throbber
Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00274US3
`’421 PATENT
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,811,421, CLAIMS 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED: JULY 18, 2005
`
` ISSUED: OCTOBER 12, 2010
`
`TITLE: HIGH DEPOSITION RATE SPUTTERING
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37 of U.S. PATENT No. 7,811,421
`
`
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`- 1 -
`
`INTEL 1202
`
`

`

`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`7.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 (the “’421 patent”) (Ex. 1201). I understand that the ’421
`
`patent was filed on July 18, 2005. I understand that, for purposes determining
`
`whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the ’421 patent
`
`could be entitled to is November 14, 2002.1
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
` D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in
`
`a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No.
`
`5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1203)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1204)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1205)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-
`
`35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1206)).
`
`
`1 The cover page of the ‘421 Patent indicates that it claims priority to U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/091,814, filed on Mar. 28, 2005. However, I have been
`
`informed that in the file history of the ‘421 Patent, the Patent Owner also claimed
`
`priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 10/065,739, now U.S. Patent No 6,896,773,
`
`which was filed on November 14, 2002.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

` D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1207)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1207 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1208. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`at the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1209.
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’421 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’421patent would have found
`
`the ’421invalid.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`12.
`
`financial interest in the ’421 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’421 patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`14.
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`B. Anticipation
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been anticipated at the time the application was filed. This
`
`means that if all of the requirements of a claim are found in a single prior art
`
`reference, the claim is not patentable. I have also been informed that a U.S. Patent
`
`can incorporate by reference subject matter from another U.S. Patent or Patent
`
`Publication. In such instances, I have been informed that I should consider them to
`
`be a single prior art reference. I further understand that a claim is anticipated by a
`
`reference when all the limitations of the claim are present in a single embodiment
`
`described in the reference, even if there are multiple embodiments disclosed in the
`
`reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`17.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`18.
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`22. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.2
`
`23. Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘421 patent was filed. 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). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`24. Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of droplets from the
`
`target that can splatter on the substrate. The need to avoid arcing while sputtering
`
`was known long before the ‘421 patent was filed.
`
`
`2 The terms “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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`B.
`Ions and excited atoms
`25. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`26. 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.” Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal numbers of
`
`electrons and protons. A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground
`
`state atom to an excited atom. 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. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`27. An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of
`
`its electrons. A collision between a free, high energy, electron and a ground state
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘421 Patent uses the following
`
`equations to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘421 Patent at 4:20 and 13:493 (Ex.
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`28. The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the ‘421 patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘421 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’421 Patent
`29. 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.
`30.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I understand that during prosecution, the Examiner rejected all
`
`pending claims over WO 02/103078 A1 (“Kouznetsov”) (Ex. 1210). See 04/21/10
`
`Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1215).
`
`3 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. 1218).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner traversed the rejection arguing that
`
`31.
`
`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.”) (Ex. 1216). I understand that the claims were then
`
`allowed. See 08/19/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1217).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the prior art
`32. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘421 Patent.
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin4
`33. Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.”
`
`34. Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`4 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not applied substantively during prosecution.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`
`
`35. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`36. 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).” (Ex. 1203).
`
`37. Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…” (Ex. 1203). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. 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. 1203).
`
`38. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (Ex. 1203).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`39. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…” (Ex.
`
`1203). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.5 Within its broad disclosure of a range of
`
`issues related to sputtering and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid
`
`it.
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`
`5 As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillogram shown in Mozgrin’s
`
`Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to region 3 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7,
`
`i.e., Fig. 3 represents currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in region
`
`3. Further, as one of ordinary skill would understand, an oscillogram
`
`corresponding to region 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., stable operation in
`
`region 2) would have a different shape, e.g., the voltage would not drop as low as
`
