throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 58
`Entered: June 30, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`Technology Center 1700
`- - - - - - -
`Oral Hearing Held on Tuesday, May 26, 2015
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Before: JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN MITCHELL, JENNIFER
`MEYER, DEBRA STEPHENS (via video link), and KEVIN TURNER (via
`video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, May 26,
`2015, at 1:05 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER GILLETTE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID L. CAVANAUGH, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`202-663-6025
`
`YUNG-HOON (Sam) HA, Ph.D., ESQ.
`COSMIN MAIER, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, New York 10007
`212-230-8800
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER FUJITSU:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID M. O'DELL, ESQ.
`GREGORY HUH, ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone LLP
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`972-739-6900
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER FUJITSU:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`214-651-5533
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group
`333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 200
`San Jose, California 95110-2730
`408-389-3537
`
`BRUCE J. BARKER, ESQ.
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
`508-366-3800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:05 p.m.)
`JUDGE CHANG: Please be seated. This is the
`hearing for cases IPR2014- 00578 and IPR2014- 00604
`involving patent 6,896,775.
`And the Board instituted these two Inter Partes
`Reviews on October 15th, 2014. Subsequent to the institution
`the Board granted a joint motion in each case joining both
`IPR2014- 01494 and IPR2014- 01482. This is a combined oral
`hearing. The transcript for this oral hearing will be entered in
`each of the joint proceedings.
`And consistent with the Board's previous order,
`each party has one hour each. And Petitioner will proceed
`first to present its case as to the challenged claims, and the
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time, and thereafter the Patent
`Owner will respond to the Petitioner's case.
`At this time I would like the counsel to introduce
`yourselves and your colleagues, beginning with the Petitioner.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: This is David Cavanaugh. I
`represent Gillette. With me is Sam Ha, also representing
`Gillette with Wilmer Hale. Also with me is Cosmin Maier,
`who is with Wilmer Hale representing Gillette.
`The other Petitioners over here, David O'Dell is
`with Haynes and Boone representing Fujitsu, David McCombs
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`also with Haynes and Boone representing Fujitsu, and Gregory
`Huh representing Fujitsu.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you.
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Tarek Fahmi on behalf of the Patent Owner. With me is Bruce
`Barker.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. Counsel, do you
`have a copy of the demonstratives for the court reporter and
`for the Panel?
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, we do.
`MR. FAHMI: Yes.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Great. Thank you. You
`may proceed at any time.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. May it please
`the Board. Good afternoon. I'm Dave Cavanaugh and with
`me, as I mentioned earlier, is Cosmin Maier and Sam Ha. I
`would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal and get started.
`So last October as, Judge Chang, you noted, the
`Board instituted a trial on all of the claims of the '775 patent.
`In the decision on institution the Board credited the testimony
`of the Petitioner's expert, Mr. DeVito, and found that there
`was a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were
`unpatentable based on the combinations of references that
`include Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and a few others for
`some dependent claims.
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`As I will explain today and by way of introduction,
`the record supports the decision on institution in which the
`Board determined that all of the claims were likely
`unpatentable.
`Today I would like to provide the Board with an
`overview of the '775 patent. I would like to identify the
`instituted combinations of references and focusing primarily
`on the independent claims and some selected dependent
`claims.
`
`I would like to address the issues raised by the
`Patent Owner in their response and address the, again, the
`independent claims and the dependent claims that the Patent
`Owner has chosen to argue.
`The '775 patent is related to a high- power pulsed
`magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus and
`device. And while the title is a mouthful, the technology itself
`can be broken down into its elemental components in a
`thoughtful way.
`And here on slide 4, what I have done is to identify
`on figure 2 of the '775 patent the elements that we will be
`talking about today. The magnetic field is in orange, which is
`element 256.
`An electrical pulse is applied across an anode and
`a cathode. The anode is in yellow and the cathode is in green.
`And a power supply is what provides the electrical pulse, and
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`that is in light blue. And that's on the top right -hand part of
`the illustration.
`The plasma is generated in the dotted region,
`which is colored purple, and that is located between the anode
`and cathode, and then there is a substrate which is in blue and
`there is a bias that is applied to the substrate.
