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 IPR2014-00473
`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 IPR2014-00473
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 7, 2014, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 3–7, 18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44,
`
`and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (“the ’421 patent”). Paper 2
`
`(“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 3–7,
`
`18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, and 45 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 3–7, 18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, and 45
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’421 patent
`
`against third parties. Id.
`
`B. The ’421 Patent
`
`The ’421 patent relates to a high-deposition sputtering apparatus.
`
`Ex. 1101, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was a well-known
`
`technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:15–16.
`
`The ’421 patent indicates prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit
`
`films 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`
`cathode and anode. Id. at 9:16–19. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`9:29–31, 10:8–9.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, none are independent. Claims 3–7, 18–20,
`
`31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, and 45 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1,
`
`17, and 34. Claims 1 and 3, 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.
`
`
`
`3. The sputtering source of claim 1 wherein the increase of the
`density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma is enough to generate
`sufficient thermal energy in a surface of the sputtering target to cause
`a sputtering yield to be related to a temperature of the sputtering
`target.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:14–24, 29–33 (emphases added).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`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
`Sep. 28, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`(Ex. 1105)
`(Ex. 1109)
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
` US 6,190,512 B1
` US 5,958,155
`
`
`Wang
`Lantsman
`Kawamata
`
`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. 1103) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Intel asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`3–5, 36, 40, and 41
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin and Kawamata
`
`3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41
`
`§ 103 Wang and Kawamata
`
`6, 31, 44, and 45
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`7, 18–20, and 32
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kawamata
`
`6, 31, 44, and 45
`
`§ 103 Wang and Lantsman
`
`7 and 32
`
`§ 103 Wang, Lantsman, and Kawamata
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`Here, both parties agree the broadest reasonable construction standard
`
`applies to the claims involved in the instant proceeding, and propose the
`
`construction for the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.” Pet. 10–13; Prelim. Resp. 17–19.
`
`“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.
`
`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. 1102 ¶ 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19
`
`(citing Ex. 1107, 10:4–6; Ex. 1101, 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. 18; Ex. 1007, 10:3–5) and the
`
`Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”), which is
`
`being challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., IPR2014-00843 (PTAB),
`
`which states “weakly-ionized plasma” is defined to mean “a plasma with a
`
`relatively low peak plasma density.” Prelim. Resp. 19.
`
`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. 18), 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. 1102 ¶ 22; Prelim. Resp. 17–19.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across all three patents. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1101, 8:22–28. On this record, therefore, we construe the claim
`
`term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “plasma with a relatively low peak density
`
`of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “plasma with a
`
`relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`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,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Ground: Claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41 – Obvious over
`Wang and Kawamata
`
`Intel asserts claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41 are unpatentable under
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Wang and Kawamata. Pet. 29–42. As support, Intel
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`
`combination of Wang and Kawamata. Id. Intel proffers a declaration of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen. Ex. 1102.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kawamata does not
`
`disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 23. Specifically, Zond argues
`
`Wang does not disclose the elements recited in independent claims 1, 17,
`
`and 34, from which claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41 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 3–5, 18–20,
`
`36, 40, and 41 are unpatentable over Wang and Kawamata. Our analysis
`
`focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`1. Wang (Ex. 1104)
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1104, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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 is powered
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1102 ¶ 126; see Pet. 45.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Kawamata (Ex. 1109)
`
`Kawamata discloses a process for producing thin film at a high speed
`
`by sputtering. Ex. 1109, Abstract; 1:5–8. In one embodiment, film source
`
`material is sputtered by positive ions while applying an alternating voltage to
`
`an electrode having the film source material disposed thereon to thereby
`
`cause the electrode to have a negative potential, and applying alternating
`
`current power to generate plasma over the film source material to cause the
`
`surface of the film source material to have its temperature raised by the
`
`plasma. Id. at 3:12–19.
`
`Figure 2 of Kawamata illustrates that changes of the surface
`
`temperature of granules 3 (Surface temp.) and rate of film formation on
`
`substrate 2 (Deposition rate) with reference to the input power (Input
`
`power). Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a graph showing the relationship between input power and
`
`surface temperature and input power and deposition rate.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`(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
`
`produced by arcing are much reduced” — does not disclose the recited
`
`“creates a weakly ionized plasma . . . without an occurrence of an arc” as
`
`recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 44–45 (emphasis 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. 1104, 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.
`
`Claims 3 and 18 recite “wherein the increase of the density of ions in
`
`the strongly-ionized plasma is enough to generate sufficient thermal energy
`
`in a surface of the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be related to
`
`a temperature of the sputtering target.” Ex. 1101, 22:29–33; 23:26–30.
`
`Claim 40 recites “wherein the adjusting an amplitude and a rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse increases the density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`enough to generate sufficient thermal energy” is commensurately recited.
`
`Id. at 24:42–47.
