Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00522
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1  
`
`II.   TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 6  
`
`A.   Overview of Plasma Generation Systems ...................................................................... 6  
`
`B.   The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Plasma Source. ..................... 8  
`
`III.   SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................ 14  
`
`IV.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) .................................. 14  
`
`A.   Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized Plasma” ........... 14  
`
`B.   Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber” ................................................ 16  
`
`C.   Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially Eliminates the
`Probability of Developing an Electrical Breakdown Condition in the
`Chamber” ................................................................................................................... 17  
`
`V.   PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. .............................................................................................................. 19  
`
`A.   Defects in Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 14 – 18,
`and 25 - 32 Are Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with Kudryavtsev ........ 19  
`
`1.   Overview of Independent Claim 14. .................................................................... 19  
`
`2.   Legal Standards For Comparison of the Claim to the Prior Art. .......................... 22  
`
`2.   Scope and Content of Prior Art. .............................................................................. 24  
`
`a.   Overview of Mozgrin .......................................................................................... 24  
`
`b.   Overview of Kudravtsev ..................................................................................... 26  
`
`3.   Differences Between Claim 14 and the Prior Art. .................................................. 30  
`
`a.   Differences Between Mozgrin and Claim 14 ....................................................... 30  
`
`b.   Petitioner Fails to Prove Inherency ...................................................................... 33  
`
`c.  
`
`Incompatibilities of Kudravtsev and Mozgrin ...................................................... 35  
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`d.   Differences Between Claim 14 and Kudravtsev .................................................. 38  
`
`e.   Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 14 is Obvious in View of Mozgrin Combined With
`Kudryavtsev. ......................................................................................................... 39  
`
`f.   Differences Between the Prior Art and the Other challenged Claims 15 –
`18, 25 - 32. ............................................................................................................ 40  
`
`B.   Defects In Ground II: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That the Challenged Claims Are Obvious in View of Wang
`Combined with Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................... 43  
`
`1.   Overview of Wang. ............................................................................................. 43  
`
`2.   Differences Between Wang and the Claims. ........................................................ 45  
`
`3.   Petition Fails to Prove Inherency. ........................................................................ 48  
`
`4.  
`
`Incompatibilities of Kudravtsev and Wang .......................................................... 49  
`
`5.   Differences Between Claim 14 and Kudravtsev .................................................. 51  
`
`6.   Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 14 is Obvious in View of Wang Combined With
`Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................... 52  
`
`7.   Differences Between the Prior Art and the Other Challenged Claims
`15 – 18, 25 - 32. .............................................................................................. 52  
`
`C.   Petition Violates Page Restrictions by Incorporating Sixty-Six Pages of
`Claim Charts. ....................................................................................................... 53  
`
`VI.   CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 54  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`The present petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`(“the ‘716 patent”) is the third of four petitions filed by Intel challenging the
`
`‘716 patent. This petition challenges two of the patent’s four independent
`
`claims (nos. 14, 26) and several other claims that depend from claims 14, 26.
`
`The challenges are based on two prior art references, Mozgrin1 and
`
`Wang,2 that were already considered by the Patent Office, combined with a
`
`prior art article by Kudryavtsev.3 As explained in detail below, the challenged
`
`claims require, inter alia, a multi-stage ionization process in which atoms in a
`
`weakly ionized gas are first excited from the ground state before being ionized
`
`to form a strongly ionized plasma, but without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition. This is in contrast to a conventional ionization process
`
`in which atoms are ionized directly from the ground state, without first
`
`achieving an excited state.
`
`The Petition tacitly acknowledges that neither primary reference,
`
`Mozgrin nor Wang, explicitly discusses or even hints of such an ionization
`
`
`1 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin.
`
`2 Ex. 1204, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`3 Ex. 1205, Kudryavtsev.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`process. So the Petition instead argues that Mozgrin and Wang inherently
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`implement the claimed multi-stage ionization, citing to Kudryavtsev as proof.
`
`But as a matter of law, “inherency may not be established by probabilities or
`
`possibilities.”4 As the Board observed in a similar case: “it is well settled that
`
`the ‘very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.”5 “The
`
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
`
`not sufficient.”6
`
`By this standard, the Petition falls far short of proving inherency. As we
`
`explain below, Kudryavtsev’s calculations predict that his tubular electrode
`
`structure may or may not yield multi-stage ionization depending on a variety
`
`of conditions, namely, the gas pressure p, the radius R of the tubular electrode
`
`structure, the strength of the applied electric field E, and the density of ground
`
`state argon atoms, n1. As shown in Kudryavtsev’s figure 6 below, direct
`
`ionization predominates under the conditions represented by region II of this
`
`
`
`4 Id.