`As I mentioned a moment ago, the invention or the
`'775 patent relates to a particular process for generating
`highly-ionized, or plasma that is highly ionized, and I would
`like to walk through the process of generating that
`highly-ionized plasma so that the Board can appreciate what is
`provided in the power supply associated with the '775 patent.
`And, again, this power supply is what is on the
`right- hand side, element 234 -- now I'm on slide 4 -- the
`right- hand side of figure 2, labeled P/S. And the power
`supply -- now I'm on slide 5 -- starts with the application of an
`amount of voltage. That voltage across the cathode and anode
`ionizes the gas that is between the cathode and anode to a low
`level, to a low- level ionization.
`And at T2, which is represented on the first dotted
`line vertically, there is a voltage pulse that is applied to the
`system by the power supply. And what happens is the voltage
`pulse provides for an increase in the ionization associated with
`the ionized plasma and so it becomes highly-ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`What happens with that highly-ionized plasma is
`that it conducts electricity differently so that the voltage will
`go down as the plasma becomes more ionized and the current
`goes up. And that's what is happening in the middle part of
`figure 5 in the '775 patent.
`And the power pulse, which is on the lower graph,
`rises to a certain constant level and the highly-energized
`plasma, the highly-ionized plasma is represented on the flat
`line between T5 and T6 and then the cycle of a pulsed voltage
`would continue on again, and it repeats over time to create the
`plasma.
`
`The plasma is used in a variety of different things
`for etching and deposition of ions onto a substrate or away
`from a substrate. It is useful in semiconductor manufacturing.
`The use of plasma is also probably commonly understood in
`neon lights and in other kinds of illumination.
`So turning from slide 5 to slide 6, I put the basic
`elements of representative claim 1, which is an apparatus
`claim, and representative claim 15, which is a method, up on
`the screen and identified where those elements that I
`previously identified on the figure, where they are in the
`claim.
`
`There is an anode. There is a cathode. There is a
`magnet that generates a magnetic field. There is a power
`supply that creates the strongly-ionized plasma and a bias
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`voltage to the substrate, which I'm not sure I mentioned it, so
`just in case I didn't, I'm back on slide 4, the substrate has a
`power -- has a bias that's applied by a voltage source 214 and
`that's in the bottom part of figure 2 on slide 4.
`So the Board decided in the decision on institution
`that certain references were a part of a ground of
`unpatentability that was reasonably likely to have the claim
`invalid or cancelled. The primary reference is Wang, Mozgrin
`and Kudryavtsev. And I have outlined them on slide 7 for the
`Board.
`
`And before I get to the particular references, on
`slide 8 I just identify some claim construction issues that the
`Board addressed in the decision on institution and I think there
`are two that merit mention. One, weakly-ionized
`plasma/strongly ionized plasma. The Petitioner and the Patent
`Owner had slightly different constructions.
`In the Board's decision, they said that there was no
`material difference or substantial difference between the
`Petitioner and the Patent Owner's construction and they
`decided a particular construction and no one has argued that in
`this proceeding.
`The second term that I wanted to address was
`ionizing a feed gas. The Petitioner didn't request a
`construction of that. The Patent Owner did but the Board in
`the decision on institution perceived that it should receive its
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. And then as the Board has
`required in the rules, we have put forth constructions and the
`Board adopted constructions related to the
`means-plus- function limitations in the second of the two IPRs.
`So with --
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, before you move on, I
`have a quick question.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes.
`JUDGE TURNER: I understand that the Patent
`Owner hasn't disputed our construction for means for ionizing
`a feed gas or volume of the feed gas, but they do seem to say
`in their response that they think that that means requires a gap.
`So I know that our construction doesn't, you know,
`mention the gap but I figure that this might be a good point for
`you to perhaps -- maybe I'm jumping ahead, though -- I will
`give you the opportunity to discuss that at this point.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: I think we will talk about
`gaps in a moment, but to the extent that they have not
`identified the construction itself as being inappropriate, like
`that's all I'm saying here.
`When we talk about gap we will address where the
`gap is in Wang and how it is perceived as well as some of the
`Patent Owner's own statements in their reply. So we will,
`Judge Turner, if I don't get to that when I get to it, please ask
`the question again but I think I will remember.
