IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-005781
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC §§ 316 AND 37 CFR §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01494, has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00578
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 3
`
`A. Plasma Fundamentals. .................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Plasma Ignition ............................................................................................... 6
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas ..................................................................................... 7
`
`III. THE ‘775 PATENT ........................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. ARGUMENT. ................................................................................................. 16
`
`A. A skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention of the ’775 patent. ........... 16
`
`1. Scope and content of prior art. ................................................................... 18
`
`2. Differences between the prior art and the claims. ...................................... 25
`
`B. The claims are patentable over Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev. ............... 35
`
`C. Claim 15 is patentable over the cited references because the petition fails to
`address all of the limitations of the claim. .......................................................... 39
`
`D. Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev do not suggest “a cathode that is
`positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between,” as recited in
`independent claim 1. ........................................................................................... 43
`
`E. Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev do not suggest “a quasi-static electric
`field,” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 18. .................................................. 49
`
`F. Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev do not suggest “a rise time of the electric
`field is chosen to increase an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-
`ionized plasma,” as recited in dependent claim 4. .............................................. 50
`
`G. Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev do not suggest “a rise time of the electric
`field is chosen to increase an etch rate of the surface of the substrate,” as recited
`in dependent claim 5. .......................................................................................... 53
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`H. Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev do not suggest the requirements of claims
`21 and 24. ............................................................................................................ 54
`
`IPR2014-00578
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`I. Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev do not suggest the chosen “volume
`between the anode and the cathode” required by dependent claim 9. ................. 56
`
`J. Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev do not suggest “applying the electric field at
`a constant power,” as recited in dependent claim 16. ......................................... 58
`
`K. Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Lantsman do not suggest “applying the
`electric field at a constant voltage,” as recited in dependent claim 17. ............... 59
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00578
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 18
`
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 45
`
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 18
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 18, 32, 39
`
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American-Maize Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 48
`
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 17
`
`
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 36
`
`
`In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 30
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 35
`
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ......................................................................... 37, 38
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 17, 35
`
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`

`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 16
`
`IPR2014-00578
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................................................................ 26, 38
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`MPEP § 2143.03 ..................................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00578
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit of Etai Lahav in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2002 Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2003 Affidavit of Tigran Vardanian in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2004 Transcript of Deposition of Richard DeVito, IPR2014-00578 &
`IPR2014-00604, Dec. 11, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2005 Transcript of Deposition of Richard DeVito, IPR2014-00578 &
`IPR2014-00604, Dec. 17, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2006 Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2007 Eronini Umez-Eronini, SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL,
`Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. (1999), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2008 Robert C. Weyrick, FUNDAMENTALS OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL,
`McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2009 Chiang et al., U.S. Patent 6,398,929.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`All of the challenged claims are patentable over Wang, Mozgrin, and
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`Kudryavtsev. Wang describes applying DC power pulses to a plasma when
`
`sputtering material from a target, but fails to teach or suggest controlling voltage
`
`during such activities or when generating a high-density plasma. In fact, Wang
`
`does not explain any electrodynamics of high-density plasmas.1 Kudryavtsev
`
`describes a flash tube, in which a high voltage, greater than the breakdown voltage,
`
`is applied across an inert gas, resulting in a short, brilliant flash of light. The high
`
`voltage pulse used by Kudryavtsev causes an “explosion” in electron density in a
`
`plasma, and the reported voltage and current waveforms are consistent with arcing.
`
`Put simply, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not refer to Kudryavtsev at
`
`all when designing a plasma generator where arcing is an undesirable
`
`characteristic.2 Furthermore, while Mozgrin purports to have considered items
`
`reported by Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin determined that when employing a magnetic
`
`field (like Wang), a supply unit “providing square voltage and current pulses with
`
`rise times (leading edge) of 5 – 60 µs and durations as much as 1.5 ms” was
`
`
`1 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 12.
`
`2 Id. at ¶ 13.
`
`1
`
`