`
`5 UBE Maxwell Co. v. LG Chem, LTD, IPR203-00470, Paper 25, page 12, citing
`
`Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrics, Inc., 567 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`6 In re Oelrich, 666 F.3d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`diagram, electron density does not increase under the condition in region III; and in
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`region I “step-wise ionization predominates.”7:
`
`
`
`Therefore Kudryavtsev does not prove that Mozgrin’s system or Wang’s
`
`system would inherently provide the claimed multi-stage ionization, since even
`
`in Kudryavtsev’s tubular electrode structure, the type of ionization depends on
`
`a variety of factors.
`
`Kudryavtsev does not prove that Mozgrin’s or Wang’s radically different
`
`electrode structures and operating conditions would inherently provide the
`
`claimed multi-stage ionization. For example, both Mozgrin and Wang use
`
`electrodes that are much more closely spaces than Kudryavtsev’s electrodes,
`
`and which were immersed in a magnetic field that can dramatically influences
`
`ion formation and ion density. Yet Kudryavtsev does not consider such a
`
`magnetic field in his mathematical model or in his experimental set up.
`
`7 Ex. 1205, Kudryatsev, page 34.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Therefore, there is no indication in Kudryavtsev of how the presence of the
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`magnetic field in Mozgrin and Wang would influence the type of ionization.
`
`The Petition also relies on two claim charts filed in violation of rules
`
`§42.24(a)(i) and §42.6. The claim charts total forty pages, thereby exceeding
`
`the page limitation when combined with the sixty-page petition.8
`
`Lastly, the Petitioner reiterates its boilerplate argument that Zond
`
`misrepresented Mozgrin’s teachings during prosecution of Zond’s U.S. patent
`
`number 7,147,759 (“the ‘759 Patent”).9 Yet as we have responded to each
`
`such assertion, a mere glance at the record reveals to the contrary: In the
`
`alleged misrepresentation, Zond argued that Mozgrin does not teach a process
`
`in which “ground state atoms” are excited to form “excited atoms,” and then
`
`the excited atoms are “ionizing without forming an arc.”10 On the basis of this
`
`assertion, the Petitioner accuses Zond of wrongly asserting that “Mozgrin does
`
`not teach ‘without forming an arc.’”11 The Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at
`
`that time), never argued, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were
`
`
`8 Petition (60 pages); Ex. 1215 (40 Pages), and Ex. 1216 (15 pages).
`
`9 Petition at p. 18, Ex. 1211, ‘759 Patent.
`
`10 Ex. 1212, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`11 Petition at p. 18.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`allowable solely because of the “without forming an arc” limitation; it instead
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`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.”12
`
`That is, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an
`
`arc discharge during a particular process that was the subject of the ‘759
`
`patent: a 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.
`
` In short, the Petition does not precisely state the relief requested13 and
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.14 On the basis of the record presented in the present Petition,
`
`review should be denied.
`
`
`12 Exhibit 1212, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis
`
`omitted).
`13 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`14 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`II. Technology Background
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`The claims at issue in this petition are all directed to an apparatus for
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma. A “plasma” is a gaseous mixture of
`
`electrons, positive ions and neutral molecules that can be formed by applying a
`
`strong electric field to a gas.15 A simplified illustration of a plasma formed
`
`between a pair of electrodes 238, 216 is shown below in figure 2B of the ‘716
`
`patent:16
`
`
`
`A plasma is on average electrically neutral because there are approximately as
`
`many negative electrons in the plasma as positive ions. However, the density
`
`of charged particles can vary greatly depending on the strength of the applied
`
`electric field and the length of time it is applied.
`
`
`15 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 1, lines 8 - 15.
