Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 2, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 2, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 7, 2014, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Revised Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15–17, 22–25, 27–
`
`30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (“the ’421 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Patent Owner 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.
`
`Taking into account Zond’s Preliminary Response, and based on the
`
`information presented in the Petition, we are persuaded a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that Intel would prevail in challenging claims 1, 2, 8, 10–
`
`13, 15–17, 22–25, 27–30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 as unpatentable.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review as
`
`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.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`Intel indicates the ’421 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., No.1:13-cv-11570-JLT (D. Mass.). Pet. 1 and Ex. 1022. Intel also
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’421 patent
`
`against third parties. Id.
`
`B. The ’421 patent
`
`The ’421 patent relates to a high-deposition sputtering apparatus.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was a well-known
`
`technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:15–16.
`
`The ’421 patent indicates prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit
`
`films that have low uniformity, poor target utilization (the target material
`
`erodes in a non-uniform manner), and relatively low deposition rate (low
`
`amount of material deposited on the substrate per unit time). Id. at 1:63–
`
`2:14. To address these problems, the ’421 patent discloses increasing the
`
`power applied between the target and anode can increase the amount of
`
`ionized gas and, therefore, increase the target utilization and sputtering yield.
`
`Id. at 3:20–22. However, increasing the power also “increases the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical
`
`arc) in the process chamber.” Id. at 3:23–29.
`
`According to the ’421 patent, magnetron sputtering apparatus 200
`
`includes cathode assembly 216, which includes cathode 218 and sputtering
`
`target 220. Id. at 6:46–49. Pulsed power supply 234 is directly coupled to
`
`cathode assembly 216. Id. at 7:7–9. Pulsed power supply 234 generates
`
`peak voltage levels of between about 5 kV and about 30 kV, and operating
`
`voltages are generally between about 50 V and 1 kV. Id. at 7:17–20.
`
`The ’421 patent forms a weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma that
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`
`cathode and anode. Id. at 9:16–19. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`9:29–31, 10:8–9.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 17, 34, and 46–48 are
`
`independent. Claims 2, 8, 10–13, 15, 16, 22–25, 27–30, 33, 38, 39, 42, and
`
`43 depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 17, and 34. Claim 1,
`
`reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. A sputtering source comprising:
`
`a) a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering target that is
`positioned adjacent to an anode; and
`
`
`b) a power supply that generates 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 without an occurrence of arcing between the
`anode and the cathode assembly, an amplitude, a duration and a
`rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density
`of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:14–24 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`D. The Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Intel relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`July 2, 2002
`Feb. 20, 2001
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
` US 6,190,512 B1
`
`Wang
`Lantsman
`
`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. 1003) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Intel asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39,
`43, 46–48
`1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–
`30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, 46–48
`
`§ 102
`
`Mozgrin
`
`§ 102
`
`Wang
`
`17, 22–25, 27–30, 33, 42
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`15, 27, 38
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Wang and Mozgrin
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`Here, both parties agree the broadest reasonable construction standard
`
`applies to the claims involved in the instant proceeding, and propose
`
`constructions for the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 11–13; Prelim. Resp. 12–14.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 1 recites “a voltage pulse . . . that creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Intel proposes the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be
`
`interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and the claim term “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet.
`
`11–13. Intel’s Declarant, Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, defines the term “density” in
`
`the context of plasma as “the number of ions or electrons that are present in
`
`a unit volume.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 22.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes the claim term “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted 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.” Prelim. Resp. 12–14
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 12:11–12 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is also
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`referred to as a high-density plasma.”) and 9:24–25 (“the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a low-level of ionization”)).
`
`Zond directs our attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,147,759 B2 (“the ’759 patent”), being challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2014-00443, which refers to “strongly-ionized plasma [as]
`
`having a large ion density” (Prelim. Resp. 13; Ex. 1007, 10:3–5) and of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”), which is being challenged in
`
`Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., Case IPR2014-00843 (PTAB), which states:
`
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma
`
`from the initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also
`referred to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-
`density plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined
`herein to mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma
`density. For example, the peak plasma density of the high-
`density plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge
`current that is formed from the high-density plasma can be on
`the order of about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the
`range of about 50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of
`about 5 mTorr to 10 Torr.