`

`needed.3 Wang, on the other hand, deemed it important that pulses have
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`“significant” rise times and pulse widths preferably less than 200 µs and no more
`
`than 1 ms.4 Thus, the teachings of Mozgrin would be of little value to a skilled
`
`artisan when considering Wang. Significant experimentation would still be
`
`required in order to adapt any teachings of Mozgrin to the regime of Wang.5
`
`
`
`Control of power (as in Wang) is very different from controlling voltage,6
`
`and even Wang acknowledges this distinction.7 Given this, the marked differences
`
`between the experimental apparatus of Kudryavtsev and the magnetron sputter
`
`reactor described by Wang, and notwithstanding Mozgrin, the skilled artisan would
`
`not have expected that applying the teachings of Kudryavtsev in a Wang-type
`
`system would have yielded predictable results or would have performed in an
`
`
`3 Ex. 1002 at p. 401, rt. col. ¶ 1.
`
`4 Ex. 1008 at 5:26-27, 43-48; 8:41-42.
`
`5 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 15.
`
`6 Id. at ¶¶ 58-60.
`
`7 Ex. 1008 at 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse
`
`width is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse widths.”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`expected way.8 Behaviors of charged particles (e.g., electrons and ions) in
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`magnetic fields are vastly different from their behaviors in the absence of magnetic
`
`fields. Petitioners and their expert fail to account for these differences in their
`
`analyses and further fail to account for the actual teachings of Wang insofar as it
`
`suggests anode-cathode geometry very different from that required by the ‘775
`
`patent. Therefore, the patentability of the challenged claims should be confirmed.9
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`The claims of the ‘775 patent are directed to a magnetically enhanced
`
`plasma processing apparatus and corresponding method in which an electric field
`
`is applied across weakly-ionized plasma proximate a cathode to “generate[ ]
`
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma . . ., thereby creating a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.”10 Accordingly, we first review some fundamentals concerning
`
`plasmas, and strongly-ionized (or high-density) plasmas in particular, and then
`
`address Dr. Chistyakov’s particular solution for generating such a plasma.
`
`
`8 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 14.
`
`9 Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.
`
`10 Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`3
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Plasma Fundamentals.
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`Plasma is a distinct state of matter characterized by a significant number of
`
`electrically charged particles. In an ordinary gas, each atom or molecule contains
`
`an equal number of positive and negative charges, so that each is electrically
`
`“neutral.” When the atoms or molecules of the gas are subjected to heat or other
`
`energy, they begin to lose electrons and are left with a positive charge. This
`
`process is called ionization. When enough gas atoms or molecules have been
`
`ionized such that the ions, together with the free electrons, significantly affect the
`
`electrical characteristics of the substance it is said to be plasma. Although made up
`
`of charged particles the plasma remains electrically neutral overall.11
`
`Common examples of the use of plasmas include applications in neon signs
`
`and fluorescent lights. Plasmas are also used in various industrial processes,
`
`including the manufacture of semiconductor devices. To that end, if a target (or an
`
`object in its vicinity) is made electrically negative compared to the plasma,
`
`positively charged ions in the plasma will be accelerated towards the target and a
`
`number of different interactions may occur (see Figure 1, below).12
`
`
`11 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 45.
`
`12 Id. at ¶ 46.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`Plasma
`
`Surface
`of
`Target
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Interactions at a target’s surface
`In Figure 1, an arriving ion is adsorbed onto the surface of the target at (A).
`
`At (B), the incoming ion transfers some of its momentum to one of the target’s
`
`surface atoms and causes it to be displaced. If the energy of the incoming ion is
`
`sufficiently high, surface atoms of the target may be removed in a process referred
`
`to as sputtering (shown in (C)). If the ion energy is even greater, then it may be
`
`implanted into the target (at (D)).13 Sputtering is often used to deposit layers of
`
`material on a semiconductor substrate as part of an integrated circuit fabrication
`
`process.14 Conversely, sputter etching involves “the ejection of atoms from the
`
`surface of a substrate due to energetic ion bombardment.”15 The ‘775 patent
`
`
`13 Id. at ¶ 47.
`
`14 Ex. 1008 at 1:10-15.
`
`15 Ex. 1001 at 1:13-14.
`
`5
`
`

`

`teaches plasma processing apparatus configured for various kinds of etching.16
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`B.
`
`Plasma Ignition
`
`To ignite a plasma, a gas is introduced in a space between two electrodes,
`
`for example in a tube or other container, and an electric field is applied between
`
`the electrodes. An example of such an arrangement is shown in Figure 2.17
`
`Cathode
`
`Anode
`
`Tube
`
`Gas
`
`Electric Field
`
`+
`
`_
`
`Voltage
`Source
`Figure 2: Simplified plasma system
`Ions and electrons in the gas are accelerated towards the electrically negative
`
`
`
`electrode (the “cathode”) and the electrically positive electrode (the “anode”),
`
`respectively. As electrons collide with gas atoms, they produce new ions.18
`
`When the ions are in close proximity to the cathode (e.g., on the order of a
`
`few Angstroms), electrons can tunnel from the cathode, neutralizing the ions and
`
`16 Id. at 4:7-14.
`
`17 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 48.
`
`18 Id.
`
`6
`
`