`
`16 Ex. 1201, ’716 Patent, Fig. 2B.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Figure 2D from the ‘716 patent17 below shows a “strongly ionized
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`
`
`plasma” having a significantly higher density of charged particles than in the
`
`figure above, due in part to a stronger electric field applied across the
`
`electrodes:
`
`
`
`In pulsed systems, the strong electric field for generating a dense plasma is
`
`applied in short bursts or pulses that temporarily provide the field strength
`
`needed to form a dense plasma, but at a lower average power.18 The duration
`
`of these pulses can be preset “to reduce the probability of establishing electrical
`
`breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical l discharge” that can
`
`“corrupt the plasma process and can cause contamination in the vacuum
`
`
`17 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, Fig. 2D.
`
`18 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 42 - 45.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`chamber.”19 However, very large voltage pulses “can still result in undesirable
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`electrical discharged regardless of their duration.”20
`
`B. The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Plasma Source.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov invented an improved plasma source that forms a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma in multiple stages: The source first ionizes a feed gas
`
`to form a weakly ionized plasma, and then applies an electrical pulse across
`
`the plasma that generates an electric field that provides the optimum
`
`conditions for exciting neutral atoms in the weak plasma.21 The electric field
`
`then ionizes the excited atoms to generate a strongly ionized plasma. The
`
`weakly ionized plasma and the electric pulse thus cooperate to achieve a
`
`strongly ionized plasma using a multi-stage ionization process, without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition as explained below.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov explained that forming a weakly ionized plasma having
`
`a low level of ionization that is sufficient to provide some electrical
`
`conductivity through the plasma can prevent the occurrence of a breakdown
`
`condition when higher power pulses are applied:
`
`
`19 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines45 - 50.
`
`20 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 50 - 51.
`
`21 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 49 – 53.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`The probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical conductivity
`
`through the plasma. This conductivity substantially prevents the
`
`setup of a breakdown condition, even when high power is applied
`to the plasma.22
`
`Dr. Chistyakov further teaches that the type of high power pulse applied to the
`
`weakly ionized plasma and the size of the gap between the electrodes can
`
`determine whether the gas atoms directly ionize from the ground state, or
`
`instead first enter an excited state and then ionize from the exited state. The
`
`specification of the ‘716 patent explains the two types of ionization in more
`
`detail.
`
`The “typical ionization process is referred to as ‘direct ionization’ or
`
`‘atomic ionization by electron impact’.”23 In this ionization process, a free
`
`electron collides with a neutral atom with enough energy to ionize the atom,
`
`thereby producing another free electron.24 In the multi-stage ionization process
`
`described in the ‘716 patent, the electric field applied to a weakly ionized
`
`plasma is chosen to excite atoms in the weakly ionized plasma from the
`
`22 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`
`23 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 2, liens 6 1- 63.
`
`24 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 2, line 61 – col. 4, line 4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`ground state into an excited state. The excited atoms are then ionized from
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`this excited state, rather than directly from the ground state.
`
`The patent explains that a ground state atom requires more energy to
`
`directly ionize that to enter an excited state:
`
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`
`to become excited …. while neutral atoms 270 require about
`15.76 eV of energy to ionize.25
`
`Once an atom is in an excited state, it obviously requires less energy to ionized
`
`than is required to directly ionize the atom from the ground state:
`
`The excited [argon] atoms 274 only require about 4 eV of energy
`
`to ionize while neutral atoms 270 require about 15.76 eV of energy
`to ionize.26
`
`Therefore, excited atoms will ionized at a much higher rate than ground state
`
`atoms:
`
`Therefore, the excited atoms 274 will ionize at a much higher rate
`than the neutral atoms 270.27
`
`The patent teaches that this type of ionization (in which ions are first excited
`
`before being ionized), can be promoted by tailoring the parameters of the
`
`
`25 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 53 - 63.
`
`26 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 63 - 65.
`
`27 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. , lines 25 – 31.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`electric pulse for the system’s electrode gap and other operating conditions of
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`the plasma.
`
`The dimensions of the gap 220 and the parameters or the electric
`
`field 236 are varied in order to determine the optimum condition
`
`for a relatively high rate of excitation of the atoms in the region
`
`222.
`
`***
`
`Under appropriate excitation conditions, the proportion of the
`
`energy applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232, which is
`
`transformed to the excited atoms 244, is very high for a pulsed
`discharge in the feed gas 22628
`
` The ‘716 patent explains the relationship between the size of the electrode gap
`
`and the applied voltage pulse, stating that they are together chosen to optimize
`
`the excitation of atoms:
`
`[T]he distance or gap between the cathode 204 and the anode 216
`is chosen so as to maximize the rate of excitation of the atoms.
