Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`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 IPR2014-00470
`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 11
`
`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 IPR2014-00470
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 7, 2014, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35, and 37 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (“the ’421 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“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 Patent Owner Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that Intel would prevail in challenging claims 9, 14,
`
`21, 26, 35, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as
`
`to claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35, and 37 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-RGS (D. Mass.). Pet. 1 and Paper 5. Intel also
`
`identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’421 patent
`
`against third parties. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`B. The ’421 patent
`
`The ’421 patent relates to a high-deposition sputtering apparatus.
`
`Ex. 1201, Abstract 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 having 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 that
`
`increasing the power applied between the target and anode can increase the
`
`amount of ionized gas, therefore, increasing 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
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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 Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, none are independent. Claims 9, 14, 21, 26,
`
`35, and 37 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 17, and 34. Claims
`
`1 and 9, reproduced below, are 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.
`
`
`
`9. The sputtering source of claim 1 wherein the voltage pulse
`generated between the anode and the cathode assembly excites atoms
`in the weakly-ionized plasma and generates secondary electrons from
`the cathode assembly, the secondary electrons ionizing a portion of
`the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1201, 22:14–24, 22:52–57 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`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. 1204)
`(Ex. 1205)
`
` 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. 1203) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`A.A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a Plasma
`Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS. TECH. PHYS.,
`30-35 (January 1983)(Ex. 1206) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1207) (hereinafter “Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference (Ex. 1208). The
`citations to the Mozgrin Thesis are to a certified English-language
`translation by Intel (Ex. 1207).
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Intel asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`9 and 35
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`14 and 37
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`21
`
`26
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`9, 21, and 35
`
`§ 103
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`14, 26, and 37
`
`§ 103
`
`Wang and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Printed Publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`As an initial matter, we address the issue of whether the Mozgrin
`
`Thesis is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the purposes of this
`
`decision. In its Petition, Intel asserts that the Mozgrin Thesis is a doctoral
`
`thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, published in 1994, and thus,
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 3. As support, Intel proffers a
`
`copy of the catalog entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State
`
`Library. Ex. 1209.
`
`Zond responds that Intel fails to demonstrate the Morgrin Thesis is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Prelim. Resp. 51-54. Specifically, Zond
`
`contends the evidence of publication – 1) a copy of the thesis, 2) an entry
`
`from a catalog of “Dissertation’s in Russian since 1995,” and 3) English
`
`translations of these documents – is insufficient to evidence publication. Id.
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`at 52-53. Zond asserts the document does not indicate “1) when the
`
`university received its copy of the thesis, 2) whether or when the public had
`
`unrestricted access to the university’s copy, and 3) whether or when the
`
`university had a system such as a catalog by which interested persons could
`
`search for and locate the thesis” or even from where the thesis came. Id. at
`
`53.
`
`Given the evidence on this record thus far, we are persuaded Intel has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the Mozgrin Thesis is a “printed
`
`publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, at
`
`this juncture, the Mozgrin Thesis is available as prior art for the purposes of
`
`this decision to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`B. 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
`
`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).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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. 10–13; 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.
`
`12–14. 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. 1202 ¶ 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. 14-15
`
`(citing Ex. 1212, 10:4-5, 12:11–12 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is also
`
`referred to as a high-density plasma.”), 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., IPR2014-00443, which refers to “strongly-ionized plasma [as] having a
`
`large ion density” (Prelim. Resp. 15; Ex. 1211, 10:3–5) and of U.S. Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”), which is being challenged in Intel
`
`Corp. v. Zond, Inc., 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
`
`(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. 10–13; Ex. 1202 ¶ 22; Prelim. Resp. 12–14.
`
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across all three patents. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1201, 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.”
`
`C. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`D. Asserted Ground: Claims 9, 21, and 35 – Obvious over Wang and
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Intel asserts claims 9, 21, and 35 are unpatentable under § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 42–55. As support, Intel
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Id. Intel proffers a declaration of
`
`Dr. Kortshagen. Ex. 1202.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`
`not disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 39–49. Specifically, Zond
`
`argues Wang does not disclose the elements recited in independent claims 1,
`
`17, and 34, from which claims 9, 21, and 35 depend.
