IPR2014-00495
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00495
`Patent 6,853,142
`__________________
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00495
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...............................................................................9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. ...................................................9 
`
`The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing an
`ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma, an electrical pulse
`applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly ionized plasma and a
`gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma to diffuse the
`strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly ionized plasma. ..................................................................................10 
`
`C. 
`
`The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History. ..........................................14 
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..18 
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .................................................19 
`
`A. 
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma.” ...........................................................................................................20 
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’142 PATENT. ..................................22 
`
`A. 
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ......................24 
`
`1. 
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...................................................................26 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Kudryavtsev – A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization
`relaxation in a plasma produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov.
`Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January 1983 (Ex. 1106), ...........27 
`
`Lantsman – U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (Exhibit 1104) ...........................29 
`
`Mozgrin – 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 (Exhibit
`1103). ...................................................................................................30 
`
`d. 
`
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (Exhibit 1105)..............................32 
`
`2. 
`
`The Petitioner Fails To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The DC Power System Without Pulses Of Lantsman With The
`Pulsed Power System Of Either Mozgrin or Wang. ..................................34 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`3. 
`
`IPR2014-00495
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`The Petitioner Fails To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The Cylindrical Tube System Without A Magnet Of
`Kudryavtsev With Either The Mozgrin or Wang Magnetron System. ......40 
`
`B. 
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ....................................................................45 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The cited references do not teach “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the
`strongly-ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized
`plasma, thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply
`to be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma,” as recited in independent
`claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10. .........................46 
`
`The cited references do not teach that “applying the electrical pulse
`comprises applying a quasi-static electric field across the weakly-ionized
`plasma” as recited in claim 13. ..................................................................49 
`
`The cited references do not teach a “selecting at least one of a pulse
`amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to increase an
`ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma,” as required by dependent
`claim 14. .....................................................................................................50 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The Petition Failed to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Both Mozgrin and Wang. ................52 
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Establish That The Mozgrin Thesis Is Prior Art. .....56 
`
`VI. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................58 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’142 patent.1
`
`Indeed, there are six different and independent groups of reasons why
`
`the Petitioner cannot prevail. First, the references that are primarily relied
`
`upon by the Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already considered by
`
`the Examiner and overcome during the prosecution of the application that led
`
`to the issuance of the ’142 patent. These references were considered by 6
`
`different examiners and overcome during the prosecution of 9 other patents
`
`that are related to the ’142 patent over nearly a 10 year period.2
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`2 Examiners Douglas Owens, Tung X. Le, Rodney McDonald, Wilson Lee,
`
`Don Wong, and Tuyet T. Vo allowed U.S. Patents 7,147,759, 7,808,184,
`
`7,811,421, 8,125,155, 6,853,142, 7,604,716, 6,896,775, 6,896,773, 6,805,779,
`
`and 6,806,652 over Mozgrin and Wang over nearly a decade from the time
`
`that the application for the ‘759 patent was filed on 9/30/2002 to the time that
`
`the ‘155 patent issued on 2/28/2012.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Second, all of the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are predicated on
`
`the false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the combination
`
`of i) an ionization source generating a weakly-ionized plasma from feed gas, ii)
`
`an electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`
`increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, and iii) a gas line supplying feed gas to diffuse the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma to thereby allow additional power from the pulsed power
`
`supply to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma, as required by
`
`independent claim 1 and as similarly required by independent claim 10 of the
`
`’142 patent by combining the teachings of either Mozgrin or Wang and
`
`Lantsman.3 But these three references disclose very different structures and
`
`processes. Mozgrin teaches two different “[d]ischarge device configurations:
`
`(a) planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode configuration.”4 Mozgrin
`
`further discloses a “square voltage pulse application to the gap.”5 Wang
`
`discloses that a “target 14 is powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power
`
`
`3 Petition at pp. 14-60.
`
`4 Mozgrin, Exhibit 1103 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`5 Id. at p. 402, col. 2, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`supplied from a pulsed DC power supply 80, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”6
`
`Lantsman did not describe a pulsed power supply; it instead discloses two DC
`
`power supplies: “DC power supply 10,”7 and “secondary DC power supply
`
`32.”8 Lantsman makes no mention of generating strongly ionized plasma.9
`
`And the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the structure and process
`
`of either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular apparatus for
`
`generating strongly-ionized plasma having an ionization source, an electrical
`
`pulse and feed gas to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, as required by
`
`independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’142 patent if either were somehow
`
`modified by a structure that does not even apply an electrical pulse or generate
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, like the structure disclosed in Lantsman.10
`
`Third, Grounds III and IV are predicated on the false assumption that a
`
`skilled artisan could have achieved the apparatus and method of claims 1 and
`
`
`6 Wang, Exhibit 1105, col. 5, ll. 18-22.
`
`7 Lantsman, Exhibit 1104 at col, 4, l. 11.
`
`8 Id. at col. 4, l. 11.
`
`9 See e.g., id. at col. 4.
`
`10 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`10 respectively by combining the teachings of either Mozgrin or Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev.11 But these three references disclose very different structures and
`
`processes. Mozgrin teaches two different “[D]ischarge device configurations:
`
`(a) planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode configuration.”12 Wang teaches
`
`a “small magnetron of area less than 20% of the target area rotating about the
`
`target center.”13 Kudryavtsev teaches a fourth type of discharge device
`
`configuration in which the “discharge occurred inside a cylindrical tube of
`
`diameter 2R = 2.5 cm and the distance between the electrodes was L = 52
`
`cm.”14 Kudryavtsev’s system does not even have a magnet or a sputtering
`
`source.15
`
`And the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the structure and process
`
`of either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular multi-step ionization
`
`
`11 Id. at pp. 44-55.
`
`12 Mozgrin, Ex. 1103 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`13 Wang, Exhibit 1105, Abstract.
`
`14 Kudryavtsev, Ex. 1106 at 32, right col. ¶5.
`
`15 Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`process and apparatus of the ’142 patent if either were somehow modified by
`
`the teachings of the very different structure and process of Kudryavtsev.16
`
`That is, the Petitioner did not show that a skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the Lantsman and/or Kudryavtsev
`
`with Mozgrin or Wang “to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”17
`
`The Board has consistently declined to institute proposed grounds of rejections
`
`in IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to identify any objective evidence
`
`such as experimental data, tending to establish that two different structures or
`
`processes can be combined.18 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth any such
`
`objective evidence.19 For these additional reasons, there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’142 patent.
`
`
`16 See e.g., Petition, pp. 44-55.
`
`17 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`18 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`19 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Fourth, the prior art in each of the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`rejections are missing one or more limitations recited in the claims of the ’142
`
`patent such as i) “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma, thereby allowing
`
`additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” ii) “applying the electrical pulse comprises applying a quasi-
`
`static electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma” and iii) “selecting at least
`
`one of a pulse amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to
`
`increase an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Fifth, the Petition contains many redundant grounds of rejection.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner proposed two or more grounds of rejections for every
`
`challenged claim and did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds.20
`
`Sixth, the Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art because Petitioner failed to
`
`show that it “has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`
`
`20 Petition, pp. 15-60.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it."21
`
`In brief, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition for the five groups of reasons summarized in the
`
`table below:
`
`Grounds
`
`All
`
`Reasons For Not Instituting a Proceeding
`
`The references that are primarily relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already
`
`considered by the Examiner and overcome during
`
`the prosecution of the application that led to the
`
`issuance of the ’142 patent.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to provide any objective
`
`evidence that the elements from the Lantsman
`
`structure that does not have an electrical pulse and
`
`does not generate strongly-ionized plasma would
`
`perform in an expected way in either the planar
`
`magnetron or shaped-electrode pulsed systems of
`
`Mozgrin or the small magnetron pulsed system of
`
`Wang.
`
`
`21 In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981) (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v.
`
`Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to provide any objective
`
`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`evidence that the elements from Kudryavtsev’s
`
`system, which uses a cylinder without magnets,
`
`would perform in an expected way in Mozgrin’s
`
`planar magnetron system, Wang’s magnetron
`
`system, or Lantsman’s DC power system.
`
`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`not have taught all the claim limitations of
`
`independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims
`
`13 and 14 to a skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`Grounds I, III and V or
`
`Grounds I, III and V using Mogzrin as a primary
`
`II, IV and VI
`
`reference are redundant with Grounds II, IV, and
`
`VI using Wang as a primary reference and
`
`Petitioner did not set forth a compelling reason for
`
`why the Board should institute this proceeding on
`
`multiple, redundant grounds.
`
`Grounds V and VI
`
`The Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems.
`
`Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target
`
`surface where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”22 Then,
`
`“[T]he target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit
`
`as a film of target material.23 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”24
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.25
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and
`
`to concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment
`
`of the target surface.”26 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`
`22 Exhibit 1101, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`23 Id. at col. 1, ll. 11-13.
`
`24Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-34.
`
`25 Id. at 1, ll. 36-54.
`
`26 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-38.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`discharge and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the
`
`substrate.”
`
`But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems experienced “non-
`
`uniform erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.”27
`
`To address these problems, researchers increased the applied power and later
`
`pulsed the applied power.28 But increasing the power increased “the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc)
`
`in the process chamber.”29 And “very large power pulses can still result in
`
`undesirable electrical discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of
`
`their duration.”30
`
`B. The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing
`an ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma, an electrical
`pulse applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly ionized
`plasma and a gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to
`be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented an
`
`apparatus containing an ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma,
`
`
`27 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-59.
`
`28 Id. at col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 9.
`
`29 Id. at col. 2, ll. 63-67.
`
`30 Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`an electrical pulse applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly
`
`ionized plasma and a gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to be
`
`absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma as recited in independent claim 1 and
`
`as illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ’142 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 2A, Dr. Chistyakov’s apparatus includes either a
`
`pulsed power supply 202 or a direct current (DC) power supply (not shown) as
`
`a component in an ionization source that generates a weakly ionized plasma
`
`232, an anode 216, a cathode 204, a pulsed power supply 202 that applies a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`high power pulse between the cathode 204 and the anode 216, and gas lines
`
`224 providing feed gas 226 from a feed gas source. “The anode 216 is
`
`positioned so as to form a gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 222 between the
`
`anode 216 and the cathode 204.”31 “The gap 220 and the total volume of the
`
`region 222 are parameters in the ionization process.”32 “In one embodiment,
`
`the pulsed power supply 202 is a component in an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma 232.”33 “In another embodiment, a direct
`
`current (DC) power supply (not shown) is used in an ionization source to
`
`generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232.”34
`
`“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232 substantially
`
`eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the cathode 204 and the
`
`
`31 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-37.
`
`32 Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-41.
`
`33 Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7.
`
`34 Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-48.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`anode 216.”35 In addition, “the high-power pulses generate a highly-ionized or
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232.”36
`
`In one embodiment, additional feed gas is supplied to exchange the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse:
`
`Directly injecting the feed gas 226 between the cathode 204 and
`
`the anode 216 can increase the flow rate of the feed gas 226. This
`
`causes a rapid volume exchange in the region 222 between the
`
`cathode 204 and the anode 216, which permits a high-power pulse
`
`having a longer duration to be applied across the gap 220. The
`
`longer duration high-power pulse results in the formation of a
`
`higher density plasma.37
`
`Moreover, “[i]n one embodiment, the strongly-ionized plasma 238 is
`
`transported through the region 222 by a rapid volume exchange of feed gas
`
`226. As the feed gas 226 moves through the region 222, it interacts with the
`
`moving strongly-ionized plasma 238 and also becomes strongly ionized from
`
`the applied high-power electrical pulse.38 This technique of supplying feed gas
`
`to the strongly-ionized plasma diffuses the strongly-ionized plasma, and
`
`
`35 Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-25.
`
`36 Id. at col. 7, ll. 23-25.
`
`37 Id. at col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 3.
`
`38 Id. at col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 4.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`thereby allows additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed
`
`by the strongly ionized plasma:
`
`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Transporting the strongly-ionized plasma 238 through the region
`
`222 by a rapid volume exchange of the feed gas 226 increases the
`
`level and the duration of the power that can be applied to the 10
`
`strongly-ionized plasma 238 and, thus, generates a higher density
`
`strongly-ionized plasma in the region 234.39
`
`Thus, Dr. Chistyakov accomplished his breakthrough of generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma while reducing the probability of electrical breakdown
`
`by inventing a particular apparatus and method comprising an ionization
`
`source for generating weakly-ionized plasma, a pulsed power supply for
`
`applying an electrical pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, and a gas line for supplying feed gas to diffuse the
`
`strongly ionized plasma to allow the plasma to absorb additional power.
`
`C. The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History.
`
`The Petitioner alleged that the claims of the ‘142 patent were allowed
`
`solely because the Applicant (i.e., now the Patent Owner) “amended every
`
`independent claim to require ‘the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber’ or
`
`
`39 Id. at col. 10, ll. 6-11.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`similar limitations.”40 But this allegation is not true because the Applicant
`
`amended the claims to include additional limitations beyond those mentioned
`
`by the Petitioner including a limitation specifying that a power supply
`
`“supplies power to the weakly-ionized plasma through an electrical pulse …
`
`the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`
`increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma.”41 The Applicant also
`
`added a limitation specifying that a “gas line supplies feed gas to the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma, thereby
`
`allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the
`
`strongly ionized plasma.”42 That is, the claims of the ‘142 patent were allowed
`
`because of many claim limitations and not just because of the single limitation
`
`identified by the Petitioner.
`
`In addition, the Petitioner also mischaracterized the file history of
`
`another patent that is related to the ‘142 patent, U.S. Patent 7,147,759, by
`
`alleging that the Patent Owner was wrong in stating that “Mozgrin does not
`
`
`40 Petition, p. 7.
`
`41 Exhibit 1108, Response to Office Action, March 8, 2004, p. 2 of 14.
`
`42 Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`teach ‘without forming an arc.’”43 But this allegation is just not true for two
`
`main reasons. First, the Examiner stated that he allowed the ’759 patent —
`
`not just because of the arc limitation — but because of the combination of
`
`many claim limitations:
`
`Applicant's arguments filed May 2, 2006 have been fully
`
`considered and are deemed persuasive. Specifically, Claims 1-50
`
`are allowable over the prior art of record because … the applied
`
`prior art applied in the previous office action does not teach the
`
`claimed apparatus or method wherein an ionization source
`
`generates a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the anode and
`
`cathode assembly and a power supply generating a voltage pulse
`
`that produces an electric field between the cathode assembly and
`
`the anode, the power supply being configured to generate the
`
`voltage pulse with an amplitude and a rise time that increases an
`
`excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process
`
`that generates a strongly-ionized plasma, from the weakly ionized
`
`plasma, the multi-step ionization process comprising exciting the
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing
`
`
`43 Petition, p. 19.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without
`
`forming an arc discharge.44
`
`Second, the Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at that time), did not
`
`argue, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were allowable solely
`
`because of the “without forming an arc” limitation; it instead argued, inter alia,
`
`that “there is no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step ionization process that
`
`first excites ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizes the
`
`excited atoms without forming an arc discharge.”45 That is, the Patent Owner
`
`argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an arc discharge during a
`
`particular process: the multi-step ionization process. In other words, the
`
`Petitioner mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by
`
`truncating it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
`Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s allegation, the Patent Owner did not
`
`mischaracterize Mozgrin because Mozgrin does not, in fact, teach that there is
`
`no arcing during the multi-stage ionization process (e.g., while ionizing the
`
`
`44 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1415, Notice of Allowance, September 29, 2006, pp.
`
`2-3.
`
`45 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1413, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p.
`
`13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma).46 That is, Mozgrin does not
`
`teach the avoidance of all arcing during execution of the particular process that
`
`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`is identified in the claim.47
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of
`
`rejection based on the same combination of references. In particular, for every
`
`ground of rejection using Mozgrin as a primary reference, there is a
`
`corresponding redundant ground using Wang as a primary reference. For the
`
`Board’s convenience below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by the
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1. Claims 1, 10, and 14: obvious over the combination of Mozgrin
`
`and Lantsman (Ground I);
`
`2. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 14: obvious over the combination of Wang
`
`and Lantsman (Ground II);
`
`
`46 IPR2014-00447, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper No. 11, §
`
`V.C.2.
`
`47 Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`3. Claims 2 and 11: obvious over the combination of Mozgrin,
`
`Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev (Ground III);
`
`4. Claims 2 and 11: obvious over the combination of Wang,
`
`Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev (Ground IV);
`
`5. Claims 13 and 16: obvious over the combination of Mozgrin,
`
`Lantsman, and the Mozgrin Thesis (Ground V); and
`
`6. Claim 16: obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman, and
`
`the Mozgrin Thesis (Ground VI).
`
`
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, any unexpired claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”48 Under that construction, claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`48 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.49 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.50 Any
`
`term not construed below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner Zond
`
`proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`A. The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma.”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`
`49 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 20, 2013).
`
`50 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00494
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’142 patent which refers to “strongly ionized plasma 238
`
`[as] having a large ion density.”51 In addition, the proposed construction is
`
`also consistent with the Specification of a related patent (i.e., U.S. Patent
`
`6,806,652) which states that “[t]he term ‘high-density