`
`The value of the electric field 236 in the region 222 depends on
`
`the voltage level applied by the pulsed power supply 202 and the
`
`size of the gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204. In
`
`some embodiments, the strength of the electric field 236 can vary
`
`between about 2V/cm and 10.sup.5 V/cm depending on various
`
`system parameters and operating conditions of the plasma system.
`
`
`28 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 49 – 52; col. 9, lines 27 - 30.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`***
`The parameters of the applied electric field 266 are varied to
`determine the optimum condition for a relatively high rate of
`excitation of the atoms in the region 245.29
`
`
`***
`
`The shape and duration of the leading edge 356 and the trailing
`
`edge 358 of the high-power pulse 354 is chosen so as to sustain the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 while controlling the rate of ionization
`of the strongly-ionized plasma 268.30
`
`The patent explains that this increased ionization efficiency can cause an
`
`“avalanche like” increase in ion density:
`
`This increased efficiency eventually results in an avalanche-like
`increase in the density of the strongly-ionized plasma 238.31
`
`Accordingly, to avoid an electrical breakdown in the plasma, the ‘716 patent
`
`proposes that this type of ionization be generated under conditions that avoid
`
`an electrical breakdown. For purposes of the claims at issue here, we note that
`
`one proposed technique is to first generate a weakly ionized plasma that is
`
`sufficiently conductive so as to inhibit a breakdown condition when a high
`
`
`29 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 30 - 53.
`
`30 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 12, lines 23 - 28.
`
`31 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, lines 24 - 26.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`powered pulse chosen to promote multi-stage ionization is applied to the
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`electrodes:
`
`The probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical conductivity
`
`through the plasma. This conductivity substantially prevents the
`
`setup of a breakdown condition, even when high power is applied
`to the plasma.32
`
`Furthermore, the patent proposes choosing the pulse shape to control the rate
`
`of ionization:
`
`The shape and duration of the leading edge 306 and the trailing
`
`edge 310 of the high-power pulse 304 is chosen to control the rate
`of ionization of the strongly-ionized plasma.33
`
`The claims at issue in this petition (independent claims 14, 26 and selected
`
`dependent claims) are directed to a method and apparatus for generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma using the multi-stage ionization process and
`
`breakdown suppression techniques described above. The Petition alleges that
`
`these claim are obvious in view of three prior art references, Mozgrin, Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev, as summarized in the table below.
`
`
`32 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`
`33 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 12, lines 23 - 27.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`Ground
`I
`II
`
`Claims
`14 – 18, 25 - 32
`14 – 18, 25 - 32
`
`Alleged Basis
`103
`103
`
`Art
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim to the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`offers no explicit construction or parsing of the claim, inviting the reader to
`
`infer the Petitioner’s interpretation of the claim language from its allegations
`
`that the claimed features are taught by the prior art.
`
`A. 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`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 ‘716 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`is also referred to as a “highly-ionized plasma.”34 In addition, the proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ‘759 patent that refers to
`
`“strongly ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density.”35 The term
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.
`
`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 ‘716 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization”36 Furthermore, the
`
`
`34 Ex. 1201, ‘716 patent, col. 7, lines 15 - 16.
`
`35 Ex. 1211, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`36 Ex. 1201, ‘716 patent, col. 6, lines 22 - 24.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`specification of a related patent number 6,806,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”) states
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`that “[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma
`
`with a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly ionized plasma depends on the properties of the specific plasma
`
`processing system.”
`
`B. Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber”
`
`The Petitioner does not construe the claimed phrase “ionizing a feed gas
`
`in a chamber” from claim 14, but its comparison to the claim treats the
`
`language as if it describes any gas in a chamber, regardless of whether the gas
`
`is being fed into the chamber during ionization. However, this renders
`
`superfluous the word “feed” in the expression “feed gas in a chamber” – “a
`
`methodology of claim construction that [the Federal Circuit] has
`
`denounced.”37 Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the
`
`claim term “feed” cannot be read out of the claim and cannot be deemed
`
`superfluous over the claimed “gas in a chamber.”