`

`releasing energy. If sufficient energy is transferred to a surface electron at the
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`cathode, “secondary electrons” are emitted into the gas. The secondary electrons
`
`are accelerated towards the anode, and when they collide with gas atoms they
`
`generate new ions and free electrons. The process of ionization proceeds in this
`
`fashion; and, if the applied power is sufficiently high, a plasma is created.19
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas
`
`The ‘775 patent is particularly concerned with high-density plasmas, for
`
`example, plasmas having a density greater than 1012 cm-3.20 As explained by Dr.
`
`Chistyakov, dense plasmas provide rapid etching of substrates in vicinities directly
`
`adjacent the higher concentration of ions.21 Magnetrons develop high-density
`
`plasmas using a magnetic field configured parallel to a target surface to constrain
`
`the secondary electrons. The ions also concentrate in the same region, maintaining
`
`the quasi-electrical neutrality of the plasma.22 This trapping of electrons and ions
`
`creates a dense plasma, which, in turn, leads to increased etching rates.
`
`Conventional magnetron systems suffer from undesirable, non-uniform
`
`19 Id. at ¶ 49.
`
`20 See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 23:31-33.
`
`21 Id. at 3:38-44.
`
`22 Id. at 3:34-40.
`
`7
`
`

`

`erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.23 To address
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`such problems, researchers tried increasing the applied power and later pulsing the
`
`applied power. However, increasing the applied power increased “the probability
`
`of establishing an electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable
`
`electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber.”24 With the pulsed approach,
`
`“very large power pulses can still result in an electrical breakdown condition
`
`regardless of their duration [and] [a]n undesirable electrical discharge will corrupt
`
`the [ ] process . . . .”25
`
`
`
`III. THE ‘775 PATENT
`
`To overcome some of the deficiencies of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`invented a magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus and corresponding
`
`method that employs a multi-step ionization process (in which atoms are first
`
`raised to excited states before being ionized) to create a strongly-ionized plasma.26
`
`
`23 Id. at 3:41-44.
`
`24 Id. at 3:51-56.
`
`25 Id. at 3:63-65.
`
`26 Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`8
`
`

`

`As illustrated in Fig. 2 of the ‘775 patent, reproduced here, Dr. Chistyakov’s
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`apparatus includes a chamber 202 in which is disposed a substrate 211, an anode
`
`238 and a cathode 216.27 The anode 238 is positioned adjacent to the cathode
`
`assembly “so as to form a gap 244
`
`between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode 216 that is sufficient to allow
`
`current to flow through a region 245
`
`between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode 216.”28 “The dimensions of
`
`the gap 244 and the total volume of
`
`region 245 are parameters in the
`
`ionization process . . . .”29 “[A]
`
`pulsed power supply 234 is a
`
`
`27 Id. at 4:14-15, 31-32, 42-43, and 53-54.
`
`28 Id. at 5:15-18.
`
`29 Id. at 5:21-24.
`
`9
`
`

`

`component of an ionization source that generates the weakly-ionized plasma [by
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`applying] a voltage pulse between the cathode 216 and the anode 238.”30 “The
`
`amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`generated in the region 246 between the anode 238 and the cathode 216.”31 “[T]he
`
`peak plasma density of the [weakly-ionized] plasma depends on the properties
`
`specific plasma processing system,”32 and the conductivity of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma is chosen to “greatly reduce[ ] or prevent[ ] the possibility of a breakdown
`
`condition when high power is applied to the plasma.”33
`
`“Once the weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are then
`
`generated between the cathode 216 and the anode 238.”34 The high power pulses
`
`generate an electric field that produces the optimum conditions for exciting neutral
`
`atoms in the weakly ionized plasma and causes ions in the plasma to strike the
`
`cathode, thereby causing secondary electron emission from the cathode. These
`
`
`30 Id. at 6:1-4.
`
`31 Id. at 6:6-9.
`
`32 Id. at 6:14-16.
`
`33 Id. at 7:13-15.
`
`34 Id. at 7:16-18.
`
`10
`
`

