U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00275 US1
`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. 7,808,184 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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 .................................................................................. 3
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ...................................................................... 4
`A. Plasma ............................................................................................................ 4
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms ................................................................................ 5
`V. Overview of the ‘184 Patent .............................................................................. 6
`A. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 Patent ....................................... 6
`B. Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 7
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ................................................ 8
`A. Summary of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 8
`B. Overview of Mozgrin .................................................................................... 8
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ...........................................................................10
`D. Overview of Wang ......................................................................................11
`VII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................12
`A.
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma” ..........................13
`VIII. Specific Ground for Petition .......................................................................15
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ....................................................15
`1.
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................15
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ...............................................................................27
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`3. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5 and 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ......................................................30
`B. Ground II: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis .........................................34
`1.
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................35
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ...............................................................................38
`3. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 ..................................................39
`C. Ground III: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Wang ........................................................................39
`D. Ground IV: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis and Wang ...................................................................41
`E. Ground V: Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev ...................................................................................43
`1.
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................43
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ...............................................................................52
`3. Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev ...............................................................................53
`IX. Conclusion ......................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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 7,808,184
`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 litigation matters that would affect or be affected
`
`by a decision in the proceeding. Additionally, Petitioner is also filing Petitions for
`
`Inter Partes review for several patents related1 to U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184. A
`
`complete list of the related litigations is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1024.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Richard Goldenberg (Registration No. 38,895)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`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 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`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 1-5 and 11-15 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 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’184 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:2
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`
`2
`The ’184 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 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`2.
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)), 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. 1006), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1006 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1007. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1008.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’184 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Dr. Richard DeVito (“DeVito Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed herewith, demonstrates that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not patentable.3 See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`Plasma
`A.
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1002). 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 number of
`
`ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.4 DeVito Decl. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002). 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
`
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the
`
`’184 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘184 Patent
`
`in a separate petition.
`
`4 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. DeVito Decl. ¶ 20, n.1 (Ex. 1002).
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002). Ions in
`
`the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002). The ejected target material then forms a
`
`film on the substrate. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive
`
`release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`22 (Ex. 1002). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before
`
`the ‘184 patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex.
`
`1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex.
`
`1002). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the
`
`atom is said to be in the “ground state.” DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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.”
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have
`
`equal numbers of electrons and protons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an
`
`excited atom. DeVito Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘184 Patent uses
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from
`
`a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘184 Patent at 10:40 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high energy,
`
`electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. DeVito Decl. ¶ 26
`
`(Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘184 Patent uses the following equation to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘184 Patent
`
`at 10:42 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1013), which names the
`
`same inventor and is owned by a common assignee, uses the following equation to
`
`describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See
`
`‘759 Patent at 3:58 (Ex. 1013).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ’184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘184 PATENT
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 Patent
`A.
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘184 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a voltage pulse
`
`in a manner that allegedly avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘184 Patent are directed to methods that
`
`supply a feed gas and apply a voltage pulse between an anode and a cathode
`
`assembly. The voltage pulse increases an ionization rate and forms a so-called
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma.” The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc.”
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further operational details, such as
`
`moving a magnet, characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur during
`
`the generation of a voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`In the first substantive office action, the only rejection was a nonstatutory
`
`obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 7,095,179 in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No 5,746,693. See 12/08/09 Office Action (Ex. 1009). The Patent Owner
`
`traversed the double patenting rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. See
`
`06/03/10 Response and accompanying Terminal Disclaimer (Ex. 1010). The
`
`claims were then allowed. See 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1011).
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner noted that the prior art of record
`
`failed to disclose “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude
`
`and a controlled rise time that increase an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`electron density…” and “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled
`
`amplitude and a controlled rise time that shifts an electron energy distribution in
`
`the plasma to higher energies that increase an ionization rate so as to result in a
`
`rapid increase in electron density.” 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance at 2 (Ex. 1011).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`Summary of the Prior Art
`A.
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘184 Patent. DeVito Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin5
`Mozgrin teaches forming a strongly-ionized plasma “without forming an
`
`arc.” Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`5 Mozgrin is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Mozgrin was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. DeVito Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). Increasing the current applied to the
`
`“high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`region 3. DeVito Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 39
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002). Further increasing
`
`the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc
`
`discharge” region 4. DeVito Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. DeVito Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev6
`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. 1004). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). The first process is direct ionization, in
`
`6 Kudryavtsev is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Kudryavtsev was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`which ground state atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at
`
`Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1002). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can
`
`be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1003). See also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1005). 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
`
`7 Wang is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Wang was not substantively
`
`applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1005); see also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1005). DeVito Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. DeVito Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in Inter Partes Review is given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 different from its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`All challenged claims require generation of a “strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Additionally, some of the dependent claims further require the creation of a
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” before generating the “strongly-ionized plasma.” See
`
`Claims 4 and 14.