`
`“A feed gas,” as its name implies, is a flow of gas. As explained in the
`
`specification, the “electric field in the gap 472 between the electrode 452 and
`
`the cathode 204' is adapted to ignite the plasma from the feed gas 226 flowing
`
`
`37 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`through the gap 472.”38 The claimed step thus requires ionization of gas in the
`
`chamber that is being fed into the chamber. Accordingly the claimed step of
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber” refers ionization of a gas in a chamber as that
`
`gas is being fed into the chamber.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber”
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction
`ionization of a gas in a chamber as
`that gas is being fed into the
`chamber
`
`C. Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially
`Eliminates the Probability of Developing an Electrical
`Breakdown Condition in the Chamber”
`The Petitioner does not offer an interpretation of the following language
`
`from claims 14, 26: “a weakly ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`However, in its comparison to the prior art, the Petition treats the language as
`
`encompassing any pre-ionized plasma to which an electric pulse is applied.
`
`However, this interpretation renders superfluous the claimed requirement that
`
`the weakly ionize plasma “substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”39
`
`
`38 Ex. 1201, ‘716 Patent, col. 18, lines 9 – 12.
`
`39 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`The claim language requires the weakly-ionized plasma provide a
`
`specified plasma condition. In the context of the other claim language, this
`
`language requires the weak plasma to substantially eliminate the probability of
`
`developing a breakdown condition, not only when the weak plasma is formed,
`
`but also when the claimed electrical pulse is applied across the weak plasma
`
`that excites atoms and forms a strongly ionized plasma (see claim step b).
`
`The specification identifies the characteristics of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that achieve this condition. The specification states that the plasma
`
`must have a low level of ionization that provide sufficient conductivity to
`
`prevent the setup of a breakdown condition when high power is applied to the
`
`plasma:
`
`The probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical
`
`conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity substantially
`
`prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even when high
`power is applied to the plasma.40
`
`Thus, the claimed ionization step forms a low-level of ionization from the feed
`
`gas that substantially eliminates the probability of breakdown. Furthermore,
`
`when an electrical pulse is applied to that plasma to excite neutral atoms in the
`
`
`40 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`weak plasma to thereby generate a strongly ionized plasma, the conductivity of
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`the weakly plasma must be sufficient to prevent an electrical breakdown.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`a weakly ionized plasma that
`substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an
`electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber
`
`Proposed Construction
`plasma having a level of ionization that is
`low enough and sufficiently conductive to
`substantially eliminate the setup of a
`breakdown condition when the weakly
`ionized plasma is formed and when an
`electrical pulse is applied across the
`plasma to excite neutral atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma to thereby
`generate a strongly ionized plasma
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`A. Defects in Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`Claims 14 – 18, and 25 - 32 Are Obvious In view of Mozgrin
`Combined with Kudryavtsev
`1. Overview of Independent Claim 14.
`The Petitioner alleges in Ground I that independent claim 14 is obvious
`
`in view of the combined teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev.
`
`The challenged claim 14 is generally directed to a combination of steps
`
`for generating a strongly ionized plasma without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition. The first step ionizes a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`
`weakly ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the plasma. As explained in
`
`the claim construction above, “a feed gas” as its name implies, is a gas that
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`feeds or flows into the chamber. The claimed step ionizes that gas feed within
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`the chamber to form a plasma having a low level of ionization that is
`
`sufficiently conductive to substantially eliminate the probability of developing
`
`an electrical breakdown condition in the plasma when an electrical pulse is
`
`applied across this weakly ionized plasma, as specified in the next step of the
`
`claimed method.
`
` The claimed method supplies an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma that excites atoms in the weakly ionized plasma to thereby
`
`generate a strongly ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber. The specification explains this type of “multi-stage”
`
`ionization in more detail, as discussed above. Briefly, in the first stage, neutral
`
`atoms in the weakly ionized plasma are induced to an “excited state,” and then
`
`the excited atoms are ionized. This multi-stage ionization is different from the
`
`typical ionization process in which atoms are directly ionized from their
`
`ground state.
`
`The patent teaches that the clamed multi-stage ionization is induced by
`
`properly choosing the parameters of the electric pulse for a given electrode gap
`
`and other operating conditions of the plasma:
`
`The value of the electric field 236 in the region 222 depends on the
`
`voltage level applied by the pulsed power supply 202 and the size
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00522
`
`
`of the gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204. In
`
`some embodiments, the strength of the electric field 236 can vary
`
`between about 2V/cm and 10.sup.5 V/cm