`
`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 9, 21, and 35
`
`are unpatentable over Wang and Kudryavtsev. Our discussion focuses on
`
`the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`1. Wang (Ex. 1204)
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1204, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`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. 1202 ¶ 126; see Pet. 45.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`2. Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1206)
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1206, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow
`
`and fast stages of ionization. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev is reproduced below
`
`with annotations added by Intel (Pet. 28):
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). Pet. 27–
`
`28 (citing Description of Fig. 1; p. 31, right column, ¶7), 53. During the
`
`initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to the
`
`generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-
`
`step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1202 ¶ 81; Pet. 28.
`
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1206, 31, right col, ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes
`
`that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is
`
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at 30, Abs.; Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`3. 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 and
`
`commensurately recited in claims 17 and 34. Pet. 43–52. 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 45. Intel
`
`further asserts Wang discloses arcing can occur when a plasma is ignited,
`
`i.e., before a first pulse is applied. Id. at 46. 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. at 47.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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. 43–44 (emphases
`
`added).
`
`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, 1204, 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,
`
`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 and 34. Accordingly, based on the
`
`record, we are persuaded Wang discloses the invention as recited in claims
`
`1, 17, and 34.
`
`Claims 9 and 21 recite: “wherein the voltage pulse generated between
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly excites atoms in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and generates secondary electrons from the cathode assembly, the
`
`secondary electrons ionizing a portion of the excited atoms, thereby creating
`
`the strongly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1201, 22:52–57, 23:38–43. Claim 35 is
`
`recited commensurately. Id. at 24:25–30.
`
`Intel relies on Wang as teaching “the voltage pulse generated between
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly” and Kudryavtsev for teaching excited
`
`atoms are produced in both a slow and a fast stage of ionization (“the
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`voltage pulse . . . excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and generates
`
`secondary electrons from the cathode assembly, the secondary electrons
`
`ionizing a portion of the excited atoms” recited in claim 1). Pet. 53.
`
`Relying on its Declarant, Dr. Kortshagen, Intel contends Kudryavtsev
`
`teaches ionization proceeds in a slow stage followed by a fast stage, each
`
`stage producing excited atoms in response to the voltage pulse. Pet. 53; Ex.
`
`1202 ¶ 147. Thus, Intel asserts, because Wang applies a pulse that suddenly
`
`generates an electric field, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
`
`obvious to utilize Kudryavtsev’s teaching to better understand the effects of
`
`applying Wang’s pulse. Pet. 53; Ex. 1202 ¶ 148. According to Intel,
`
`Wang’s power levels fall within the range disclosed by the ’421 patent;
`
`therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect the excited atoms
`
`produced in the ’421 patent would also be produced in Wang. Pet. 53–54;
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 149–151.
`
`With respect to the recited generation of secondary electrons, Intel
`
`argues the ’421 patent admits in the Background section, that secondary
`
`electrons are produced by collisions with the cathode. Pet. 55. Therefore, as
`
`Wang teaches collisions between ions in a high-density plasma (HDP)
`
`region in a sputtering process, Intel asserts Wang’s cathode will also
`
`produce secondary electrons. Id. Moreover, Intel contends Kudryavtsev
`
`teaches collisions between secondary electrons and excited atoms produce
`
`ions, and such collisions also occur in Wang. Pet. 53–54.
`
`Zond disagrees, contending Intel has failed to show claims 9, 21, and
`
`35 are obvious over Wang and Kudryavtsev. Prelim. Resp. 47–49. Zond
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`specifically argues Kudryavtsev withheld teaching of the designed electric
`
`circuit; does not discuss choosing or adjusting a rise time or arcing and its
`
`avoidance; and does not cite mathematically modeled conditions that trigger
`
`arcing or the effects of pulse rise time. Id. at 47. Zond additionally argues
`
`the electrode structure and geometry in Kudryavtsev and Wang are
`
`“radically different” and specifically asserts Wang’s closely spaced
`
`electrodes surrounded by a magnetic field for trapping ions is incompatible
`
`with Kudryavtsev’s two foot long electrode arrangement. Id. at 48-49.
`
`Thus, Zond contends, Petitioner does not proffer a persuasive argument or
`
`evidence to justify combining Kudryavtsev’s teaching with Wang given their
`
`structural incompatibility. Id. at 49.
`
`Based upon the record before us, Zond’s arguments are not
`
`persuasive. “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based
`
`on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
`
`(noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can
`
`be combined physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)). Additionally, one
`
`cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
`
`Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Here, Intel is relying on Kudryavtsev for teaching excited atoms are
`
`produced in both a slow and a fast stage of ionization. Specifically,
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Kudryavtsev states “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of
`
`ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas, they
`
`must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas
`
`lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1206, 34, right col. (emphasis
`
`added). Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1206, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`Therefore, on this record, we determine Kudryavtsev teaches collisions
`
`between secondary electrons and excited atoms produce ions.
