`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 13
`
`Entered: August 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claim 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (“the ’759 patent”).
`Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of Intel’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Intel would prevail in
`challenging claim 40 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`as to claim 40 of the ’759 patent.
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`Intel indicates that the ’759 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., No.1:13-cv-11570-RGS (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Intel also identifies other
`matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’759 patent against third
`parties, as well as other Petitions for inter partes review that are related to
`this proceeding. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`B. The ’759 patent
`The ’759 patent relates to a high-power pulsed magnetron sputtering
`apparatus. Ex. 1401, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was a
`well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates. Id.
`at 1:6–13. The ’759 patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization (the
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 1:55–62. To address
`these problems, the ’759 patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`between the target and anode can increase the amount of ionized gas and,
`therefore, increase the target utilization. Id. at 2:60–62. However,
`increasing the power also “increases the probability of establishing an
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the process chamber.”
`Id. at 2:63–67.
`According to the ’759 patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 7:17–21. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:27–30, 7:65–66.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`C. The Sole Challenged Claim
`Claim 40, reproduced below, is the sole challenged claim:
`40. A magnetically enhanced sputtering source comprising:
`a) means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a sputtering target;
`b) means for generating a magnetic field proximate to the
`weakly-ionized plasma,
`the magnetic
`field substantially
`trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to
`the sputtering target; and
`c) means for applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized
`plasma, an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being
`chosen to increase an excitation rate of ground state atoms that
`are present in the weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step
`ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma
`from the weakly-ionized plasma, the multi-step ionization
`process comprising exciting the ground state atoms to generate
`excited atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms within the
`weakly-ionized plasma, without forming an arc discharge, to
`ions that sputter target material from the sputtering target.
`Ex. 1401, 24:1–20 (emphases added).
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Intel relies upon the following prior art references:
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
` July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1405)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1403) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1404) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Intel asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`40
`
`40
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`three claim terms and three means-plus-function claim elements. Pet. 14–
`20; Prelim. Resp. 15–24. We address each of the claim terms and elements
`identified by the parties in turn.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`Claim Terms
`1. “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Claim 40 recites “means for applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-
`ionized plasma, an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being
`chosen to increase an excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in
`the weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process that
`generates a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.”
`Intel proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be
`interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet. 16
`(emphasis omitted). Intel’s contention is supported by the declaration of
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. Id. (citing Ex. 1402). In his declaration,
`Dr. Kortshagen defines the term “density” in the context of plasma as “the
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1402
`¶ 22.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma having a low
`density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” should
`be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1401, 10:3–6 (“This rapid ionization results
`in a strongly-ionized plasma having a large ion density being formed in an
`area proximate to the cathode assembly 216.”)). Zond also directs our
`attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`patent”), which is being challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., IPR2014-
`00843. Id.
`The Specification of the ’652 patent provides:
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma
`from the initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also
`referred to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-
`density plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined
`herein to mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma
`density. For example, the peak plasma density of the high-
`density plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge
`current that is formed from the high-density plasma can be on
`the order of about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the
`range of about 50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of
`about 5 mTorr to 10 Torr.
`IPR2014-00843, Ex. 1401, 10:57–67.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Zond characterizes the ’652 patent as “a related patent” (Prelim.
`Resp. 16), Zond does not explain how the ’652 patent is related to the
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’759 patent). In fact,
`those patents do not share the same written disclosure, nor do they derive
`from the same parent application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference exists between the
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1402 ¶ 22; Prelim. Resp. 16–17.
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across both the ’652 and the
`’759 patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1401, 6:30–38. For this decision, we construe
`the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low
`peak density of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “a
`plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`2. “multi-step ionization process”
`Claim 40 recites “the multi-step ionization process comprising
`
`exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma, without forming an arc
`discharge, to ions that sputter target material from the sputtering target.”
`Intel asserts that the claim term “multi-step ionization process” should be
`interpreted as “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.” Pet. 17–18 (emphasis
`omitted). Zond responds that Intel’s proposed construction would render the
`other language recited in the claim (e.g., “exciting the ground state atoms to
`generate excited atoms”) superfluous. Prelim. Resp. 17–19. Instead, Zond
`asserts that the claim term “multi-step ionization process” should be
`construed as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.” Id. at
`18–19 (citing Ex. 1401, 9:18–36).
`On this record, we adopt Zond’s proposed construction for the claim
`term “multi-step ionization process” as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation for this decision, consistent with the Specification of the ’759
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1401, 9:18–36. Moreover, it does not import
`improperly a limitation (e.g., a statistically-significant portion of the ions are
`produced) into the claims. It is well settled that if a feature is not necessary
`to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it is
`“extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v.
