`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00274US2
`’421 PATENT
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,811,421, CLAIMS 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED: JUL. 18, 2005
`
` ISSUED: OCT. 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 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 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.
`
`- 1 -
`
`INTEL 1102
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`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.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 (the “‘421 patent”) (Ex. 1101). 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. 1103)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1104)).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1105)).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata” (Ex. 1109)).
`
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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 ‘421 patent would have found
`
`the ‘421 invalid.
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`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:
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`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.
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`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
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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;
`
` 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.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.2
`
`23. Plasma 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
`
`
`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.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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.
`
`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. 1101).
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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
`
`atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘421 Patent at 4:20 and 13:493 (Ex.
`
`1101).
`
`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.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`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. 1115).
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`30.
`
`I understand that during prosecution, the Examiner rejected all
`
`pending claims over WO 02/103078 A1 (“Kouznetsov”) (Ex. 1106). See 04/21/10
`
`Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1112).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner traversed the rejection arguing that
`
`rather than a single pulse, Kouznetsov uses two distinct pulses. See 06/23/10 Resp.
`
`at 10, ¶ 1 (“Kouznetsov does not describe apparatus that generate a voltage pulse
`
`between the anode and the cathode assembly that creates a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Indeed,
`
`Kouznetsov describes methods and apparatus for generating two separate and
`
`independent pulses.”) (Ex. 1113). I understand that the claims were then allowed.
`
`See 08/19/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1114).
`
`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.”
`
`
`4 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not applied substantively during prosecution.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`34. Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`
`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. 1103).
`
`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. 1103). 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. 1103).
`
`38. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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
`
`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`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.
`
`1103). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.5
`
`40. Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`
`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.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`C. Overview of Wang6
`41. Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode
`
`(24), a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in
`
`Fig. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1104). 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. 1104). 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. 1104). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial, industrial
`
`plasma sputtering device.
`
`
`6 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`42.
`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”
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`43. 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
`
`forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 350. ‘421
`
`Patent at 15:56-61; 16:38-44 (Ex. 1101). 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. 1115).7
`
`44. Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
` “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`45. The constructions proposed above are consistent with the position the
`
`Patent Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner,
`
`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. 1101).
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`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-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1116).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`46. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 of the
`
`’421 Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`47.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1118-1123), 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.
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`A. Ground I: Claims 3-5, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kawamata8
`48.
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1118), showing that
`
`claims 3-5, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kawamata. I understand this claim chart was submitted in an ongoing litigation
`
`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
`49. 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. 1103). Mozgrin therefore teaches the
`
`preamble.
`
`b)
`Limitation (a)
`50. Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads “a cathode assembly comprising a
`
`sputtering target that is positioned adjacent to an anode.”
`
`
`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.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`51. 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. 1101). The known “magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes
`
`a cathode assembly 114 having a target material 116.” ‘421 Patent at 3:51-52 (Ex.
`
`1101). Moreover, “an anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber 104
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly.” ‘421 Patent at 4:1-2 (Ex. 1101).
`
`52. 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. 1103). 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.
`
`1103).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`53. 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
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`copied below. As shown, Mozgrin’s voltage pulse is very similar to the ‘421
`
`Patent’s voltage pulse9.
`
`Excerpt of Fig. 6 of ’421 Patent
`(Ex. 1101)
`
`Fig. 3(b) of Mozgrin
`(Ex. 1103)
`
`
`
`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. 1103).
`
`
`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.
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`(2)
`“that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma”
`
`54. 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. 1101). 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. 1103).
`
`55. 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. 1115); 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. 1103).
`
`56. 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
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1115); Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).)” (Ex. 1103).
`
`(3)
`“without an occurrence of arcing between the
`anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`57. 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. 1103).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`58.
`
`In addition to the ‘421 Patent, the Patent Owner also owns the related
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent” (Ex. 1107)), 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. 1117).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Mozgrin does teach creating a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma “without an occurrence of
`
`arcing between the anode and the cathode assembly.”
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`59. 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).
`
`60. 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
`
`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. 1103). One of ordinary skill would understand that the arc
`
`discharge region should be avoided during an industrial application, such as
`
`sputtering. For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm
`
`(“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`1989, over a decade before the ‘421 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a
`
`problem…” Manos at 231 (Ex. 1108).
`
`61. One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc
`
`region can be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See,
`
`e.g., Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘421 Patent, Claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`
`caused the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`parameters of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the
`
`condition of its transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given
`
`set of the discharge parameters.”); and 406, right col, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-
`
`ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge
`
`transferring to the arc mode increased.”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`62. Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc
`
`regime is useful because it teaches one o