`
`Intel argues Wang teaches applying high peak power PP increases the
`
`density of the plasma. Pet. 39 (citing Kortshagen Decl. ¶116 (Ex. 1102)).
`
`Intel additionally argues Kawamata teaches generating plasma over the film
`
`source material causes the surface temperature of the film source material to
`
`rise. Pet. 24, 39; Ex. 1109, 3:12–20. Furthermore, according to Intel,
`
`Kawamata teaches the surface temperature of the sputtering target is a
`
`function of the input power and as the surface temperature increases, the
`
`deposition rate increases. Pet. 24, 39; Ex. 1109, 7:51–58. Intel further
`
`points out the ’421 patent admits “the deposition rate is proportion to the
`
`sputtering yield.” Ex. 1101, 2:9–10.
`
`In response, Zond contends Wang does not anticipate the invention as
`
`recited in claims 1, 17, and 34. Prelim. Resp. 43–47. Zond further asserts
`
`Kawamata does not cure the deficiencies of Wang. Prelim. Resp. 47–48. As
`
`discussed above with respect to claims 1, 17, and 34, we are persuaded by
`
`Intel’s arguments that Wang anticipates claims 1, 17, and 34.
`
`Zond next argues Kawamata uses non–pulsed, continuous sources for
`
`heating a target of optical granules. Prelim. Resp. 37, 48; Ex. 1109, Figs. 3,
`
`7, and 12. According to Zond, Intel does not proffer evidence that suggests
`
`combining the thermal properties of Kawamata’s continuous AC (alternating
`
`current) system with Wang’s pulsed system nor does Intel proffer evidence
`
`addressing the arcing risk in a pulsed system operated to yield such thermal
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`properties, or choosing or adjusting an “amplitude and rise time” of the
`
`pulse. Prelim. Resp. 48–49.
`
`In review of the record before us, we are persuaded by Intel’s
`
`arguments. We determine Wang describes target 14 is powered by narrow
`
`pulses of negative DC power, the exact shape of which depends on the
`
`design of the pulsed DC power supply 80, and significant rise times and fall
`
`times are expected. Ex. 1104, 5:18–27. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`testimony that 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. 1102 ¶ 126; see Pet.
`
`39, 45. Thus, we determine Wang teaches adjusting an amplitude and a rise
`
`time of the voltage pulse increases the ion density in the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.
`
`We are also persuaded Kawamata’s plasma generation can raise the
`
`sputtering material temperature. Ex. 1109, 3:14–20. We further are
`
`persuaded Kawamata teaches changes of the input power changes the
`
`surface temperature of the film source material (granules 3) and the
`
`deposition rate. Id. at 7:49–53; Fig. 2. The ’421 patent states “[i]n general,
`
`the deposition rate is proportional to the sputtering yield;” therefore, based
`
`on Intel’s arguments, we are persuaded the sputtering yield is also related to
`
`the surface temperature of the film source material, i.e. the sputtering target.
`
`Ex. 1101, 2:9–10. Accordingly, based on the current record, Intel has
`
`persuaded us the combination of Wang and Kawamata teaches claims 3, 18,
`
`and 40.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Intel does
`
`not proffer sufficient evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kawamata into the system of
`
`Wang.
`
`Specifically, Zond contends Intel has not provided evidence
`
`suggesting combining the properties of Kawamata’s continuous AC system
`
`with a pulsed system of Wang or addressing the arcing risk in a pulsed
`
`system operated to yield the recited thermal properties would have been
`
`obvious. Prelim. Resp. 48–49.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, those 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)). In that regard, one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching
`
`of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
`
`judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (A person with ordinary skill
`
`in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in
`
`many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
`
`like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kawamata
`
`and Wang. More specifically, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration
`
`(Ex. 1102 ¶ 118), and we are persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`
`have found it obvious to use input power to control the density of the
`
`plasma, thereby controlling the temperature of the sputtering material so as
`
`to control the sputtering yield. As Intel identifies, Wang teaches creating
`
`high density plasma increases sputtering rate and Kawamata teaches
`
`producing a thin film by sputtering at a high speed. Pet. 40; Ex. 1102 ¶ 119.
`
`Thus, we agree an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered
`
`Kawamata’s teaching as both references discuss enhancement of the
`
`sputtering rate. Furthermore, we are persuaded, based on Intel’s assertion
`
`and the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen, that this would have been the
`
`combination of known techniques with each element behaving as expected.
`
`Pet. 40, Ex. 1102 ¶ 120.
`
`Accordingly, given the evidence before us, we determine that the
`
`Petition and supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the
`
`technical disclosures of Wang and Kawamata as recited in claims 3 and 18
`
`would have been obvious. Zond has not presented arguments specific to
`
`claims 4, 5, 19, 20, 36, and 41.