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I will make sure you do. Thank
`
`you.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. So this is Wang,
`which is the primary reference, and it also relates to a
`plasma-generating device. And it also has -- and now I'm on
`slide 9 -- a rotatable magnetron which in this depiction is
`located above the cathode which is in green. There is also the
`plasma which is in purple.
`Wang also has a DC pulsed power supply and that
`is on the lower right-hand side of figure 1. And there is a
`substrate which is in blue and it is provided with a bias which
`is the voltage source 44.
`So the basic elements of what the '775 patent is
`disclosing and claiming are present in Wang and, indeed, in
`other pieces of prior art, but Wang I think is illustrative of
`kind of the state of the art and what is disclosed. And here I
`have associated the elements.
`Because the -- and here I've, on slide 10, I've made
`an association between Wang on the right-hand side and the
`'775 patent structurally on the left- hand side. And as the
`Board can appreciate, many of the same limitations and many
`of the same elements are a part of Wang.
`And I thought it also might be useful to go
`through -- let me go back to slide 10 for a moment -- to talk
`about the power supply which in the '775 patent is on figure 2
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`and the P/S in light blue, and in Wang it is the element which
`is pulsed DC supply which is also in blue and on the lower
`right- hand side of figure 1 of Wang.
`And I thought it might be useful because of the
`issues that the Patent Owner has raised with regard to the
`power supply to walk through how the power supply of Wang
`relates to the power supply of the '775 patent.
`We see in Wang -- and now I'm on slide 11 -- that
`there is a pulse that is provided. There is a base power,
`actually I should say a power, there is a base power PB, and
`this is illustrated on figure 6, which is the lower part of slide
`11, and going from the PB, which is the base power, to a PP,
`which is the peak power. And as you move from the base
`power to the peak power, that is what is, you know, providing
`that capability or that possibility of highly ionizing the
`plasma.
`
`And what I've done on the top of slide 11 is to put
`on figure 7, which is one of the suggested ways of applying
`the pulse in Wang, and on the bottom part of figure 7 we have
`a voltage supply 100 which is connected to the cathode. And
`that is what provides PB. So there is a base power that is
`provided.
`
`There is also a pulsed DC supply, 80 which we
`talked about a moment ago that provides a voltage pulse and
`that voltage pulse is what provides PP. And that voltage pulse
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`is what brings the ions up from a weakly-ionized state to a
`strongly-ionized state, or lowly ionized to highly ionized,
`depending on how one characterizes it.
`So Wang itself is taking the essential, kind of
`providing a base voltage and weakly ionizing the plasma and
`then providing a stronger voltage to strongly ionize the
`plasma.
`
`And we asked Dr. Hartsough, the Patent Owner's
`expert, to help us understand what the power supply was. And
`this is looking at Wang, which it says is a typical pulsed
`power supply. And we asked him, and Wang says:
`"Question: A typical pulsed power supply will
`output relatively high voltage and almost no current in the
`ignition phase and a lower voltage and substantial current in
`the maintenance phase. Do you see that?"
`And we are asking him to point to Wang, to look at
`the Wang disclosure on column 5. And he sees it. And we ask
`a follow-up question:
`"Question: So we can agree that Wang is
`explaining how a typical pulsed power supply operates; right?
`"Answer: Yes.
`"Question: And that's exactly what figure 5 of the
`'775 patent is showing; right?
`"Answer: Yes."
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`So the Patent Owner's expert is identifying that
`figure 5 of the '775 patent is describing what a typical pulsed
`power supply would do.
`And with that, with the power supply, and we'll
`talk about that I think for some of the dependent claims, but it
`is important that the Patent Owner's expert identifies the
`power supply of Wang with a typical power supply and says
`what is going on in figure 5 is what is happening with a
`typical power supply in this system.
`So the Patent Owner has raised a few issues
`relating to the independent claims that I would like to address
`if there are no questions relating to the technology or relating
`to the background that I've just provided.
`Okay. I will go on to the issues raised by the
`Patent Owner. Now I'm on slide 14. The Patent Owner has
`raised a few issues, and I think the Board will note that they
`are, given the similarity between Wang and the '775 patent
`claims, they tend to focus on some of the details. And I want
`to walk through those details with you to make sure that the
`Board can appreciate that those details are also met by Wang.