`

`secondary electrons are trapped by a magnetic field (254) in the region near the
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`cathode surface and interact with the excited atoms in the plasma, causing them to
`
`ionize and thereby increase the ion density in the plasma.35 “The desired power
`
`level of the high power pulse depends on several factors including the nature of the
`
`etch process, desired etch rate, density of the pre-ionized plasma, and the volume
`
`of the plasma.”36 “The high-power pulses generate a strong electric field . . . across
`
`the gap 244 between the cathode 216 and the anode 238. . . . [and] generate a
`
`highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.”37
`
`Because “the substrate 211 is biased more negatively than the cathode 216[, t]he
`
`positively charged ions in the strongly-ionized plasma accelerate towards the
`
`substrate 211. The accelerated ions impact a surface of substrate 211, causing the
`
`surface of the substrate 211 to be etched.”38
`
`As explained by Dr. Chistyakov, “the ion flux density of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma and the ion energy of the ions in the strongly-ionized plasma [can
`
`
`35 Id. at 7:16-18.
`
`36 Id. at 7:19-22.
`
`37 Id. at 7:36-52.
`
`38 Id. at 7:59-63.
`
`11
`
`

`

`be] independently controlled. [For example], the ion flux density is controlled by
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`adjusting the power level and the duration of the high-power pulses generated by
`
`the pulsed power supply 234[, while] the ion energy of the ions that strike the
`
`substrate 211 and cause the surface of the substrate 211 to be etched is controlled
`
`by adjusting the negative substrate bias voltage generated by the bias voltage
`
`source 214 (FIG. 2).”39 Further, “the strongly-ionized plasma tends to diffuse
`
`homogenously in the region 246 and, therefore tends to create a more
`
`homogeneous plasma volume. The homogenous diffusion results in accelerated
`
`ions impacting the surface of the substrate 211 in a more uniform manner than with
`
`a conventional plasma etching system. Consequently, the surface of the substrate is
`
`etched more uniformly.”40
`
`The ‘775 patent explains how the parameters of the electrical pulse applied
`
`to the weakly-ionized plasma in combination with the dimensions of the gap
`
`between the cathode and the anode together determine whether the gas atoms
`
`directly ionize from the ground state, or first enter an excited state and then ionize
`
`
`39 Id. at 7:66 – 8:8.
`
`40 Id. at 8:9-15.
`
`12
`
`