`
`Therefore, upon review of the record before us, Intel has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 3–5, 18–20,
`
`36, 40, and 41 are obvious over the combination of Wang and Kawamata
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Ground: Claims 6, 31, 44, and 45 – Obvious over Wang and
`Lantsman
`
`Intel asserts that claims 6, 31, 44, and 45 are obvious under § 103 over
`
`Wang and Lantsman. Pet. 55–60. As support, Intel provides explanations as
`
`to how each claim limitation is met by Wang and Lantsman. Id. Intel
`
`proffers a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen as support. Ex. 1102.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Lantsman does not
`
`disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 49–52.
`
`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 6, 31, 44,
`
`and 45 are unpatentable over Wang and Lantsman. Our discussion focuses
`
`on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`1. Lantsman (Ex. 1105)
`
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1105,
`
`Abstract. The primary power supply provides the primary power to
`
`electrically drive the cathode during the plasma process and the secondary
`
`power supply supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the
`
`plasma so that when the primary power supply is applied, the system
`
`smoothly transitions to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`2:48–51.
`
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`
`and RF sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also provides that
`
`“arcing which can be produced by overvoltages can cause local overheating
`
`of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target material into the
`
`processing chamber and causing substrate particle contamination and device
`
`damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes during
`
`processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
`
`Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
`
`introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
`
`the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
`
`Lantsman reproduced below:
`
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated and the gas flow and
`
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`
`
`
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claims 6 and 31 recite “further comprising a gas flow controller that
`
`controls a flow of the feed gas so that the feed gas diffuses the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” while claim 44 recites “diffusing the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`with a volume of the feed gas while ionizing the volume of the feed gas to
`
`create additional weakly-ionized plasma” and claim 45 recites “further
`
`comprising exchanging a volume of feed gas to diffuse the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma while applying the voltage pulse to the cathode assembly to generate
`
`additional strongly-ionized plasma from the volume of the feed gas.” Ex.
`
`1101, 22:40–42; 24:1–3; 24:59–67.
`
`Intel argues because an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand
`
`Wang supplies feed gas during the processing and based on that teaching, it
`
`would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to continue to
`
`exchange the feed gas in Wang during production of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma (i.e., during the application of high peak power PP pulses) as taught
`
`by Lantsman. Pet. 55–56. Intel relies on Wang’s Figure 1, as teaching mass
`
`flow controller 34 meters gas into the chamber and Lantsman as teaching
`
`exchanging feed gas during the entire plasma processing. Id.
`
`Zond argues Intel relies on Lantsman as disclosing gas flow into a
`
`plasma chamber; however, Lantsman does not teach the rate of gas flow is
`
`controlled during the portion of a pulse that generates a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma. Prelim. Resp. 50. Furthermore, Zond argues Lantsman does not
`
`teach the gas flow rate is generated at a sufficient rate to diffuse the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma as claimed. Id. at 50–51. Thus, according to Zond,
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Lantsman does not teach flow control that coincides with the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma that “controls a flow of the feed gas so that the feed gas
`
`diffuses the strongly ionized plasma.” Id. at 51.
`
`First, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony that the use of a gas flow
`
`controller in sputtering chambers is notoriously well known. Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 139. Citing two separate textbooks, Dr. Kortshagen contends a gas flow
`
`controller in the gas line controls the flow of gas into the chamber. Id.
`
`¶ 140.
`
`We further determine Lantsman teaches supplying feed gas during the
`
`plasma processing. Ex. 1105, 3:9–13. As noted by Intel, Lantsman
`
`discloses pre-ionization and deposition phases with gas flowing into the
`
`chamber during these phases. Pet. 56; Ex. 1105, 2:48–51. We again credit
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony that the continuous exchange of gas into and out
`
`of the sputtering chamber diffuses the plasma. Ex. 1102 ¶ 170. According
`
`to Dr. Kortshagen, a continuous introduction of feed gas balances gas
`
`withdrawn by the vacuum system; this introduction of feed gas maintains a
`
`desired pressure; and the exchange of feed gas would diffuse the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma. Id. ¶¶ 146, 170.
`
`
`
`Zond’s argument that Lantsman does not teach that the rate of gas
`
`flow is controlled during the portion of a pulse that generates a strongly
`
`ionized plasma is not persuasive. Prelim. Resp. 51. Furthermore, Zond’s
`
`argument that Lantsman does not teach the gas flow rate is generated at a
`
`sufficient rate to diffuse the strongly ionized plasma is not persuasive. The
`
`claims recite a gas flow controller controls a flow of the feed gas so the feed
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00473
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`gas diffuses the strongly-ionized plasma. We are persuaded the combination
`
`of Wang and Lantsman teaches a gas flow controller controls a flow of the
`
`feed gas and determines the exchange of feed gas would diffuse the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma; therefore, based on the record, Intel has persuaded
`
`us the combination of Wang and Lantsman teaches the recited limitation.
`
`Accordingly, based on the record, Intel has persuaded us the
`
`combination of Wang and Lantsman teaches claims 6, 31, 44, and 45 and it
`
`follows, Intel has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`assertion that claims 6, 3
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
