U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131.00274 US1
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
` Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00468
`
`
`REVISED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,811,421
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 22-25, 27-30, 33, 34, 38, 39,
`42, 43 AND 46-48
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised 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 ................................................................. - 3 - 
`A.  Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 3 - 
`B. 
`Ions and Excited Atoms ........................................................................... - 5 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘421 Patent ......................................................................... - 6 - 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’421 Patent .................................. - 6 - 
`B.  Prosecution History .................................................................................. - 6 - 
`VI.  Overview of the primary prior art references .............................................. - 7 - 
`A.  Summary of the prior art .......................................................................... - 7 - 
`B.  Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 7 - 
`C.  Overview of Wang ................................................................................... - 9 - 
`VII.  Claim Construction ................................................................................. - 11 - 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................... - 11 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 13 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39, 43 and 46-48 are
`anticipated by Mozgrin ................................................................................... - 13 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin .................................. - 14 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 34 is anticipated by Mozgrin ................................ - 22 - 
`3. 
`Independent claims 46-48 are anticipated by Mozgrin ....................... - 24 - 
`4.  Dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 38, 39 and 43 are
`anticipated by Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 26 - 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B.  Ground II: Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 22-25, 28-30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43
`and 46-48 are anticipated by Wang ................................................................ - 32 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Wang ...................................... - 32 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 17 is anticipated by Wang .................................... - 38 - 
`3. 
`Independent claim 34 is anticipated by Wang .................................... - 40 - 
`4. 
`Independent claims 46-48 are anticipated by Wang ........................... - 41 - 
`5.  Dependent claims 2, 8, 10-13, 16, 22-25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 39, 42 and 43
`are anticipated by Wang .............................................................................. - 43 - 
`C.  Ground III: Claims 17, 22-25, 27-30, 33, and 42 are obvious over the
`combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman .......................................................... - 49 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 17 .......................................................................... - 49 - 
`2.  Dependent claims 22-25, 27-30, 33 and 42 are obvious over the
`combination of Mozgrin with Lantsman .................................................... - 53 - 
`D.  Ground IV: Claims 15, 27 and 38 are obvious over the combination of
`Wang and Mozgrin.......................................................................................... - 55 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 58 - 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised 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 7,811,421
`Revised 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
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (“’421 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.) (Ex.
`
`1022). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in
`
`several patents related1 to the ’421 Patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Richard Goldenberg (Registration No. 38,895)
`
`Backup Counsel: Yung-Hoon Ha (Registration No. 56,368)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: 202-663-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`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 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, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 22-25, 27-30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 46-48 of the
`
`’421 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,
`
`
`2 The ’421 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 22-25, 27-30,
`
`33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 46-48 of the ’421 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102-103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen
`
`(“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed herewith, demonstrates that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not patentable.3 See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-
`
`17, 22-25, 27-30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 46-48 of the ‘421 Patent. Petitioner
`
`seeks to invalidate remaining claims of the ‘421 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`22 (Ex. 1002).4
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘421 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (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
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN2 (Ex. 1002).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘421 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(Ex. 1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(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.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (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.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘421 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘421 Patent at 13:47 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘421 Patent uses the following equations
`
`to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or
`
`an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘421 Patent at 4:20 and 13:495 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘421 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘421 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’421 Patent
`The claims of the ‘421 Patent are directed to using a single voltage pulse to
`
`generate a so called weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing. Specific claims add operational details such as
`
`characteristics of the voltage pulse, using ions in the plasma for sputtering and the
`
`type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`5 The equation describing production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon
`
`atom, Ar*, is printed incorrectly in the ‘421 patent, i.e., the “*” is omitted. See
`
`‘421 Application at ¶[0097] (Ex. 1015).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected all pending claims over WO
`
`02/103078 A1 (“Kouznetsov”) (Ex. 1006). See 04/21/10 Office Action at 2 (Ex.
`
`1012).
`
`The Patent Owner traversed the rejection arguing that rather than a single
`
`pulse, Kouznetsov uses two distinct pulses. See 06/23/10 Resp. at 10, ¶ 1
`
`(“Kouznetsov does not describe apparatus that generate a voltage pulse between
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Indeed, Kouznetsov
`
`describes methods and apparatus for generating two separate and independent
`
`pulses.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1013). The claims were then allowed. See
`
`08/19/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1014).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the prior art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘421 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 32
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin6
`
`
`6 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not applied substantively during prosecution.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.” Fig.
`
`7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a
`
`plasma discharge.