`
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. DeVito Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘184 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma by application of the low power stage 258 and then forming a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma by application of higher voltage and power. ‘184 Patent at 7:29-
`
`46; 8:41-60 (Ex. 1001). The ‘184 Patent also provides exemplary densities for the
`
`weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘184 Patent at 7:14-17
`
`(“Weakly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are
`
`less than about 1012 – 1013 cm-3 and strongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas
`
`having plasma densities that are greater than about 1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`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.”
`
`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-
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1017).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUND FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 49- 154 (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the 184 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in
`view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 1, 2,
`
`4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev, are being submitted hereto as Exhibit 1019 (Ex. 1019). Mr. DeVito
`
`has reviewed the claim chart and agrees with it. See DeVito Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1002).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`The preamble
`a)
`Claim 1 begins, “[a] method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma.” The
`
`densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`• Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.9
`
`9 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`• Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.10
`
`• Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.11
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1002). The density in those regions matches the exemplary
`
`density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘184 Patent. ‘184 Patent at 7:14-
`
`17 (“[S]trongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that
`
`are greater than about 1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 53
`
`(Ex. 1002). Accordingly, Mozgrin teaches the preamble. DeVito Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Limitation (a)
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads, “supplying feed gas proximate to an anode
`
`and a cathode assembly.”
`
`In the commonly owned, and previously filed, ‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner
`
`admitted that this limitation was known. ‘759 Patent at 3:19-21 [describing prior
`
`10 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni ≅ 1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`art Fig. 1] (“A feed gas source 109…is introduced into the vacuum chamber…”);
`
`3:23-24 (“The magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a cathode
`
`assembly 114…”); 3:40-41 (“An anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber
`
`104 proximate to the cathode assembly 114.”) (Ex. 1013). See also DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`54 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 also shows anode “2” and cathode “1.” DeVito Decl. ¶ 55
`
`(Ex. 1002). Mozgrin discloses filling the space between the anode and cathode
`
`with a feed gas such as Argon. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“…the discharge gap
`
`which was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”); 400, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“We investigated the discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10
`
`torr…”); 402, ¶ spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high-current
`
`discharge in wide ranges of discharge current…and operating pressure…using
`
`various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”);
`
`401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma] discharge…was adjacent to the cathode.”) (Ex.
`
`1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also discloses that its
`
`cathode includes a sputtering target. DeVito Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002). Specifically,
`
`Mozgrin discusses sputtering that occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col.,
`
`¶4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering….”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches limitation (a). DeVito Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1002).
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`“generating a voltage pulse between the anode and
`(1)
`the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin generates the voltage pulse shown in Fig. 3(b). Mozgrin at 402,
`
`Fig. 3 caption (“Fig. 3. Oscillograms of (a) current and (b) voltage…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin applies that voltage pulse
`
`between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“It was
`
`possible to form the high-current quasi-stationary regime by applying a square
`
`voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was filled up with either neutral or pre-
`
`ionized gas.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex.
`
`1002). Mozgrin therefore teaches “generating a voltage pulse between the anode
`
`and the cathode assembly” as required by limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`57 (Ex. 1002).
`
`“the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`(2)
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows Mozgrin’s voltage pulse, is copied below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a has a rise time that is controlled to
`
`be within 5 – 60 µs. Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[t]he power supply was able
`
`to deliver square voltage and current pulses with [rise] times (leading edge) of 5 –
`
`60 µs ….”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1002).
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a also has a controlled amplitude.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1002). Table 1 of Mozgrin shows the parameters,
`
`including voltage, used in Mozgrin’s region 2. Mozgrin at 406, right col, ¶ 2
`
`(“Table 1 presents parameter ranges corresponding to regime 2.”) (Ex. 1003). As
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Table 1, the voltage in region 2 was controlled in a series of
`
`experiments to be in sub-ranges of 260-1100 Volts (e.g., in one experiment being
`
`controlled to 260-990 Volts). Mozgrin at 406, Table 1 (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Therefore, Mozgrin teaches controlling both the rise time and the amplitude
`
`of its voltage pulse as required by this portion of limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex. 1002).
`
`“that increases an ionization rate so that a rapid
`(3)
`increase in electron density and formation of a strongly-
`ionized plasma occurs”
`
`In the Section above regarding the preamble of claim 1, the plasma densities
`
`in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are provided and it was explained that the plasmas in
`
`Mozgrin’s regions 2 and 3 are “strongly-ionized plasmas,” because their densities
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`are greater than the density obtained in region 1 and because they match the
`
`exemplary density for a strongly-ionized plasma given in the ‘184 Patent. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1002). Also, Mozgrin’s density increase from 1011 in region 1 to
`
`1013 in region 2 in response to Mozgrin’s pulse shows that Mozgrin generated a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma by “increasing ionization rate” and “rapid increase in
`
`electron density” as required by limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex.
`
`1002). Such increase in ionization rate and rapid increase in electron density upon
`
`application of a voltage pulse were