`So the first one is whether Wang, the cathode and
`anode of Wang are adjacent to one another, and whether Wang
`forms a gap between the anode and cathode as recited in the
`claim. And then finally in claim 15, which is a method claim,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`whether or not the claim itself requires a specific order. I will
`address each of them in turn.
`And here what I've done is taken the slide that I
`presented previously and just identified the claim terms that
`are in dispute as to where they are. So I have drawn dotted
`boxes around "adjacent" and "a gap" and for claim 1.
`I've also drawn a line around "proximate" which I
`will talk about in a moment but the Patent Owner has alleged
`that there is a deficiency in the petition which I think we can
`address fairly conveniently after talking about gap and
`adjacent.
`
`And then finally, regarding the presentation of the
`claims, the ionizing of feed gas and generating a magnetic
`field are the two claim limitations that the Patent Owner
`perceives to require a specific order.
`So Wang, in the Patent Owner's view, Wang does
`not have an anode or a cathode that are adjacent one another or
`form a gap. And I will take each of these individually, but of
`necessity I will take them together also.
`So the first thing that the Patent Owner has done is
`said that there is a shield on -- and now I'm on slide 16 --
`there is a shield in between the cathode and anode of Wang
`and that's represented on the right-hand side as figure -- of
`slide 16, where there is a shield 26.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`And in the Patent Owner's view, apparently,
`because it is between the cathode and anode, that it means that
`the cathode and anode are not adjacent one another.
`And we asked the Patent Owner, the Patent
`Owner's expert, questions about what it meant to be adjacent.
`One of the things we asked was, well, if there is plasma
`between the cathode and anode, does that mean the cathode
`and anode are not adjacent? And he said, no, of course not,
`the cathode and anode are going to generate plasma and that
`doesn't necessarily mean that because there is plasma in
`between it doesn't mean they're not adjacent. We would agree.
`And we also asked, and this is on the left- hand side
`of slide 16, because Dr. Hartsough, the Patent Owner's expert,
`had put a simplified version of a cathode and anode in his
`declaration, we said in that construct is the cathode and anode
`adjacent? And the electrode is, as the Board can appreciate, is
`between the cathode and electrode for at least a portion of that
`distance, kind of going down on the screen for that figure.
`And Dr. Hartsough said yes, for a portion of that,
`that is adjacent. And we asked him to identify what event or a
`gap on figure 7. And, you know, he identified a couple
`different lines in figure 7, which is on the center part of slide
`16, and I have illustrated one in a dotted line in purple for
`what he identified.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`And so setting this as conditions for a gap and
`adjacent, I would like to walk through his testimony. So this
`is Dr. Hartsough, the Patent Owner's expert.
`"Question: I'll pose my question again: Is the
`anode and cathode depicted in Exhibit 1029 adjacent to one
`another?"
`
`Then I am just going to go back to slide 16 on the
`left-hand side, so the question is whether the anode and
`cathode are adjacent to each other. And on slide 17:
`"Answer: In that depiction, there are portions that
`are adjacent.
`"Question: So are they adjacent within the context
`of the '775 claims?
`"Answer: Yes."
`So Dr. Hartsough says that that space is adjacent
`and there is no principled reason why the cathode and anode of
`Wang aren't also adjacent.
`Again, I'm on slide 17, we asked him again:
`"Question: Show me where all of the gaps are."
`And I go back to the figure. "Why don't you do it in black."
`And the lines that he drew are between the cathode and anode
`and I've identified one in purple.
`"Answer: It could also be those distances.
`"Question: That's what you meant by 'edge'
`
`earlier?"
`
`
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`And if I can get my pointer to work, for those in
`the room, the edge being right here, and for those not in the
`room it is the left-hand- most portion of the anode that is --
`where the beginning part of the purple line is. And that is the
`edge because we believe, the Petitioners believe that it is, you
`know, the gap itself could be any one of those, and evidently
`the Patent Owner's expert agrees that those could be a gap.
`I'm going to go back to slide 16 for a moment
`because what we've done is identify just a representative
`purple dotted line between the cathode and anode in figure 1
`of Wang. And it does form a cathode, or an anode that is
`adjacent to the cathode and it also forms a gap.
