UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 6,896,775
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00578 and 00604
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN C. BRAVMAN PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Gillette v. Zond
`Gillette 1031
`
`

`
`I. 
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-37 ............................................... 10 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .................. 11 
`B. 
`“ionizing a feed gas” (claim 15) .......................................................... 13 
`C. 
`“means for ionizing a feed gas…” (claim 36) and “means for ionizing
`a volume of feed gas…” (claim 37) .................................................... 14 
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” (claims 36 and 37) .......... 16 
`“means for applying an electrical field…” (claim 36) and “means for
`applying an electrical pulse…” (claim 37) .......................................... 17 
`“means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second
`volume of feed gas…” (claim 37) ....................................................... 18 
`“means for applying a bias voltage…” (claims 36 and 37) ................ 20 
`G. 
`IV.  RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-37 ............................................................. 21 
`A.  General Discussion .............................................................................. 21 
`1.  Power, Voltage, and Current: Figure 5 of the ‘775 Patent is Taught by
`Wang’s Power Supplies ............................................................................ 21 
`2.  Combining the Teachings of Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ........ 24 
`3.  Combining the Teachings of Wang, Mozgrin and Lantsman ............. 28 
`Independent Claims 1, 15, 30, 36 and 37 ............................................ 29 
`1.  “a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a gap
`there between” (Independent Claim 1) ..................................................... 29 
`2.  “means for ionizing…” (Claims 36 and 37) ....................................... 33 
`3.  Independent Claims 15 and 30 do not require a specific order ........... 38 
`Dependent Claims 16 and 17 .............................................................. 40 
`C. 
`D.  Dependent Claims 2 and 18 ................................................................ 42 
`E. 
`Dependent Claims 21, 24 and 33 ........................................................ 43 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`B. 
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`F. 
`F.
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 and 9 .............................................................. 47 
`Dependent Claims 4, 5 and 9 ............................................................ ..47
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I, John C. Bravman, declare as follows:
`
`
` My name is John C. Bravman.
`1.
`
`
`
` My academic training was at Stanford University, where I received 2.
`
`my Bachelor of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering in 1979, and
`
`a Master of Science degree in 1981, also in Materials Science and Engineering. I
`
`completed my Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1984, with a dissertation that
`
`focused on the nature of silicon – silicon dioxide interfaces as found in integrated
`
`circuit devices.
`
`
`3.
`
`From 1979 to 1984, while a graduate student at Stanford, I was
`
`employed part-time by Fairchild Semiconductor in their Palo Alto Advanced
`
`Research Laboratory. I worked in the Materials Characterization group. In 1985,
`
`upon completion of my doctorate, I joined the faculty at Stanford as Assistant
`
`Professor of Materials Science and Engineering. I was promoted to Associate
`
`Professor with tenure in 1991, and achieved the rank of Professor in 1995. In 1997
`
`I was named to the Bing Professorship.
`
`
`4.
`
`At Stanford I was Chairman of the Department of Materials Science
`
`and Engineering from 1996 to 1999, and Director of the Center for Materials
`
`Research from 1998 to 1999. I served as Senior Associate Dean of the School of
`
`Engineering from 1992 to 2001 and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
`
`from 1999 to 2010. On July 1, 2010, I retired from Stanford University and
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`assumed the Presidency of Bucknell University, where I also became a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering.
`
`
`5.
`
`I have worked for more than 25 years in the areas of thin film
`
`materials processing and analysis. Much of my work has involved materials for
`
`use in microelectronic interconnects and packaging, and in superconducting
`
`structures and systems. I have also led multiple development efforts of specialized
`
`equipment and methods for determining the microstructural and mechanical
`
`properties of materials and structures.
`
`
`6.
`
`I have taught a wide variety of courses at the undergraduate and
`
`graduate level in materials science and engineering, emphasizing both basic
`
`science and applied technology, including coursework in the areas of integrated
`
`circuit materials and processing. More than two thousand students have taken my
`
`classes, and I have trained 24 doctoral students, most of whom now work in the
`
`microelectronics industry.