`
`IPR2014-00843, Ex. 1101, 10:57–67.
`
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, although Zond
`
`characterizes the ’652 patent as “a related patent” and refers to the ’759
`
`patent (Prelim. Resp. 14), Zond does not explain how either the ’652 patent
`
`or the ’759 patent is related to the involved patent in the instant proceeding
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`(i.e., the ’421 patent). The ’652 and ’759 patents do not share the same
`
`written disclosure, nor do they derive from the same parent application as
`
`the ’421 patent.
`
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference exists between the
`
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 11–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 22; Prelim. Resp. 12–14.
`
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across all three patents. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:22–28. On this record, therefore, we construe the claim
`
`term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “plasma with a relatively low peak density
`
`of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “plasma with a
`
`relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`Anticipation
`
`In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
`
`reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
`
`claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
`
`Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`
`[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
`document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
`the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
`in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
`thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under
`35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`We analyze the grounds asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in accordance
`
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`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,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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 grounds asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Ground: Claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–30, 33,
`
`34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 – Anticipated by Wang
`
`
`
`Intel asserts claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–30, 33, 34, 39,
`
`42, 43, and 46–48 are anticipated under § 102 by Wang. Pet. 32–49. As
`
`support, Intel provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation
`
`is met by Wang. Id. Intel proffers a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen as
`
`support. Ex. 1002.
`
`Zond responds Wang does not disclose every claim element. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 25–28.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine Intel has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13,
`
`16, 17, 22–25, 28–30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 are anticipated by
`
`Wang. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the
`
`claims.
`
`1. Wang (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1004, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15. Figure 1 of Wang
`
`illustrates a cross-sectional view of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering
`
`reactor. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`
`cathode of target 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 describes target 14 as powered
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`by narrow pulses of negative DC power, the exact shape of which depends
`
`on the design of pulsed DC power supply 80, and significant rise times and
`
`fall times are expected. Id. at 5:18–27.
`
`Figure 6 of Wang illustrates how the apparatus applies a pulsed power
`
`to the plasma. Figure 6 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target power waveform maintains
`
`the target at background power level PB between high power pulses 96 with
`
`peak power level PP. Id. at 7:13–17. Background power level PB exceeds
`
`the minimum power necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the
`
`operational pressure (e.g., 1kW). Id. at 7:17–19. Peak power PP is at least
`
`10 times (preferably 100 or 1000 times) background power level PB. Id. at
`
`7:19–22. The application of high peak power PP causes the existing plasma
`
`to spread quickly, and increases the density of the plasma. Id. at 7:28–30.
`
`According to Declarant Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1002 ¶ 100; see Pet. 9–10.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Intel argues Wang discloses “a voltage pulse . . . that creates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing,” as recited in claim 1. Pet.
`
`34–36. According to Intel, a low density plasma is generated with the
`
`background power, PB, and a high density plasma is created with the peak
`
`power, PP . Id. at 34. Intel further asserts Wang discloses arcing can occur
`
`when a plasma is ignited, i.e., before a first pulse is applied. Id. at 36.
`
`Furthermore, Intel contends, since plasma need not be reignited thereafter,
`
`arcing will not occur during subsequent applications of the background and
`
`peak power levels, PB and PP. Id. Intel, thus, asserts Wang describes
`
`forming the strongly-ionized plasma (and subsequently weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, strongly-ionized plasma, etc.) without arcing. Id.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Zond argues the portion of Wang’s
`
`disclosure on which Intel relies – “the initial plasma ignition needs to be
`
`performed only once and at much lower power levels so that particulates
`
`produced by arcing are much reduced” (emphasis added) – does not disclose
`
`the recited “creates a weakly ionized plasma . . . without an occurrence of
`
`an arc” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 26 .
