U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00272US3
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By:
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47 AND 49
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices.............................................................................................1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ....................................................................................1
`B. Related Matters..............................................................................................1
`C. Counsel..........................................................................................................1
`D. Service Information.......................................................................................1
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ...............................................................2
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested .................................................2
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications....................................................2
`B. Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................................4
`IV. Brief Description of Technology......................................................................4
`A. Plasma............................................................................................................4
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms ................................................................................6
`V. Overview of the ‘759 patent ..............................................................................7
`A. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent .......................................7
`B. Prosecution History .......................................................................................7
`1. The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin reference........7
`2. Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in allowance.....8
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References................................................9
`A. Summary of the Prior Art..............................................................................9
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ....................................................................................9
`1. Summary ....................................................................................................9
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs.................................................................11
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ...........................................................................13
`D. Overview of Wang ......................................................................................14
`VII. Claim Construction......................................................................................15
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..........................16
`B.
`“multi-step ionization process” ...................................................................17
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition......................................................................18
`A. Ground I: Claims 20 and 34 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev....................................................................................19
`1.
`Independent claim 20 ...............................................................................19
`2. Dependent claim 34 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin
`and Kudryavtsev ..............................................................................................31
`B. Ground II: Claims 21, 47 and 49 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and the Mozgrin Thesis .................................................31
`C. Ground III: Dependent claims 34-36 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Li ....................................................36
`D. Ground IV: Claim 38 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev and Yamaguchi...............................................................................39
`E. Ground V: Dependent claim 39 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Muller-Horsche........................................................41
`F. Ground VI: Claims 20, 21, 34, 36 and 47 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev ..............................................................43
`1.
`Independent claim 20 ...............................................................................43
`2. Dependent claims 21, 34, 36 and 47 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev ..........................................................52
`G. Ground VII: Dependent claim 35 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and Li ..................................................................................55
`H. Ground VIII: Dependent claim 38 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang Kudryavtsev and Yamaguchi ....................................................................56
`I. Ground IX: Dependent claim 39 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and Muller-Horsche ............................................................57
`J. Ground X: Dependent claim 49 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and the Mozgrin Thesis.......................................................58
`IX. Conclusion......................................................................................................60
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`There are currently several different litigation matters that would affect or be
`
`affected by a decision in the proceeding. Additionally, Petitioner is filing
`
`additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several patents related1 to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1201). A complete list of the related
`
`litigations is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1235.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: Richard Goldenberg (Registration No. 38,895)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: 202-663-6000
`
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 20, 212, 34-36, 38, 39, 47 and 49 of the ’759 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 3
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`2 Claim 21, which depends from claim 20, recites “applying the electric field.”
`
`Claim 20 does not recite “an electric field.” Nevertheless, as shown below, the
`
`references relied upon teach “applying an electric field…”
`
`3 The ’759 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1203)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1204)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1205)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`4.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1217)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1217 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1218. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1219.
`
`5.
`
`Li et al, Low-temperature magnetron sputter-deposition, hardness, and
`
`electrical resistivity of amorphous and crystalline alumina thin films, J. Vac. Sci.
`
`Technol. A 18(5), pp. 2333-38, 2000 (“Li” (Ex. 1220)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,247,531 (“Muller-Horsche” (Ex. 1221)) , which is prior art
`
`under 102(b).
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`European Pat. No. 1 113 088 (“Yamaguchi” (Ex. 1222)), which is prior art
`
`7.
`
`under 102(b).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47 and 49 of
`
`the ’759 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by
`
`the declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1202)) filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`is not patentable.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1202). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38,
`
`39, 47 and 49 of the ‘759 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining
`
`claims of the ‘759 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`21 (Ex. 1202).5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202).
`
`5 The term “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1202).
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1202). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1202). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state,
`
`the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1202).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following equations
`
`to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or
`
`an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex. 1201).
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1202).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a so
`
`called strongly-ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ’759 Patent are directed to an ionization
`
`source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. A power supply
`
`then applies a specific, high-voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi-step
`
`ionization process” in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state
`
`before becoming ionized. The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc discharge.”
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`1.
`reference
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that Mozgrin failed to teach
`
`the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation. However, that assertion is
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`incorrect. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin teaches all limitations of
`
`the challenged claims – including “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin discusses arcs but does so in the
`
`context of providing a recipe for avoiding them. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`2.
`allowance
`
`Before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to require “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three separate times, that other limitations
`
`such as “multi-step ionization” made the claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04
`
`Resp. at 12 (Ex. 1207); 02/24/05 Resp. at 15 (Ex. 1209); and 10/27/05 RCE at 14
`
`(Ex. 1211). The Examiner was not persuaded by those arguments, correctly noted
`
`that Mozgrin teaches multi-step ionization, and consistently rejected the claims
`
`over Mozgrin even after they had been amended to require “multi-step ionization.”
`
`01/11/06 Office Action at 12 (“…Mozgrin does teach a power supply that
`
`generates a pulse that allows the plasma to go through a multi-step ionization.”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1212). See also 08/30/04 Office Action (Ex. 1208) and
`
`05/27/05 Office Action (Ex. 1210).
`
`In an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the Patent Owner repeated its
`
`previously unsuccessful multi-step ionization argument, the only substantive
`
`difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an arc discharge,” and
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation. 05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7
`
`and 13-16 (Ex. 1213). After that amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed
`
`the challenged claims. 6 10/11/2006 Allowance at 2-3 (Ex. 1215).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s argument, Mozgrin’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1202).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘759 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`6 After “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the claims, the only
`
`remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal disclaimer.
`
`08/28/2006 Response at 2-3 (Ex. 1214).
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1202). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3
`
`is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 40 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`2.
`
`Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily applied,
`
`and current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc
`
`discharge (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma
`
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202).
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s discussion
`
`of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation
`
`of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1203). One
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided
`
`during an industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex.
`
`1202). For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm
`
`(“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`1989, over a decade before the ‘759 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a
`
`problem…” Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1206).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e.g.,
`
`Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents caused
`
`the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The parameters
`
`of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the condition of its
`
`transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given set of the
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`discharge parameters.”); and 406, right col, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-ionization was not
`
`necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge transferring to the arc
`
`mode increased.”) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc regime
`
`is useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to avoid arcs. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1202).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1204). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204).
`
`The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204). Kudryavtsev notes
`
`that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization
`
`process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204). Mozgrin took into
`
`account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at
`
`401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’759 Patent.
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang7
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig.
`
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1205). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1205); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1202). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the
`
`plasma after ignition and application of the higher power level, PP, raises the
`
`density of the plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The background power level, PB, is
`
`chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma... [T]he
`
`application of the high peak power, PP, quickly causes the already existing plasma
`
`to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”) (Ex. 1205). Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 49 (Ex. 1202). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`7 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.8 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`8 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.”
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex.
`
`1202). With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘759 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304. ‘759 Patent at 10:22-29; 10:66-11:4 (Ex. 1201). The ‘759
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-
`
`ionized plasmas. See ‘759 Patent at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm(cid:1956)3”); claim 33 (“wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about
`
`1012 cm(cid:1956)3”) (Ex. 1201).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1224).
`
`B.
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`A multi-step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps: (a)
`
`convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and (b)
`
`convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ‘759 Patent and its file history
`
`clearly describe this aspect of a “multi-step ionization process”: “[T]he term
`
`‘multi-step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an ionization
`
`process that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition from the
`
`ground state to at least one intermediate excited state before being fully ionized.”
`
`See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1213) (emphasis added). See also ‘759 patent at
`
`9:37-51 (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Also, during prosecution the Patent Owner argued that multi-step ionization
`
`processes must produce a statistically significant amount of ions by this two-step
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1209) (“However, the Applicant submits that
`
`the ions in the [prior art] pre-ionized plasma are generated by direction ionization
`
`and any ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization process will be
`
`statistically insignificant.”). See also, e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13, 14, 16, 17 (Ex.
`
`1209); and 10/27/05 RCE at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1211) (emphasis added). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1202).
`
`The proposed construction for “multi-step ionization process” is “an
`
`ionization process in which a statistically significant portion of the ions are
`
`produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms or molecules.
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1202), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47 and 49 of
`
`the ’759 Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Claim charts, which were served on the Patent Owner on February 11, 2014
`
`in connection with District Court litigation 1:13-cv-11570-RGS, showing that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid based on the references relied upon in this Petition, is
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibits 1225 – 1234. Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`charts and agrees with them. See Kortshagen Decl. ¶¶ 59, 60, 89, 101, 111, 119,
`
`124, 163, 167, 171, 176. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Ground I: Claims 20 and 34 are obvious in view of the
`A.
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`A claim chart showing that claims 20 and 34 are obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1225 (Ex.
`
`1225).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20
`
`The preamble
`a)
`The preamble of claim 20 reads, “A method of generating sputtering flux.”
`
`“Flux” refers to material that is sputtered from the target. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61
`
`(Ex. 1202). Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4
`
`(“Regime 2 was characterized by intense cathode sputtering…”) (emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1203). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble of claim 20. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Limitation (a)
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 20 reads, “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to the sputtering target.”
`
`The ‘759 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘759 Patent at 6:30-32 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1201). M