Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Revised Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2
`
`(“the ’184 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 claims 6–10 and 16–20 (“the challenged claims”) 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 claims 6–10 and
`
`16–20 of the ’184 patent based on the specific grounds discussed below.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`Intel indicates that the ’184 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., No.1:13-cv-11570-RGS (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Intel also identifies other
`
`cases where Zond asserted the claims of the ’184 patent against third parties,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`as well as other Petitions for inter partes review that are related to this
`
`proceeding. Id.
`
`B. The ’184 patent
`
`The ’184 patent relates to methods for generating strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas in a plasma generator. Ex. 1101, Abs. When creating a plasma in a
`
`chamber, a direct current (“DC”) electrical discharge, which is generated
`
`between two electrodes with a feed gas, generates electrons in the feed gas
`
`that ionize atoms to create the plasma. Id. at 1:16–20. For an application,
`
`such as magnetron plasma sputtering, a relatively high level of energy must
`
`be supplied, which may result in overheating the electrodes or the work
`
`piece. Id. at 1:21–26. Such overheating may be addressed by complex
`
`cooling mechanisms, but such cooling can cause temperature gradients in the
`
`chamber causing a non-uniform plasma process. Id. at 1:26–30. These
`
`temperature gradients may be reduced by pulsing the DC power, but high-
`
`power pulses may result in arcing at plasma ignition and termination. Id. at
`
`1:31–36. Arcing is problematic because it can cause the release of
`
`undesirable particles in the chamber thereby contaminating the work piece.
`
`Id. at 1:36–37, 4:8–11.
`
`According to the ’184 patent, a pulsed power supply may include
`
`circuitry that minimizes or eliminates the probability of arcing in the
`
`chamber by limiting the plasma discharge current to a certain level and
`
`dropping the generated voltage for a certain period of time if the limit is
`
`exceeded. Id. at 4:6–15. Figure 2, reproduced below, shows measured data
`
`of discharge voltage as a function of discharge current for admitted prior-art,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`low-current plasma 152, and high-current plasma 154 created by the claimed
`
`methods using the pulsed power supply. Id. at 1:58–60.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows current-voltage characteristic 154 that represents
`
`actual data for plasma generated by the pulsed power supply in the plasma
`
`sputtering system depicted in Figure 1 (not reproduced here). Id. at 5:28–30.
`
`The current-voltage characteristic 154 is in a high-current regime that
`
`generates a relatively high plasma density (greater than 1012–1013 cm-3). Id.
`
`at 5:40–43. The pulsed power supply generates waveforms that create and
`
`sustain the high-density plasma with current-voltage characteristics in the
`
`high-current regime. Id. at 5:55–59. The ’184 patent explicitly defines the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`term “high-current regime” as “the range of plasma discharge currents that
`
`are greater than about 0.5 A/cm2 for typical sputtering voltages of between
`
`about -300V to -1000V. The power density is greater than about 250 W/cm2
`
`for plasmas in the high-current regime.” Id. at 5:43–48.
`
`The ’184 patent also describes a multi-stage ionization process
`
`wherein a multi-stage voltage pulse that is generated by the pulsed power
`
`supply creates a strongly-ionized plasma. See id. at 2:1–3; 7:4–7 (describing
`
`Figure 4 (not reproduced here) as such an example); id. at 14:50–15:46
`
`(describing Figure 5C (not reproduced here) as an illustrative multi-stage
`
`voltage pulse). Such a multi-stage voltage pulse initially generates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma in a low-current regime (shown as 152 in Figure 2
`
`above), and then eventually generates a strongly-ionized or high-density
`
`plasma in a high-current regime. Id. at 7:10–13. “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.” Id. at 7:14–18.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`All of the challenged claims are dependent on either independent
`
`claim 1 or 11. Challenged claims 6 through 10 depend from claim 1, and
`
`challenged claims 16 through 20 depend from claim 11. Claim 1,
`
`reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. A method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma, the
`method comprising:
`
`a) supplying feed gas proximate to an anode and a cathode
`assembly; and
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`b) generating a voltage pulse between the anode and the
`cathode assembly, the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time that increases
`an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron density
`and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma occurs without
`forming an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly.
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:24–54 (emphasis added). Intel characterizes the challenged
`
`claims as “directed to further operational details, such as moving a magnet,
`
`characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur during the
`
`generation of the voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.” Pet. 7.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Intel relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`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. 1103) (“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. 1104) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1107) (“Mozgrin
`Thesis”).1
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Intel provided a
`certified English-language translation (Ex. 1106).
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Intel asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`8 and 18
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`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, Intel proposes a construction of the terms
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–15. Zond
`
`offers its own construction of these two terms in addition to a construction of
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`a “voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time.” Prelim. Resp. 11–16 (emphases added). We address
`
`each of the claim terms identified by the parties in turn.