`
`The discussion in Wang upon which Intel relies discusses initial
`
`plasma ignition that occurs before the waveform illustrated in Figure 6 of
`
`Wang is applied. Ex, 1004, 7:3–6. That initial ignition is described by
`
`Wang as being performed only once so particulates produced by arcing are
`
`much reduced. Id. at 7:47–49. Therefore, when the voltage pulse is applied,
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`particulates produced by arcing are much reduced. It follows, as a result of
`
`that initial ignition, the voltage pulse creates a weakly-ionized plasma and
`
`then a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing, as recited in claim 1 and
`
`commensurately recited in claims 17, 34, and 46–48.
`
`Zond additionally asserts Wang only acknowledges the power pulses
`
`have a rise time that can vary from the desired square shape, or that the
`
`actual shape varies with the power supply design. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`
`According to Zond, Wang does not disclose the power supply chooses or
`
`adjusts the rise time of a voltage pulse. Id.
`
`Wang discloses a voltage pulse changes from the background power
`
`level PB to the peak power PP, to increase the density of the plasma. Id. at
`
`7:28–30, Fig. 6. Wang further discloses these power levels are selected. Id.
`
`at 17-25. 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. 1004, 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. Thus,
`
`we are persuaded Wang discloses “an amplitude, a duration and a rise time
`
`of the voltage pulse being chosen” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately
`
`recited in claims 17, 34, and 46-48.
`
`Thus, on this record, we are persuaded Wang describes
`
`a voltage pulse . . . that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma without an
`occurrence of arcing . . . an amplitude, a duration and a rise time of
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density of ions in the
`strongly-ionized plasma,”
`
`
`as recited in claim 1and commensurately recited in claims 14, 34, and 46-48.
`
`Accordingly, Intel persuades us Wang discloses the invention as
`
`recited in claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and
`
`46–48. Therefore, based on the current record, Intel has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13,
`
`16, 17, 22–25, 28–30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 are anticipated by
`
`Wang.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Ground: Claims 15, 27, and 38 –
`
`Obvious over Wang and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`Intel asserts claims 15, 27, and 38 are obvious under § 103 over Wang
`
`and Mozgrin. Pet. 55–57. As support, Intel provides detailed explanations
`
`as to how each claim limitation is met by the cited references, and rationales
`
`for combining the references. Id. Intel proffers a declaration of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen. Ex. 1002.
`
`Zond argues the Petition should be denied with respect to the
`
`combination of Wang and Mozgrin against claims 15, 27, and 28 because
`
`the Petition does not follow the Graham v. Deere framework by neglecting
`
`to identify the differences between the claims and the cited references and
`
`propose any findings for the level of skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 32–33.
`
`Zond also argues the Petition does not support the “inferential leap” that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Mozgrin’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`voltages in Wang given the substantial differences between the Wang and
`
`Mozgrin equipment. Id. at 33.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record and the Discussion regarding Wang set
`
`forth above, we determine Intel has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its assertion claims 15, 27, and 28 are obvious over Wang and
`
`Mozgrin. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to
`
`the claims.
`
`
`
`1. Mozgrin (Ex. 1003)
`
`Mozgrin discloses experimental research conducted on high-current
`
`low-pressure quasi-stationary discharge in a magnetic field. Ex. 1003, 400,
`
`Title; right column. In Mozgrin, pulse or quasi-stationary regimes are
`
`discussed in light of the need for greater discharge power and plasma
`
`density. Id. In Mozgrin, experiments are conducted using a discharge
`
`device configuration having a cathode (1), anode (2), and magnetic system
`
`(3), as shown in Figure 1(a). Id. at 401.
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin illustrates an oscillogram of voltage of the
`
`quasi-stationary discharge. Id. at 402. Figure 3(b) is reproduced below:
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 3(b), Part 1 represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage); Part 2 displays the square voltage pulse application to the
`
`gap (Part 2a), where the plasma density grows and reaches it quasi-
`
`stationary value (Part 2b); and Part 3 displays the discharge current growing
`
`and attaining its quasi-stationary value. Id. at 402, right col.