`
`
`7.
`
`In the course of my research, my research group made extensive use
`
`of plasma deposition equipment for creating films of both simple (e.g. elemental)
`
`and complex (e.g. multi-element compound) materials, in both homogeneous and
`
`multilayered geometries.
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of many professional societies, including the Materials
`
`Research Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`American Physical Society. I served as President of the Materials Research Society
`
`in 1994.
`
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (including a list of all publications
`
`authored in the previous 10 years) is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 (the “’775 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1008)), including U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1014)) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex.
`
`2009)) which are both incorporated by reference by Wang.
`
` 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 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1002)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1003)).
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0092596 (“Kouznetsov” (Ex. 1004)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,447,655 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1004)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` N. Li, J.P. Allain and D.N. Ruzic, Enhancement of aluminum oxide physical
`
`vapor deposition with a secondary plasma, Surface & Coatings Technology,
`
`149 (2002) pp. 161-170 (“Li” (Ex. 1010)).
`
` Eronini Umez-Eronini “System Dynamics and Control,” 1999 (“Eronini”
`
`(Ex. 2007)).
`
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the above publications and any other publication cited
`
`in this declaration.
`
` Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`12.
`
`IPR2014-00578 and 00604, including the Petitions and the accompanying
`
`Declarations of Mr. Rich DeVito. As discussed below, I agree with Mr. DeVito’s
`
`conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have reviewed the Board’s
`
`Decisions on Institution, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. In addition, I have reviewed some
`
`deposition transcripts of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`
`13.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ‘775 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’775 Patent
`
`would have found the ’775 Patent invalid.
`
`
`14.
`
`I have been retained by the Petitioner as an expert in the field of
`
`plasma technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450/hour for my time.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`
`15.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’775 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’775 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`17.
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I
`
`have applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms as they
`
`would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`
`18.
`
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`19.
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, based on the ‘775 Patent and the prior art references
`
`considered here, the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the ’775
`
`Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical engineering, or chemical engineering, with
`
`two or more years practicing plasma generation methods and using plasma-based
`
`processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded these requirements for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’775 Patent.
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of a claim
`
`would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including, among
`
`8
`
`others:
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-37
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the declarations of Mr.
`
`DeVito provided in the above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’775 Patent
`
`and I agree with the findings of Mr. DeVito at (1) IPR No. 2014-00578, Ex. 1011,
`
`¶¶ 146-209, captioned Grounds 4-6; and (2) IPR No. 2014-00604, Ex. 1111, ¶¶
`
`128-159, captioned Grounds 3-6.
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the magnetically
`26.
`
`enhanced plasma processing apparatus described in claims 1-14, 36 and 37 and the
`
`method of magnetically enhanced plasma processing described in claims 15-35 are
`
`disclosed by the prior art, and are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for
`27.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim terms not
`
`included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`course is for Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to
`
`its contentions in this proceeding. I understand that the Patent Owner has not
`
`sought to amend the claims in the above-captioned proceedings.
`
`A.
` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
` Petitioner did not propose a construction for these terms. Patent
`28.
`
`Owner, however, argued that the “Petitioner’s proposed constructions … are
`
`wrong….” IPR 2014-00578, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response at p.13.
`
` The Board construed the terms as follows: “we construe the claim
`29.
`
`term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak density of
`
`ions,’ and the claim term ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.’” IPR2014-00578, Decision on Institution at p. 9 (Paper
`
`11
`
`No. 13).
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`30.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ‘775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claim terms “weakly-ionized
`
`plasma” or “strongly-ionized plasma” to require any specific magnitude in the peak
`
`density of ions.
`
` As stated above, I understand that claims are construed in light of the
`31.
`
`specification. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“low-density plasma” or “pre-ionized plasma” to be the same as “weakly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms are used synonymously in the ‘775 Patent, as evidenced at
`
`6:10-11 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”)
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘775 Patent] at 6:10-11.
`
`
`32.
`
`I do not understand the ’775 Patent specification to require orders of
`
`magnitude difference between the “weakly-ionized” and the “strongly-ionized”
`
`plasma. For example, the ’775 Patent specification states: “the peak plasma
`
`density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about 106 and 1012 cm-3.” Ex. 1001
`
`[’775 Patent] at 6:11-13. Claim 25 recites: “the peak plasma density of weakly-
`
`ionized plasma is less than 1012 cm-3.” Ex. 1001 [’775 Patent] at claim 25. The
`
`’775 Patent further states that “the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3.” Ex. 1001 [’775 Patent] at claim 26. I have
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`produced Bravman Fig. 1 below to illustrate that these are ranges without any
`
`specific magnitude or order difference, as described by the specification of the
`
`‘775 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Schematic 1: Schematic illustrating the ranges of plasma density that satisfy a
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and a “strongly-ionized plasma” according to the ‘775
`patent.
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ‘775 Patent specification,
`33.
`
`“‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,’
`
`and that ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively high peak density
`
`of ions.’” IPR2014-00578, Decision on Institution at p. 9 (Paper No. 13).
`
`B.
`
`“ionizing a feed gas” (claim 15)
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner did not propose a construction for this claim term. Patent
`34.
`
`Owner, however, proposed to construe this term as “ionization of a gas while that
`
`gas is being fed to the region where ionization occurs.” IPR2014-00578, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response at p. 15.
`
` The Board rejected the Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of this
`35.
`
`claim term and chose to “rely on its ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure.” IPR2014-00578, Decision on Institution at p. 10.
`
`
`36.
`
`I agree with the Board that this claim term does not require a specific
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`claim term.
`
`C.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas…” (claim 36) and “means for
`ionizing a volume of feed gas…” (claim 37)
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that this
`37.
`
`element is a means-plus-function element that must be construed to recite a
`
`function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 8 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`38.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim terms have a claimed function of
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“generating/forming a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode.” IPR2014-
`
`00604, Petition at p. 13 (Paper No. 3).
`
` Patent Owner proposed a much narrower construction, proposing the
`39.
`
`function of “ionization of gas that is being fed while it is being ionized to form the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00604, Patent Owner Preliminary Response at
`
`p. 19 (Paper No. 7).
`
` The Board rejected the Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation and
`40.
`
`construed the claimed function as “to ionize a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00479, Decision on Institution at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`41.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`
`function is a power supply that is electrically coupled to an anode and a cathode, as
`
`shown in FIGS. 2, 3, 7, 10 or 11 and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at
`
`4:42-67, 6:1-4, 8:27-31. IPR2014-00604, Petition at p. 13 (Paper No. 3). The
`
`Patent Owner “does not appear to dispute the structure identified by Gillette.”
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 9 (Paper No. 9). The Board
`
`construed the corresponding structure to be “a power supply electrically connected
`
`to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on
`
`Institution at p. 9 (Paper No. 9).
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner is now requesting the Board to
`
`further include the structure of a “gap” as a corresponding structure. Specifically, I
`
`understand the Patent Owner argues that the “Board’s preliminary construction …
`
`failed to account for [a] gap … [which] is an important consideration of the
`
`cathode-anode arrangement.” IPR2014-00604, Patent Owner’s Response at p.39.
`
`As more fully explained below, I understand that Dr. Hartsough clarified what
`
`constitutes a “gap” during his deposition.
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`43.
`
`construction as well as a construction that includes the additional feature of the
`
`“gap,” as clarified during Dr. Hartsough’s deposition, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’775 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies to both
`
`constructions.
`
`D.
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” (claims 36 and 37)
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these
`44.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9). The Patent
`
`Owner, however, did not propose any construction for this claim term.
`
` The Petitioner construed the claimed function as “generating a
`45.
`
`magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00604, Petition
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`at p. 14 (Paper 3). The Board construed the claimed function to be “generating a
`
`magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`
`substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the
`
`cathode.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 10 (Paper No. 9).
`
` The Board further “agree[d] with Gillette that the corresponding
`46.
`
`structure for performing the recited function … to be a magnet assembly having
`
`either a permanent magnet or a current source coupled to one or more electro-
`
`magnets.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 10 (Paper No. 9).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`47.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`E.
`
`“means for applying an electrical field…” (claim 36) and “means
`for applying an electrical pulse…” (claim 37)
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these
`48.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at pp. 10-12 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`49.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim terms have a claimed function of “applying an
`
`electrical pulse / electrical field across the weakly-ionized plasma voltage pulse to
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.” The Board
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`construed the claimed function to be “applying an electric field across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma thereby generating secondary electrons to create a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at pp. 10-11 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`50.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure is a power supply, generating
`
`the voltage and power values shown in Figs. 4-5, and 8, that is electrically coupled
`
`to an anode and a cathode, wherein the anode and cathode are arranged relative to
`
`the cathode as shown Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11 and as described in the text of the ‘775
`
`Patent at 4:42-67, 6:1-4, 8:27-31 IPR2014-00604, Petition at p. 14 (Paper No. 3).
`
` Patent Owner provided a much narrower construction of the
`51.
`
`corresponding structure, which the Board rejected. IPR2014-00604, Decision on
`
`Institution at p. 11 (Paper No. 9). Rather, the Board was “persuaded by Gillette
`
`that the citations disclose the corresponding structure(s),” and construed the
`
`corresponding structure to be “pulsed power supply electrically connected to a
`
`cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution
`
`at pp. 11-12 (Paper No. 9).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`52.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ‘775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`F.
`
`“means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second
`volume of feed gas…” (claim 37)
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these
`53.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at pp. 12-13 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`54.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term has a claimed function of “exchanging the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma with a second volume of feed gas while applying the
`
`electrical pulse across the second volume of feed gas to generate a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma comprising a second plurality of ions.” IPR2014-00604, Petition at pp. 14-
`
`15 (Paper No. 3). The Board construed the claimed function as “providing a feed
`
`gas to the strongly-ionized plasma sufficiently to exchange a volume of that
`
`plasma with a second volume of feed gas.” IPR2014-0060, Decision on Institution
`
`at p. 12 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`55.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure is “a gas inlet, e.g., from gas
`
`source 208, as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11 and as described in the text of the
`
`‘775 Patent at 4:14-17.” IPR2014-00604, Petition at p. 15 (Paper No. 3).
`
` The Board noted that a “gas flow control system is necessary for the
`56.
`
`corresponding structure to perform the prescribed function,” IPR2014-00604,
`
`Decision on Institution at p. 12 (Paper No. 9), and construed the corresponding
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`structure as “a gas flow control system and structures for supplying the gas to the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 13 (Paper
`
`No. 9).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`57.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`G.
` “means for applying a bias voltage…” (claims 36 and 37)
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these
`58.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at pp. 13-14 (Paper No. 9). The Patent
`
`Owner, however, did not propose any construction for this claim term.
`
` The Petitioner construed the claimed function as “applying a bias
`59.
`
`voltage to a substrate… causing ions in the first and the second plurality of ions to
`
`impact a surface of the substrate in a manner that causes etching of the surface of
`
`the substrate.” IPR2014-00604, Petition at p. 15 (Paper 3). The Board construed
`
`the claimed function as “generating bias voltage to a substrate to cause etching of
`
`the surface of the substrate.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 13
`
`20
`
`(Paper No. 9).
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` The Board further “agree[d] with Gillette that the corresponding
`60.
`
`structure for performing the recited function … to be a bias voltage source
`
`electrically coupled to substrate.” IPR2014-00604, Decision on Institution at p. 14
`
`(Paper No. 9).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`61.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’775 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-37
`A. General Discussion
`1.
`Power, Voltage, and Current: Figure 5 of the ‘775 Patent is
`Taught by Wang’s Power Supplies
`
`
`
` The ‘775 patent and the prior art references refer to power supplies, as 62.
`
`well as the concepts of power (P), voltage (V), and current (I). Generally, a pulsed
`
`power supply outputs a voltage pulse. The current responds to the applied voltage
`
`pulse, depending on the impedance of the load, leading to an increase in the current
`
`and a concomitant lowering of the voltage. The power follows the current and
`
`rises along with the current, as schematically illustrated below.
`
` Moreover, when a voltage pulse is applied between an anode and a
`63.
`
`cathode, an electric field is also generated. I understand that Zond’s expert, Dr.
`
`Hartsough, agrees with me. Ex. 1030 [Hartsough 775 deposition transcript] at
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`153:19-23 (“Q: Is an electric field generated when a voltage pulse is applied? …
`
`A: Yes.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`Schematic 2: Schematic illustrating how the behavior of current and power upon
`application of a voltage pulse.
`
`
`
`64.
`
`In short, and as illustrated above, to generate a power pulse, a voltage
`
`pulse with a specific amplitude and rise time is first provided by the power supply.
`
`After a period of time, the current and power will pulse with related profiles.
`
` This behavior is also taught in Wang. Wang teaches that “[t]he pulsed
`65.
`
`DC power supply 80 produces a train of negative voltage pulses…” Ex. 1008
`
`[Wang] at 7:61-62. Wang further teaches that a “typical pulsed power supply will
`
`output relative high voltage and almost no current in the ignition phase and a lower
`
`voltage and substantial current in the maintenance phase.” Ex. 1008 [Wang] at
`
`22
`
`5:32-35.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`66.
`
`I understand that Dr. Hartsough agreed during his deposition that
`
`Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent illustrates such a typical power supply described by
`
`Wang. Ex. 1030 [Hartsough 775 deposition transcript] at 149:22-150:20. (“Q: So
`
`we can agree that Wang is explaining how a typical pulsed power supply operates;
`
`right? A: Yes. … Q: And that’s exactly what Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent is
`
`showing; right? …A: Yes.”) I have reproduced Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent below
`
`with colored annotations.
`
`Annotated Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent: Voltage is shown in green, current is
`shown in purple, and power is shown orange. This figure also illustrates how the
`typical power supply described by Wang operates.
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` As such, in both the Figure 5 of the ‘775 and Wang, when the voltage
`67.
`
`pulse is initially applied (red region), voltage (green) is initially higher with low
`
`current (purple). Then, when the strongly-plasma is generated (blue region), the
`
`voltage (green) becomes lower with the corresponding rise in current (purple).
`
`Combining the Teachings of Wang, Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`2.
`
`
` Moreover, it was well known to a person skilled in the art that 68.
`
`increasing the sputter etching rate is desirable. Ex. 1001 [775 patent] at 1:23-24. I
`
`understand Dr. Hartsough agrees with me on this point. Ex. 1030 [Hartsough 775
`
`deposition transcript] at 49:7-24. (“Q: So in – in general, it’s desirable, and the
`
`person of ordinary skill would be motivated, to increase the sputter etching rate;
`
`right? … A: Yes.”)
`
`
`69.
`
`It was also well-known that one could achieve such increased sputter
`
`etching rate by increasing the ionization rate. Ex. 1030 [Hartsough 775 deposition
`
`transcript] at 50:2-12 (“Q: What are the ways in which a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have known how to increase the etch rate? … Q: It could increase the
`
`ionization rate? A: It could increase the – the flux of ions that would be – you
`
`know, that would bombard the substrate.”).
`
`
`70.
`
`It was also well known that high density plasma is desirable because i