`
`1. “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Both independent claims 1 and 11 recite “formation of a strongly-
`
`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. 14 (emphasis omitted). Intel notes that the ’184 patent
`
`provides exemplary densities for weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas. Id. (quoting Ex. 1101, 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.”)). Intel’s contention is
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Richard DeVito. Id. (citing Ex. 1102);
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 45–48. In his declaration, Dr. DeVito defines the term
`
`“density” in the context of plasma as “the number of ions or electrons that
`
`are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 20.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively
`
`low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`ions.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1101, 7:12–132 (referring to strongly-
`
`ionized plasma as a “high-density plasma”); id. at 8:3–4 (stating “peak
`
`plasma density can be controlled by controlling the slope of the rise time of
`
`the voltage pulse”); Ex. 1113, 10:4–5 (referring to U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`B2 (“the ’759 patent), which is challenged in IPR2014-00443 – IPR2014-
`
`00447, as stating the “strongly-ionized plasma [as] having a large ion
`
`density”); Ex. 1101, 17:24–25 (describing weakly ionized plasma as “plasma
`
`having a relatively low-level of ionization”); id. at 6:58–59 (referring to
`
`“weakly ionized plasma” as “low-density plasma”)). Zond also directs our
`
`attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`
`patent”), which is being challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00843. Prelim. Resp. 13.
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 2004, 10:57–67.
`
`
`
`2 Zond refers to the ’184 patent as exhibit 1001, but the exhibit number for
`the ’184 patent in this proceeding is 1101. Therefore, we will refer to the
`’184 patent by “Ex. 1101” for this proceeding.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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. 13), Zond does not explain how the ’652 patent is related to the
`
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’184 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. 13–15; Ex. 1102 ¶ 45–48; Prelim. Resp. 11–13.
`
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across the ’652, the ’759, and
`
`the ’184 patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 7:14–18. 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. “a voltage pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`
`
`
`Both independent claims 1 and 11 recite the feature of “generating a
`
`voltage pulse . . . having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time” to achieve an increasing ionization rate so that a rapid
`
`increase in electron density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`occurs without forming an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly.3
`
`Intel does not proffer a construction for this claim feature. Zond offers a
`
`construction, focusing on the meaning of the term “control.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`14–15. Zond relies on Webster’s dictionary definition of the term “control”
`
`as “the condition of being directed or restrained.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex.
`
`2002). Utilizing this definition, Zond proposes that the claim language
`
`“generating a voltage pulse . . . having at least one of a controlled amplitude
`
`and a controlled rise time” should be construed as “generating a voltage
`
`pulse whose amplitude and/or rise time are directed or restrained” to achieve
`
`the increased ionization rate for formation of a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without arcing. We are persuaded that, on this record, the proffered
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable construction supported by the
`
`Specification of the ’184 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 6:8–9 (stating the
`
`pulsed power supply “can be programmed to generate voltage pulses having
`
`various shapes”); id. at 8:41–60 (referring to Fig. 4, describing specific,
`
`relatively fast rise time of the voltage shifts the electron energy distribution
`
`to higher energies for formation of the strongly-ionized plasma).
`
`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
`
`
`
`3 Claim 11 adds that such amplitude or controlled rise time of the voltage
`pulse “shifts an electron energy distribution in the plasma to higher
`energies” to achieve the increased ionization rate. See Ex. 1101, 23:21–28.
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`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. Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 – Obvious over
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`Intel asserts that claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Pet. 43–56. As support, Intel provides detailed explanations
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`as to how each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for
`
`combining the references, as well as a declaration of Dr. DeVito (Ex. 1102).
`
`Id.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`
`not disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 45–49. Zond also argues
`
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev. Id. at 48.
`
`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 claims 6, 7, 9, 10,
`
`16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as
`
`to the claims.
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1105, Abs. Wang also 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:
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at 3:57–4:55.
`
`According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating 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. 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:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`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. DeVito, 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. 1102 ¶¶ 43, 114; see Pet. 45.
`
`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. 1104, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates the atomic energy levels during the
`
`slow and fast stages of ionization. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`As shown in 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. DeVito explains that
`
`Kudryavtsev pre-ionized a gas and then applied a voltage pulse (Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 119; Pet. 47–48), and under these conditions, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 119 (quoting Ex. 1104, 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.” Ex. 1104, 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev –
`“Rapid Increase in Electron Density” Claim Feature
`
`Intel argues that Wang teaches each limitation of claim 1, but as to the
`
`claim feature requiring a “rapid increase in electron density,” “if one of
`
`ordinary skill, did not experience Kudryavtsev’s ‘explosive increase’ in
`
`plasma density in Wang, it would have been obvious to adjust the operating
`
`parameters, e.g., increase the pulse length and/or pressure, so as to trigger
`
`Kudryavtsev’s fast stage of ionization.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 120).
`
`Intel concludes that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`apply Kudryavtsev’s fast stage ionization in Wang’s pulsed magnetron
`
`sputtering device to increase plasma density, thereby reducing the time
`
`required to reach a given plasma density and increasing the sputtering rate.