`shown in Fig. 3b and the current would be lower than what is shown in Fig. 3a.
`
`5 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`40. Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a
`
`plasma with voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1206).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1206). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1206).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1206).
`
`Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his
`
`experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in
`
`[Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`41. Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’421
`
`Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang6
`42. 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
`
`
`6 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Fig. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1204). 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. 1204). 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. 1204). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`43.
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that 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, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`44. 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 plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. 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
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 350. ‘421
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`Patent at 15:56-61; 16:38-44 (Ex. 1201). 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. 1218).7
`
`45. Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
` “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`46. The constructions above are consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`
`7 I understand that 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. 1201).
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1219).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`47. The below section demonstrates in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37 of the ’421 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`48.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1220-1225), showing
`
`that each limitation in the foregoing claims is taught in the art. I understand these
`
`claim charts were submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner. Those charts present in summary form the analysis below and I
`
`agree with them.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 9 and 35 are obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev8
`49.
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1220), showing that
`
`claims 9 and 35 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`
`8 I understand that the invalidity of claims 1 and 34 are addressed in a separate
`
`petition. Claims 1 and 34 are addressed herein to establish the invalidity of claims
`
`that depend from claims 1 and 34.
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Kudryavtsev. I understand this claim chart was submitted in an ongoing litigation
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner. This chart presents in summary
`
`form the analysis below and I agree with it.
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`a)
`The preamble
`50. Claim 1 begins, “A sputtering source comprising.” Mozgrin discloses
`
`a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1203). Mozgrin therefore teaches the
`
`preamble.
`
`b)
`Limitation (a)
`51. Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads “a cathode assembly comprising a
`
`sputtering target that is positioned adjacent to an anode.”
`
`52. The ‘421 Patent admits that the claimed cathode assembly and anode
`
`were well known. 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. 1201). The known “magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes
`
`a cathode assembly 114 having a target material 116.” ‘421 Patent at 3:51-52 (Ex.
`
`1201). Moreover, “an anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber 104
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly.” ‘421 Patent at 4:1-2 (Ex. 1201).
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`53. Similarly, Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is
`
`adjacent to Mozgrin’s anode “2.” Mozgrin also discloses that its cathode includes
`
`a sputtering target. 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. 1203). 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.
`
`1203).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`54. Mozgrin’s power supply is shown in Fig. 2. 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
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`copied below. As shown, Mozgrin’s voltage pulse is very similar to the ‘421
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`Patent’s voltage pulse.9
`
`
`
`Excerpt of Fig. 6 of ’421 Patent
`(Ex. 1201)
`
`Fig. 3(b) of Mozgrin
`(Ex. 1203)
`
`
`
`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. 1203).
`
`
`9 Note that the voltage value between t5 and t6 in Fig. 6 of the ‘421 Patent
`
`(corresponding to part 3 of Mozgrin’s Fig. 3(b)) is higher than the value between t1
`
`and t2 (corresponding to part 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig. 3(b)), indicating Fig. 6 of the
`
`‘421 Patent corresponds to an example of operating in Region 2 of Mozgrin’s Figs.
`
`4 and 7 whereas Mozgrin’s Fig. 3b corresponds to an example of operating in
`
`Region 3 of Mozgrin's Figs. 4 and 7.
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`(2)
`“that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma”
`
`55. 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. 1201). 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. 1203).
`
`56. 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”) (Ex. 1218); 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. 1203).
`
`57. 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. 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
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1218); Mozgrin at
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).)” (Ex. 1203).
`
`(3)
`“without an occurrence of arcing between the
`anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`58. 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. 1203).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`59.
`
`In addition to the ‘421 Patent, the Patent Owner also owns the related
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent” (Ex. 1211)) and the Patent Owner has
`
`asserted both the ‘421 and ‘759 Patents in concurrent litigation against the
`
`Petitioner. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, I understand that 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. 1212).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Mozgrin does teach creating a weakly-
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma “without an occurrence of
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`’421 Patent, Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35 and 37
`
`
`arcing between the anode and the cathode assembly.”
`
`60. 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).
`
`61. 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 of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for
`
`avoiding arcs. Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be avoided. See Mozgrin at
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket