IPR2014-00498
`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 IPR2014-00498
`Patent 6,853,142
`__________________
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...............................................................................8 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. ...................................................8 
`
`The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus having i) means for
`ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma, ii) means for supplying
`power to the weakly-ionized plasma by applying an electrical pulse across the
`weakly ionized plasma to generate a strongly ionized plasma, and iii) means
`for diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with additional feed gas to allow
`additional power to be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma. .....................9 
`
`C. 
`
`The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History. ..........................................14 
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..17 
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .................................................18 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma” ............................................................................................................19 
`
`The construction of “means for ionizing a feed gas …” ..................................21 
`
`The construction of “means for supplying power…” (claim 40) and “means
`for applying an electric field…” (claim 41) .....................................................23 
`
`D. 
`
`The construction of “means for diffusing …” (claim 40) ................................25 
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’142 PATENT. ..................................27 
`
`A. 
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ......................29 
`
`1. 
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...................................................................31 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Lantsman – U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (Ex. 1406) .................................32 
`
`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. 1404) ............33 
`
`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 (Ex.
`1403). ...................................................................................................35 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (Exhibit 1405)..............................37 
`
`d. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`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. ..................................39 
`
`The Petitioner Failed 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. ......45 
`
`B. 
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ....................................................................50 
`
`1. 
`
`The cited references do not teach “diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma
`with additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly-ionized plasma,” as recited in independent claim 40. .................50 
`
`C. 
`
`The Petition Failed to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Both Mozgrin and Wang. ................54 
`
`VI. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................58 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`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 four 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
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Second, the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are all predicated on the
`
`false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the combination of
`
`i) means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma, ii) means for
`
`supplying power to the weakly-ionized plasma by applying an electrical pulse
`
`across the weakly ionized plasma, the 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) means for diffusing the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma with additional feed gas to allow additional power to
`
`be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma, as required by independent claim
`
`40 of the ’142 patent by combining the teachings of either Mozgrin or Wang
`
`with either Kudryavtsev or Lantsman.3
`
`But these four 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
`
`
`3 Petition at pp. 14-60.
`
`4 Mozgrin, Ex. 1403 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`5 Id. at p. 402, col. 2, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`a “target 14 is powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power supplied from
`
`a pulsed DC power supply 80, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”6 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.”7 Lantsman did not describe a pulsed
`
`power supply; it instead discloses two DC power supplies: “DC power supply
`
`10,”8 and “secondary DC power supply 32.”9 Lantsman makes no mention of
`
`generating strongly ionized plasma.10
`
`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 that i) ionizes a feed gas to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma, ii) supplies power to the weakly-ionized plasma by applying
`
`an electrical pulse to generate strongly ionized plasma and iii) diffuses the
`
`
`6 Wang, Ex. 1405, col. 5, ll. 18-22.
`
`7 Kudryavtsev, Ex. 1404 at 32, right col. ¶5.
`
`8 Lantsman, Ex. 1406 at col, 4, l. 11.
`
`9 Id. at col. 4, l. 11.
`
`10 See e.g., id. at col. 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`strongly-ionized plasma with additional feed gas as claimed in 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.11 Similarly, the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the
`
`structure and process of either the Mozgrin or Wang magnetron systems would
`
`produce the particular apparatus of the ‘142 patent if either were somehow
`
`modified by the teachings of the very different cylindrical structure and process
`
`of Kudryavtsev that does not even have a magnet.12
`
`That is, the Petitioner did not show that a “skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve
`
`the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”13 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
`
`
`11 See e.g., Petition, pp. 43-60.
`
`12 See e.g., Petition, pp. 17-43.
`
`13 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`establish that two different structures or processes can be combined.14 Here,
`
`the Petitioner did not set forth any such objective evidence.15 For this
`
`additional reason, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will
`
`prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’142 patent.
`
`Third, 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 “diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with additional feed gas
`
`to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Fourth, 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.16
`
`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
`
`
`14 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`15 See e.g., Petition, pp. 17-60.
`
`16 Petition, pp. 16-60.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`challenged in the petition for the five groups of reasons summarized in the
`
`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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 show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable chance of success of
`
`achieving the claimed apparatus for generating
`
`strongly-ionized plasma that i) ionizes a feed gas to
`
`form a weakly-ionized plasma, ii) supplies power to
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma by applying an electrical
`
`pulse to generate strongly ionized plasma and iii)
`
`diffuses the strongly-ionized plasma with additional
`
`feed gas having an ionization source, an electrical
`
`pulse and feed gas to diffuse the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma by combining the Lantsman structure that
`
`does not have an electrical pulse and does not
`
`generate strongly-ionized plasma with either the
`
`planar magnetron or shaped-electrode pulsed
`
`systems of Mozgrin or the small magnetron pulsed
`
`system of Wang.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`The Petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable chance of success of
`
`achieving the claimed apparatus of the ‘142 patent
`
`by combining the cylindrical structure of
`
`Kudryavtsev that does not even have a magnet with
`
`either the Mozgrin or Wang magnetron system.
`
`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`not have taught all the claim limitations of
`
`independent claims 40 and 41 to a skilled artisan at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`Grounds I and III or II
`
`Grounds I and III using Mozgrin as a primary
`
`and IV
`
`reference are redundant with Grounds II and IV
`
`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.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`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.”17 Then,
`
`“[T]he target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit
`
`as a film of target material.18 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”19
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.20
`
`“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.”21 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`
`17 Ex. 1401, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`18 Id. at col. 1, ll. 11-13.
`
`19Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-34.
`
`20 Id. at 1, ll. 36-54.
`
`21 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-38.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`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.”22
`
`To address these problems, researchers increased the applied power and later
`
`pulsed the applied power.23 But increasing the power increased “the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc)
`
`in the process chamber.”24 And “very large power pulses can still result in
`
`undesirable electrical discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of
`
`their duration.”25
`
`B. The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus having i)
`means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma, ii)
`means for supplying power to the weakly-ionized plasma by applying
`an electrical pulse across the weakly ionized plasma to generate a
`strongly ionized plasma, and iii) means for diffusing the strongly-
`
`
`22 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-59.
`
`23 Id. at col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 9.
`
`24 Id. at col. 2, ll. 63-67.
`
`25 Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionized plasma with additional feed gas to allow additional power to
`be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented an
`
`apparatus having i) means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, ii) means for supplying power to the weakly-ionized plasma by
`
`applying an electrical pulse across the weakly ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly ionized plasma, and iii) means for diffusing the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma with additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by
`
`the strongly ionized plasma as recited in independent claim 40 and as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ’142 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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
`
`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.”26 “The gap 220 and the total volume of the
`
`region 222 are parameters in the ionization process.”27 “In one embodiment,
`
`the pulsed power supply 202 is a component in an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma 232.”28 “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.”29
`
`
`26 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-37.
`
`27 Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-41.
`
`28 Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7.
`
`29 Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-48.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`“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
`
`anode 216.”30 In addition, “the high-power pulses generate a highly-ionized or
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232.”31
`
`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.32
`
`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
`
`
`30 Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-25.
`
`31 Id. at col. 7, ll. 23-25.
`
`32 Id. at col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 3.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`moving strongly-ionized plasma 238 and also becomes strongly ionized from
`
`the applied high-power electrical pulse.33 This technique of supplying feed gas
`
`to the strongly-ionized plasma diffuses the strongly-ionized plasma, and
`
`thereby allows additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed
`
`by the strongly ionized plasma:
`
`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 234.34
`
`Thus, Dr. Chistyakov overcame the deficiencies of the prior art and
`
`accomplished his breakthrough of i) ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma, ii) supplying power to the weakly-ionized plasma by applying
`
`an electrical pulse across the weakly ionized plasma to generate a strongly
`
`ionized plasma, and iii) diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with additional
`
`feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly ionized
`
`plasma.
`
`
`33 Id. at col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 4.
`
`34 Id. at col. 10, ll. 6-11.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`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
`
`similar limitations.”35 But this allegation is not true because the Examiner
`
`identified additional reasons for allowing the claims beyond the one mentioned
`
`by the Petitioner: “The prior art neither discloses nor suggests an ionization
`
`source or a means that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas
`
`…”36 Moreover, each of the independent claims of the ‘142 patent contain
`
`many claim limitations beyond the one mentioned by the Petitioner and
`
`therefore, each was allowed because of many claim limitations, not just one as
`
`alleged 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
`
`
`35 Petition, p. 6-7.
`
`36 Exhibit 1409, Notice of Allowability, March 29, 2004, p. 2.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`teach ‘without forming an arc.’”37 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
`
`
`37 Petition, p. 20
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without
`
`forming an arc discharge.38
`
`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.”39 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
`
`
`38 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1415, Notice of Allowance, September 29, 2006, pp.
`
`2-3.
`
`39 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1413, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p.
`
`13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma).40 That is, Mozgrin does not
`
`teach the avoidance of all arcing during execution of the particular process that
`
`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`is identified in the claim.41
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Claim 41: obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev (Ground I);
`
`2. Claim 41: obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev (Ground II);
`
`
`40 IPR2014-00447, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper No. 11, §
`
`V.C.2.
`
`41 Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`3. Claim 40: obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Lantsman (Ground III); and
`
`4. Claim 40: obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`
`Lantsman (Ground IV).
`
`
`
`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.”42 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
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.43 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`
`42 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`43 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).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.44 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”
`
`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.
`
`
`44 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.”).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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.”45 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 plasma’ is also referred
`
`to as a ‘strongly-ionized plasma.’ The terms ‘high-density plasma’ and
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ are defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak plasma density.”46
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`particular, the Specification of the ‘652 Patent states that “[t]he term ‘weakly-
`
`ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`
`45 Exhibit 1401, ‘142 patent, col. 9, ll. 43-44.
`
`46 U.S. Patent 6,806,652, col. 10, ll. 60-63.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`plasma density. The peak plasma density of the weakly ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”47
`
`
`
`B. The construction of “means for ionizing a feed gas …”
`
`Claim 40 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that reduces the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.” The claimed function of this claim limitation is
`
`“ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma that reduces the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition proximate to
`
`the cathode.” The claimed function is “ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`reducing the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition
`
`proximate to the cathode.”
`
`The Petitioner did not propose a complete recitation of the
`
`corresponding structure; it instead referred the Board to a set of figures and
`
`
`47 Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-52 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00498
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`associated text in the Specification: “the cathode, anode and/or electrode are
`
`arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-