`

`from the exited state.41 In “direct ionization” or “atomic ionization by electron
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`impact,” a free electron collides with a neutral atom with enough energy to ionize
`
`the atom, producing another free electron in the process.42 In the multi-step
`
`ionization process, however, the strong electric field that results from application
`
`of the high power electrical pulse is applied across the weakly-ionized plasma and
`
`excites atoms in the weakly ionized plasma from the ground state into an excited
`
`state.43 Thereafter, the excited atoms “encounter the electrons that are trapped in
`
`the region . . . by the magnetic field . . . [and] ionize.”44 Because the excited atoms
`
`require only very little energy to ionize compared to neutral atoms in the ground
`
`state, “the excited atoms will ionize at a much higher rate than the neutral atoms.”45
`
`The ‘775 patent teaches the electrodynamics behind multi-step ionization,
`
`noting that ground state atoms require more energy to directly ionize than to enter
`
`an excited state:
`
`
`41 Id. at 9:14 et seq.
`
`42 Id. at 3:15-27.
`
`43 Id. at 9:17-22.
`
`44 Id. at 9:23-27.
`
`45 Id. at 9:27-28.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`to become excited …. while neutral atoms require about 15.76 eV
`of energy to ionize.46
`
`Once in an excited state, the atom requires less energy to ionize:
`
`Excited [argon] atoms only require about 4 eV of energy to ionize
`while neutral atoms require about 15.76 eV of energy to ionize.47
`
`Secondary electrons from the cathode then interact with the excited atoms to
`
`further increase the density of the plasma in that region.48
`
`The ‘775 patent also explains how the electric field in the gap influences the
`
`type of ionization that occurs:
`
`The dimensions of the gap 244 and the parameters of the applied
`electric field 260 are chosen to determine the optimum condition
`for a maximum rate of excitation of the atoms in the region 245.
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`to become excited. Thus, as the feed gas 264 flows through the
`region 245, the weakly-ionized plasma is formed and the atoms in
`the weakly-ionized plasma undergo a stepwise ionization process.
`
`
`46 Id. at 9:17-27.
`
`47 Id. at 9:25-27.
`
`48 Id. at 9:62 – 10:4.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`***
`Under appropriate excitation conditions, the portion of the energy
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma that is transformed to the
`excited atoms is very high for a pulsed discharge in the feed gas.49
`
`The relationship between the size of the gap and the applied voltage pulse is also
`
`important for optimizing the excitation of atoms:
`
`[T]he distance or gap 244 between the cathode 216 and the anode
`238 is chosen so as to maximize the rate of excitation of the atoms.
`The value of the electric field 260 in the region 245 depends on the
`voltage level applied by the pulsed power supply 234 (FIG. 2) and
`the dimensions of the gap 244 between the anode 238 and the
`cathode 216.
`
`***
`[T]he parameters of the applied electric field 260 are chosen to
`determine the optimum condition for a maximum rate of excitation
`of the atoms in the region 245.50
`
`The claims at issue are all directed to generating a strongly-ionized plasma using
`
`the multi-stage ionization described above for use in etching a substrate.
`
`
`
`
`49 Id. at 9:14-61.
`
`50 Id. at 9:14-61.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT.
`A. A skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention of the ’775 patent.
`
`Petitioners cannot prevail on any of the proposed grounds of rejection
`
`pending in this proceeding because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any
`
`of the challenged claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in view of the cited references. Generally, a party seeking to invalidate a
`
`patent as obvious must demonstrate 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.”51 This determination is one that must be made
`
`at the time the invention was made.52 This temporal requirement prevents the
`
`
`51 See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“To decide whether risedronate was obvious in light of the prior art, a
`
`court must determine whether, at the time of invention, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had ‘reason to attempt to make the composition’ known
`
`as risedronate and ‘a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`52 Id.
`
`16
`
`

`

`“forbidden use of hindsight.”53 Furthermore, rejections for obviousness cannot be
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`sustained by mere conclusory statements.54 “Petitioner[s] must show some reason
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine particular
`
`available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach the
`
`claimed invention.”55 Inventions are often deemed nonobvious (and thus
`
`patentable) even when all of the claim elements are individually found in the prior
`
`
`53 See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Indeed, where the invention is less technologically complex, the need for
`
`Graham findings can be important to ward against falling into the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight.”).
`
`54 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`55 Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper
`
`12 at p. 9 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418) (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`art because an “invention may be a combination of old elements.”56 The motivation
`
`to combine inquiry focuses heavily on “scope and content of the prior art” and the
`
`“level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” aspects of the Graham factors.57 The
`
`present petition did not adequately address either factor.
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art.
`
`Any obviousness analysis requires a consideration of the scope and content
`
`of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims.58 Here, all
`
`of the patentability issues to be addressed revolve around questions of obviousness
`
`with respect to the combined teachings of Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Therefore, it is appropriate to explore these teachings in some detail.
`
`
`56 Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`57 Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We
`
`further explained that the ‘motivation to combine’ requirement ‘[e]ntails
`
`consideration of both the ‘scope and content of the prior art’ and ‘level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art’ aspects of the Graham test.’”).
`
`58 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`18
`
`

`

`a. Wang.
`
`IPR2014-000578
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`Wang discusses “[a] pulsed magnetron sputter reactor [with] a high plasma
`
`density.”59 In this reactor, “narrow pulses of negative DC power” are used to
`
`sputter material from a target.60 In one example, Wang indicates that the pulses are
`
`applied to both ignite the plasma and maintain it,61 while in another example Wang
`
`describes maintaining the plasma using a background power level with the pulses
`
`applying a much greater peak power to increase the density of the plasma.62 In both
`
`examples it is the power applied to a cathode target that is driven to a prescribed
`
`level, not voltage.63
`
`As is known in the art, power (P) is the product of voltage (V) and current
`
`(I): P = V * I.64 Therefore, when Wang specifies a power output (e.g., as illustrated
`
`59 Ex. 1008 at 3:16-22.
`
`60 Id. at 5:19-20.
`
`61 Id. at 5:29-30.
`
`62 Id. at 7:13-30.
`
`63 Id. at 5:18-20; 7:13-30; and see 5:52-54 (“Where