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`To support its assertion, that claims 15, 27, and 38 are unpatentable
`
`under §103 over Wang and Mozgrin, Intel bases its arguments on those set
`
`forth with respect to claim 1 in the anticipation ground based on Wang, and
`
`further, proffers arguments addressing the additional recitations of claims
`
`15, 27, and 38, i.e., the sputtering source of independent claims 1, 17, and
`
`34, respectively, “wherein the amplitude of the voltage pulse is in the range
`
`of approximately 1V to 25 kV.” Pet. 55–58; Ex. 1001, 23:4–6, 23:57–59,
`
`24:37–38. Specifically, Intel argues Wang teaches a pulse with a peak
`
`power level PP of 1Mw. Pet. 55. According to Intel, an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have understood Wang’s voltage pulse was a multi-stage pulse
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`producing a peak power pulse PP of constant power for the duration of the
`
`pulse τw as shown in Figure 6 reproduced above. Id. at 56. This would
`
`result in a higher voltage. Id. During a second stage, the voltage applied to
`
`the target would be decreasing. Id. During the third state, the plasma
`
`density would stabilize, resulting in substantially constant voltage for the
`
`duration of the high peak power pulse PP. Id. at 56–57.
`
`
`
`We determine Wang does teach a pulse with three separate stages.
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 6. Wang further teaches a background power level PB of 1kW
`
`is typically sufficient to support a plasma, and preferably, the peak power PP
`
`is at least 10 to 1000 times the background power PB. Id. at 7:22–25.
`
`Intel next contends the voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s Figure 3(b) has a
`
`similarly shaped voltage pulse with the three same phases as Wang;
`
`therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Wang’s
`
`voltage pulse to look similar to that taught by Mozgrin. Pet. 57. Intel then
`
`reasons, because Mozgrin teaches if the discharge current ranged from 0.2 to
`
`15 A, the discharge voltage was approximately 550 Volts. Id. at 57; Ex.
`
`1003, 402, last paragraph – 403, first paragraph. Therefore, as set forth by
`
`Intel, Mozgrin teaches the voltage would be within the recited range of
`
`approximately 1 V to 25 kV.
`
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the combination of
`
`Wang and Mozgrin teaches “wherein the amplitude of the voltage pulse is in
`
`the range of approximately 1 V to 25 kV” as recited in claims 15, 27, and 38.
`
`Zond’s argument that the Petition does not support the reasoning that
`
`one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Mozgrin’s voltage in
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Wang due to the substantial differences between the equipment used by
`
`Wang and Mozgrin (Prelim. Resp. 33) is not persuasive. Zond appears to be
`
`arguing the entire systems of Wang and Mozgrin must be compatible
`
`without articulating the “substantial differences” between the equipment
`
`used by Wang and Mozgrin (id.), while Intel appears to be relying on
`
`Mozgrin as teaching a voltage pulse with specific characteristics. Pet. 57–
`
`58. Intel has stated “[b]oth Mozgrin and Wang [are] related to pulsed
`
`magnetron sputtering systems and one of ordinary skill reading Wang would
`
`have looked to Mozgrin to determine details, such as voltage levels, omitted
`
`from Wang.” Id. at. 57. Intel further asserted “[u]se of Mozgrin’s voltage
`
`level in Wang would have been a combination of old elements to yield
`
`predictable results.” Id. at 57–58.
`
`We are persuaded Intel has articulated sufficient reasoning as to why
`
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found combining Mozgrin’s voltage
`
`pulse with Wang’s system obvious. Accordingly, based on the record before
`
`us, Intel has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`assertion that claims 15, 27, and 38 are obvious over Wang and Mozgrin.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`E. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Intel also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39,
`43, and 46–48
`
`§ 102
`
`Mozgrin
`
`17, 22–25, 27–30, 33, and 42
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b),(regulations for inter partes review take into account
`
`“the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the Office to
`
`timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise our
`
`discretion and do not institute a review based on the other asserted grounds
`
`for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion of the
`
`instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine based on the information
`
`presented in the Petition, taking into account Zond’s Preliminary Response,
`
`Intel has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the ORDER. Therefore, we
`
`authorize an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15–17, 22–25, 27–
`
`30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48. At this stage in the proceeding, we
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims, including the claim construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby authorized for the following grounds of unpatentability for
`
`the ’421 patent:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–
`30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48
`
`§ 102
`
`Wang
`
`15, 27, and 38
`
`§ 103
`
`Wang and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00468
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Richard A. Goldenberg
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`22
`
`
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