`
`
`
`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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (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).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1002). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (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 Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 38 (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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). Within its broad
`
`disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and etching, Mozgrin describes
`
`arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C. 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 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1004). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1004); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (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. 1004). Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 40 (Ex. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial,
`
`industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.8 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`
`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.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42
`
`(Ex. 1002). With reference to Fig. 6, the ‘421 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 330 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 350. ‘421 Patent at 15:56-61; 16:38-44 (Ex. 1001). The ‘421 Patent
`
`also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas. See ‘421 Application at original pending claim 22 (“wherein the peak
`
`plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”);
`
`original pending claim 26 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1015).9
`
`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
`
`9 Pending claims 22 and 26 were canceled during prosecution, but were
`
`nonetheless part of the original disclosure of the ‘421 Patent. See also ‘421 Patent
`
`at 8:22-28 (Ex. 1001).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1016).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 22-25, 27-30,
`
`33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 46-48 of the ’421 Patent, and how those claims are
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`The claim charts that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid, are submitted hereto as Exhibits 1017-1020 (Exs.
`
`1017-1020). Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those charts and agrees with them.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46, 47, 93, 142, and 160 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39, 43 and 46-48
`are anticipated by Mozgrin
`
`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,
`
`8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39, 43 and 46-48 are anticipated by Mozgrin, is submitted
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1017 (Ex. 1017). Dr. Kortshagen’s Declaration additionally
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`contains claims charts showing that claims 12 and 13 are anticipated by Mozgrin.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1002).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`a)
`Claim 1 begins, “A sputtering source comprising.” Mozgrin discloses a
`
`The preamble
`
`sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`48 (Ex. 1002).
`
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads “a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`target that is positioned adjacent to an anode.”
`
`The ‘421 Patent admits that the claimed cathode assembly and anode were
`
`well known. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘421 Patent
`
`shows in prior art Fig. 1 a “cross-sectional view of a known magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus 100…” ‘421 Patent at 3:39-40 (Ex. 1001). The known “magnetron
`
`sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a cathode assembly 114 having a target
`
`material 116.” ‘421 Patent at 3:51-52 (Ex. 1001). Moreover, “an anode 130 is
`
`positioned in the vacuum chamber 104 proximate to the cathode assembly.” ‘421
`
`Patent at 4:1-2 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Similarly, Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is adjacent to
`
`Mozgrin’s anode “2.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also discloses
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`that its cathode includes a sputtering target. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51(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). In a magnetron, the portion of the cathode that can be
`
`sputtered is the “sputtering target.” See, e.g., Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4
`
`(“…The pulsed deposition rate of the cathode material…”) (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1002).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin’s power supply is shown in Fig. 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex.
`
`1002). The upper portion of the ‘421 Patent’s Fig. 6, which shows the ‘421
`
`Patent’s voltage pulse, and Mozgrin’s Fig. 3b, which shows the voltage pulse
`
`generated by Mozgrin’s power supply, are copied below. As shown, Mozgrin’s
`
`voltage pulse is very similar to the ‘421 Patent’s voltage pulse. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`52 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Excerpt of Fig. 6 of ’421 Patent
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 3(b) of Mozgrin
`(Ex. 1003)
`
`Mozgrin’s voltage pulse is applied between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode
`
`assembly. 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.”) (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1002).
`
`(2)
`“that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma”
`
`The ‘421 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘421 Patent at 8:22-23 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1001). Mozgrin’s power supply
`
`(shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin
`
`at 402, right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.…
`
`Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge
`
`(pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘421 Patent. ‘421
`
`Application at original pending claim 22 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1015); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary
`
`magnetron discharge; … provided the initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3
`
`range.”) (Ex. 1003) (emphasis added). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1002).
`
`After Mozgrin creates the weakly-ionized plasma in region 1, the voltage
`
`shown in region 2 of Fig. 3b increases the density of the plasma and forms a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002). The density of
`
`Mozgrin’s region 2 plasma matches the exemplary density for strongly-ionized
`
`plasma given in the ‘421 Patent. ‘421 Application at original pending claim 26
`
`(“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1015); Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering
`
`… plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).)” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). See
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`(3)
`“without an occurrence of arcing between the
`anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`Limitation (b) of claim 1 continues “without an occurrence of arcing
`
`between the anode and the cathode assembly.” Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs
`
`can be avoided. Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1002).
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`In addition to the ‘421 Patent, the Patent Owner also owns the related U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent” (Ex. 1007)) and the Patent Owner has
`
`asserted both the ‘421 and ‘759 Patents in concurrent litigation against the
`
`Petitioner. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner argued that
`
`Mozgrin did not teach the “without forming an arc” limitation. See 05/02/06 Resp.
`
`of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1021). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin does teach creating a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma “without an occurrence of arcing between the anode and
`
`the cathode assembly.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002).
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and current is
`
`allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma will remain
`
`in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s discussion
`
`of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). One
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided
`
`during an industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex.
`
`1002). For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm
`
`(“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`1989, over a decade before the ‘421 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a
`
`problem…” Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1008).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e.g.,
`
`Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents caused
`
`the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The parameters
`
`of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the condition of its
`
`transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given set of the