`
`Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field
`
`between the anode and the cathode assembly. Ex. 1204, 7:61–63; see
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶ 148. More importantly, Wang discloses background power PB of
`
`1 kW (falling within the ’421 patent’s range of 0.01–100 kW, for generating
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma), and pulse peak power PP of at least 10 to 1000
`
`times the PB, e.g. 1 MW (falling within the ’421 patent’s range of 1kW–1
`
`MW, for generating a strongly ionized plasma). Ex. 1204, 7:19–25; Ex.
`
`1201, 15:56–61, Fig. 6. Furthermore, as testified by Dr. Kortshagen, the
`
`’421 admits in the Background section, that secondary electrons are
`
`produced by ion bombardment of the target surface. Ex. 1202 ¶ 86 (citing
`
`Ex. 1201, 1:44–46). Moreover, Wang teaches combining highly ionized
`
`sputtering during the pulses with significant neutral sputtering during the
`
`background period. Ex. 1204, 7:36–39. Therefore, we are persuaded Wang
`
`teaches secondary electrons will be produced during the sputtering process
`
`and the collisions between ions in the HDP region and the cathode. Pet. 58.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Zond has not explained adequately why triggering a fast stage of
`
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would have been beyond the level of
`
`ordinary skill, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Moreover,
`
`based on the record before us, Zond has not persuaded us of the
`
`incompatibility of Kudravtsev’s teaching of the voltage pulse exciting atoms
`
`in the weakly-ionized plasma and generating secondary electrons from the
`
`cathode assembly with Wang’s teaching of the secondary electrons ionizing
`
`a portion of the excited atoms.
`
`Accordingly, given the evidence before us, we determine that the
`
`Petition and supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the
`
`technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev would have been obvious.
`
`Therefore, on this record, Intel has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its assertion that claims 9, 21, and 35 are unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Ground: Claims 14, 26, and 37 – Obvious over Wang and
`Mozgrin Thesis
`
`Intel asserts that claims 14, 26, and 37 are unpatentable under § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Wang and Mozgrin Thesis. Pet. 32–49. As support, Intel
`
`provides explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by Wang and
`
`Mozgrin Thesis. Id. Intel proffers a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen as
`
`support. Ex. 1202.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`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 that Intel has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 14, 26, and
`
`37 are unpatentable over Wang and Mozgrin Thesis. Our discussion focuses
`
`on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`1. Mozgrin Thesis (Ex. 1207)
`
`Mozgrin Thesis is directed to research undertaken to “study the
`
`current-voltage characteristics and the regimes of existence of the high-
`
`current quasi-stationary low-pressure discharge in magnetic fields of
`
`different configurations” and “using a high-current discharge plasma to
`
`generate dense plasma formations and intense flows of charged particles.”
`
`Ex. 1207, 4. Mozgrin Thesis discusses the possibility of intensive cathode
`
`sputtering and the creation of high density flows of sputtered material
`
`particles. Id. at 5. Mozgrin Thesis teaches generating high-power, low-
`
`power discharges with homogeneous plasma structure. Id. at 25. Mozgrin
`
`Thesis further teaches this ability to generate these high-power discharges is
`
`limited by the presence of different types of instabilities leading to the
`
`contraction of the discharge and the transition to the arc regime. Id.
`
`Mozgrin Thesis further discusses an experimental setup of a quasi-
`
`stationary discharge power supply system using a power supply that
`
`produces square current and voltage pulses with a rise time (leading edge of
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00470
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`the pulse) of 5-60 µs with a flat top duration of up to 1.5 ms and a current
`
`amplitude of 3 kA at line charging voltage of up to 2.4 kV. Id. at 42.
`
`Furthermore, according to Mozgrin Thesis, although pre-ionization of the
`
`discharge gap (the path between the anode and the cathode) is not
`
`mandatory; the probability of transition to the arc regime increases without
`
`pre-ionization. Id. at 102.
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Intel argues Mozgrin Thesis discloses “wherein the rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse is in the range of approximately 0.01V/μsec to 1000V/μsec” as
`
`recited in claim 14. Pet. 56. According to Intel, an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`would have looked to Mozgrin Thesis for additional details, such as voltages
`
`and rise times, teaching conditions that allow for the
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