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`The parties identify three claim elements recited in claim 40 as
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.1 Pet. 18–20;
`Prelim. Resp. 20–24. We agree that those claim elements are written in
`means-plus-function form and fall under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, because:
`(1) each claim element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for”
`in each claim element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term
`“means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform
`the claimed function. Personalized Media Commc’ns LLC v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim element using the
`term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended
`
`
`1 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`284, 296 (2011). Because the ’759 patent has a filing date before September
`16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.); Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420,
`1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The presumption is not rebutted if the term
`“means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any
`structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function.).
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424
`(Fed. Cir.1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all things
`necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`
`1. “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to a sputtering target”
`We first observe that the recited function for this claim element is
`“ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a
`sputtering target.” Zond submits that the corresponding structure for that
`recited function is “a pulsed power supply electrically connected to a
`cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Intel
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`proposes a similar construction. Pet. 18. Further, both parties direct our
`attention to the component of a magnetron sputtering apparatus described in
`the Specification that generates a weakly-ionized plasma. Prelim. Resp. 20–
`21 (citing Ex. 1401, 6:22–26 (“pulsed power supply 234 is a component in
`an ionization source that generates the weakly-ionized plasma”), 15:7–17);
`Pet. 18 (citing e.g., Ex. 1401, 4:57–65, 6:53–7:8 (“[A] direct current (DC)
`power supply . . . is used to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or pre-
`ionized plasma.”), Figs. 2, 7).
`Figure 2 of the ’759 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a
`cross-sectional view of a magnetron sputtering apparatus:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2 of the ’759 patent, the power generated by
`pulsed power supply 234 partially ionizes the gas that is located in region
`245 between cathode assembly 216 and anode 238. Ex. 1401, 10:40–42.
`The partially ionized gas is referred to as a weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`10:42–44. Pulsed power supply 234 applies a voltage pulse between
`cathode assembly 216 and anode 238. Id. at 6:24–26.
`Given that disclosure in the ’759 patent, we identify the corresponding
`structure for performing the recited function—“ionizing a feed gas to
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a sputtering target”—to be a
`power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`electrode.
`
`2. “means for generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in
`the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the sputtering target”
`We observe that the recited function for this claim element is
`“generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the
`magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the sputtering target.”
`Zond submits that the corresponding structure for that recited function
`is “a magnet assembly having either a permanent magnet or a current source
`coupled to one or more electro-magnets.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Intel
`proposes a similar construction. Pet. 19. As the parties point out, magnetic
`field 254 is generated by permanent magnets 256 (shown in Figure 2) or a
`current source coupled to electro-magnets. Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex.
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`1401, 6:10–14); Pet 19 (citing e.g., Ex. 1401, 5:58–6:21 (“[T]he magnet
`assembly 252 is adapted to create a magnetic field 254[, which] can include
`permanent magnets 256, or alternatively, electro-magnets.”). Upon review
`of the Specification of the ’759 patent, we agree with the parties that the
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function—“generating a
`magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to
`the sputtering target”—to be a magnet assembly having either a permanent
`magnet or a current source coupled to one or more electro-magnets.
`
`3. “means for applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma . . .”
`We observe that the recited function for this claim element is
`“applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma, an amplitude and a
`rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase an excitation rate of
`ground state atoms that are present in the weakly-ionized plasma to create a
`multi-step ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma, the multi-step ionization process comprising
`exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma, without forming an arc
`discharge, to ions that sputter target material from the sputtering target.”
`Zond submits that the corresponding structure for that recited function
`is “a pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode,
`and/or an electrode.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Intel proposes a similar
`construction. Pet. 20. According to the parties, the Specification discloses a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`pulsed power supply that applies a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized
`plasma. Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1401, 7:27–30, 7:65–66, 15:7–17);
`Pet. 20 (citing e.g., Ex. 1401, 5:6–49, 8:51–10:6). On this record, we adopt
`Zond’s construction, and determine, for the purposes of this decision, that
`the corresponding structure for performing the aforementioned recited
`function to be a pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an
`anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Claim 40—Obviousness over the Combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`Intel asserts that claim 40 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 38–53. As
`support, Intel provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation
`is met by the references and rationales for combining the references, as well
`as a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1402). Id.
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`not disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 43–54. Zond also argues
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang
`and Kudryavtsev. Id. at 25–43.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Intel has demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 40 is
`unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Our analysis
`focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1405, Abs. In particular, Wang
`discloses a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10
`includes anode 24, cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, pulsed DC power
`supply 80, as well as pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20.
`Id. at 3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus creates high density
`plasma in region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered
`particles into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering
`rate. Id. at 4:13–34. Magnet assembly 40 creates a magnetic field near
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`target 14, which traps electrons from the plasma to increase the electron
`density. Id. at 4:23–27. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of
`the sputtered particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly
`and effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29. Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how
`the apparatus applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1402 ¶ 138; see also Pet. 47.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1404, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, reproduced below (with annotations added by Intel
`(Pet. 33)), illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages
`of ionization:
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-
`step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1402 ¶ 78; Pet. 27.
`Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`Ex. 1404, 31, right col., ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes
`that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`Reasons to combine Wang and Kudryavtsev
`Intel asserts that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev discloses
`the “voltage pulse” and “multi-step ionization process” claim elements
`recited in claim 40. Pet. 45–53 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 122–139). Intel
`acknowledges that Wang does not disclose expressly a voltage pulse that
`“increase[s] an excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process.” Pet. 48.
`Nonetheless, Intel contends that such an increase in excitation rate of ground
`state atoms in a multi-step ionization process was well known in the art at
`the time of the invention, as evidenced by Kudryavtsev. Id. at 48–50 (citing
`Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 129–130); see also id. at 31–33. Intel submits that it would
`have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust Wang’s
`operating parameters (e.g., to increase the pulse length of the power and/or
`the pressure of the gas inside the chamber) to trigger a fast stage of
`ionization. Id. at 48–49. According to Intel, triggering such a fast stage of
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would increase plasma density and, thereby,
`would increase the sputtering rate, and reduce the time required to reach a
`given plasma density. Id.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`Zond, however, disagrees that it would have been obvious to combine
`the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev, arguing Wang’s power
`pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus differs significantly from
`Kudryavtsev’s plasma apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 38–43. In particular, Zond
`argues “the electron fluxes for the slow and fast stages of Kudryavtsev’s
`system . . . would be substantially different in a system that uses magnets
`and magnetic fields like [] Wang’s system.” Id. at 40–41.
`Given the evidence on this record, those arguments are not persuasive.
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
`(noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can
`be combined physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one
`with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching
`of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
`judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
`Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (A person with ordinary skill
`in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in
`many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
`like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`Zond has not explained adequately why triggering a fast stage of
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would have been beyond the level of
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`ordinary skill, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Kudryavtsev
`states that because “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of
`ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas, they
`must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas
`lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1404, 34, right col. (emphasis
`added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field.
`Ex. 1405, 7:61–63; see also Ex. 1402 ¶ 147. More importantly, Wang
`discloses background power PB of 1 kW (falling within the range of 0.1–100
`kW, as disclosed in the ’759 patent, for generating a weakly-ionized
`plasma), and pulse peak power PP of 1 MW (falling within the range of
`1kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’759 patent, for generating a strongly-
`ionized plasma). Ex. 1405, 7:19–25; Ex. 1401, 11:52–58, 12:24–36, Fig. 5.
`Dr. Kortshagen testifies that “[b]ecause Wang’s power levels fall within the
`ranges disclosed by the ’759 Patent, Wang is as likely as is the ’759 Patent
`to increase the excitation rate of ground state atoms within the weakly-
`ionized plasma and to cause multi-step ionization.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 128.
`On this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is
`consistent with the prior art disclosures. We also agree with Dr. Kortshagen
`that triggering a fast stage of ionization (as disclosed by Kudryavtsev) in
`Wang’s apparatus would have been a combination of known techniques
`yielding the predictable results of increasing plasma density and the degree
`of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1402 ¶ 129.
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00447
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev is merely a predicable use of prior art
`elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`
`Voltage pulse
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond alleges that the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev would not have suggested generation of a “voltage
`pulse” as recited in claim 40. Prelim. Resp. 47–50. In particular, Zond
`argues that Wang discloses a power pulse, rather than a voltage pulse. Id.
`at 49. However, as Intel indicates in its Petition, Wang, in fact, discloses a
`pulsed DC power supply connected to the target that “generates a train of
`negative voltage pulses.” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1405, 7:61–62 (emphasis
`added), Fig. 7). Dr. Kortshagen explains that “[t]hose voltage pulses create
`Wang’s peak power pulses, PP, which are applied to Wang’s weakly-ionized
`plasma, i.e., the plasma generated by the bac