 260 alternates between negative and positive voltages,” because a
`negative bias must be applied to the target at times for the sputtering process
`to operate. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–66).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 21 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`e) 1[e] an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
`Petitioner contends that Barber discloses RF power supply 235 that
`applies a bias voltage to substrate platen 115, which supports substrate 110,
`and that the bias is used to control the tensile stress of a deposited film.
`Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:29–31, 9:12, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 72).
`f) 1[f] a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a
`frequency of the RF bias power supply coupled between the
`pulsed DC power supply and the target area.
`Petitioner asserts that Barber teaches “that electrical characteristics of
`its pulsed DC power supply should be monitored or adjusted ‘to achieve a
`stable waveform.’” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:59–60, 8:66–9:2; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 73–100). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Barber’s pulsed DC supply 230 and RF supply 235 operate
`at different frequencies. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:29–31, 8:45–48, 9:12;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–76).
`Petitioner admits that Barber does not disclose any filter. Id.
`Petitioner contends that although Barber “does not expressly disclose ‘a
`narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the [RF] bias
`power supply coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target
`area,’” one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been aware of the
`benefits of filters in plasma systems/processes to block interference/current
`of one power supply from another power supply, and thus such knowledge
`would have been in the mind of such a skilled person when considering
`implementing Barber’s system/processes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–77).
`Petitioner argues that Hirose discloses a plasma processing apparatus
`that includes chamber 11, two power supplies 14 and 15 having different
`frequencies, and filters 20 and 21, where first filter circuit 20 placed between
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 175-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 22 of 51
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`power supply 14 and upper electrode 12 selectively filters “a high-frequency
`current output from the second high-frequency power supply 15 for
`preventing the current from reaching the first high-frequency power supply
`14.” Id. at 25–27 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:45–4:38, 4:9–16, code (57), Fig. 1;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Petitioner asserts that one of ordi
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