`
`Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev,
`
`arguing Wang’s magnetron sputtering system and Kudryavtsev’s long
`
`cylindrical electrode structure are incompatible, and therefore, not subject to
`
`combination. Prelim. Resp. 48. In particular, Zond notes that
`
`“Kudryavtsev’s electrodes were spaced nearly two feet apart from each other
`
`at opposite ends of a tube having a diameter of approximately one inch,” and
`
`Kudryavtsev used a special circuit to generate its pulses that was never
`
`described, including whether the circuit controlled amplitude or rise time or
`
`avoided arcing. Id. at 32–33.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, those arguments are not persuasive.
`
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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
`
`ordinary skill, or why one with 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. 1104, 34, right col. (emphasis
`
`added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field.
`
`Ex. 1105, 7:61–63; see also Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (“Because Wang applies voltage
`
`pulses that ‘suddenly generate an electric field,’ one of ordinary skill reading
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Wang would have been motivated to consider Kudryavtsev and to use
`
`Kudryavtsev’s fast stage in Wang.”).
`
`More importantly, Wang discloses that application of the high peak
`
`power PP to the background power PB “quickly causes the already existing
`
`plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma” to form a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma. Ex. 1105, 7:29–30; Ex. 1102 ¶ 117. Dr. DeVito testifies
`
`that “[l]ike Kudryavtsev’s voltage pulse, application of Wang’s voltage
`
`pulse (which produces the peak power PP) to the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`rapidly increases the plasma density and the density of the free electrons.”
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 119.
`
`On this record, we credit Dr. DeVito’s testimony, as it is consistent
`
`with the prior art disclosures. Moreover, we also agree with Dr. DeVito that
`
`if one of ordinary skill did not experience Kudryavtsev’s “explosive
`
`increase” in plasma density in Wang, 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 rapidly
`
`increasing the ionization rate and electron density. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 120.
`
`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.”). We also determine
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`that Intel has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art the “rapid increase in electron density” claim feature.
`
`Voltage Pulse Having a Controlled Amplitude or Rise Time
`
`Intel asserts that Wang discloses “generating a voltage pulse . . .
`
`having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time” to
`
`achieve increasing an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron
`
`density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma occurs without forming
`
`an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly recited in claims 1 and
`
`11. Pet. 46–52 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 117–125).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond contends that neither Kudryavtsev
`
`nor Wang discloses the claimed control of the amplitude or rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse. Prelim. Resp. 45–48. Specifically, Zond asserts that Wang
`
`admits that it shows “idealized” power pulses, thereby acknowledging that
`
`Wang’s power pulses have a rise time that can vary from the desired square
`
`pulse shape. Id. at 45–46. Such an admission, Zond asserts, shows that
`
`Wang’s amplitude and rise time of its power pulse is uncontrolled, and
`
`concomitantly, fails to show any controlled pulse yields a rapid increase in
`
`electron density. Id. at 46.
`
`As Intel notes, Wang expressly discloses selecting a background
`
`power PB of 1 KW and a pulse peak power of 1 MW. Pet. 49 (citing Ex.
`
`1105, 7:19–25 (“Preferably, the peak power level PP is at least 10 times the
`
`background power level PB . . . most preferably 1000 times. . . . A
`
`background power PB of one kW will typically be sufficient.”)). Dr. DeVito
`
`testifies that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that Wang’s
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`voltage amplitude was controlled to produce Wang’s specified peak power
`
`level PP.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 122. On this record, we credit Dr. DeVito’s
`
`testimony, as it is consistent with the prior art disclosures.
`
`While we agree with Zond that Wang illustrates an idealized pulse
`
`form—having a very short rise time as the slope of each power pulse is
`
`perpendicular (see Ex. 1105, Figs. 4, 6), Wang explains that the exact shape
`
`of the voltage pulse depends on the design of the pulsed power supply and
`
`“significant rise times and fall times are expected.” Id. at 5:23–29. Zond
`
`argues that because the pulses that Wang shows are “idealized,” this
`
`amounts to a tacit admission that Wang does not control the rise time.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 46.
`
`The Specification of the ’184 patent, however, describes its
`
`“controlled” voltage pulse in a similar manner to Wang. The Specification
`
`of the ’184 patent provides as follows, with reference to Figure 3, which
`
`shows measured data of a voltage pulse generated by the pulsed power
`
`supply, reproduced below.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00456
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`The pulsed power supply 102 [not shown] can be
`
`programmed to generate voltage pulses having various shapes.
`The desired voltage pulse of FIG. 3 is a square wave voltage
`pulse as shown by the dotted line 203. However, the actual
`voltage pulse 202 generated by the pulsed power supply 102 is
`not perfectly square, but instead includes low frequency
`oscillations that are inherent to the power supply 102. Some of
`these low frequency oscillations can be on the order of 50V or
`more. In addition, the voltage pulse 202 has an initial value
`204 of about -115V that is caused by the charge accumulation
`on the cathode assembly 116 [not shown] for a particular
`repetition rate.
`
`Ex. 1101, 6:8–19 (emphases added). Therefore, we are persuaded, based on
`
`this record, that the amplitude and rise time of Wang’s voltage pulse are
`
`controlled. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 122.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Intel has demonstrated
`
`sufficiently that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev would have
`
`suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art the “voltage pulse
`
`having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`claim feature.
`
`Without Forming an Arc Between the Anode and Cathode Assembly
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