`And, Judge Turner, you had asked a question about
`whether or not Wang's gap was -- actually you asked in the
`context of the means- plus- function language and how the gap
`is described and whether or not -- I guess I'm reading into
`your question -- whether or not Wang has that.
`And just from a standpoint -- I'm on slide 18
`now -- and the Patent Owner, and this is not the Petitioner, but
`this is the Patent Owner's response, identifies the range of gap
`associated with the '775 patent. And that's in the left-hand
`side of slide 18.
`And the Patent Owner identifies the gap as being
`between 0.3 centimeters and 10 centimeters. And the Patent
`Owner, also in their response, they sort through using a
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`variety of things that are on page 22 of the response, about
`what Wang's gap would be.
`And Hartsough, their expert, also opined about
`what that gap would be. And in their estimation the gap would
`be between 10 centimeters and 14 centimeters. And so like
`even presuming that there is a difference, the gaps as the
`Patent Owner has identified them are overlapping, 10
`centimeters common to both.
`Judge Turner, does that answer your question about
`gap or should I approach it a different way?
`JUDGE TURNER: No, I think that's fine. I'm sure
`Patent Owner will bring up arguments.
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Okay. Now I'm on slide 19.
`The Patent Owner both in the preliminary response and in the
`response has identified that the petition is deficient because
`we didn't allege, in their view, whether or not Wang had a
`substrate that was proximate the cathode.
`And while the Board recognized that the petition
`was sufficient and had a -- and there was a decision on
`institution, I want to address it for a moment just to make sure
`that the record is clear that the basis of what we understand
`the Patent Owner to be saying is that because we didn't put in
`the claim language associated with the cathode being
`proximate the substrate in the heading of that particular part of
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`the petition upon which the decision on institution was
`granted, then our petition was deficient in that regard.
`I would note two things: The first one is that, like,
`we had used a second -- an earlier ground and we had fully put
`in and then we were incorporating by reference, which is
`permitted in the IPR petition preparation process and, you
`know, it is fully in there and I think it is clear from any reader
`of the petition that what is being alleged is that claim
`limitation is met by Wang.
`And we also, like, wanted to clarify it associated
`with Dr. Bravman, who is the Petitioner's expert for the reply
`declaration, and, you know, we walked through, you know, the
`issues of whether or not the anode and cathode are proximate.
`And while I won't read the testimony into the
`record, I think the record is clear that the Petitioner has both
`made a showing in the petition as well as supported with
`evidence that the cathode and substrate are also proximate.
`I would note both with gap -- actually with all
`three, gap, adjacent and the term proximate, the Patent Owner
`has not elected to construe the claim in any way. They haven't
`alleged that there is some definition associated with the terms
`gap or proximate or adjacent. And they should be getting their
`broadest reasonable interpretation, which is what we've
`applied and I think is fairly read in Wang.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`So if the Board doesn't have any questions about
`proximate, adjacent or gap, I will move on to the sequencing
`of the claim limitations in claim 15.
`And now I'm on slide 20, where the sequence of
`the steps is addressed. On the right- hand side of the slide I
`put a portion of claim 15. The Patent Owner appears to allege
`that ionizing a feed gas must of necessity happen before
`generating a magnetic field.
`And we had an opportunity to ask Dr. Hartsough,
`their expert, about that position, and this is the way the
`colloquy went:
`"Question: In claim 15 of the '775 patent, the step
`of ionizing a feed gas does not have to occur before the
`generation of a magnetic field; right?
`"Answer: Correct.
`"Question: Because, as we said, figure 2 has a
`permanent magnet, so the magnetic field will already be on;
`right?
`
`"Answer: In that embodiment, yeah.
`"Question: And that's an embodiment of claim 15;
`
`right?
`
`"Answer: Yes."
`So the Patent Owner's expert recognizes that the
`sequencing of the first step and second step doesn't have to
`occur in the order in order to cover the disclosed embodiment.
`
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`And the final point I would make on the specific
`order is identifying in a portion of figure 12A and 13A,
`associated with -- and this is presented on slide 21 -- that even
`that sequence, that process chart has applying a magnetic field
`and then ionizing a feed gas associated after applying the
`magnetic field.
`And that position makes sense because generating
`a magnetic field, you can have a magnetic field that is by a
`permanent magnet, and that permanent magnet will always be
`on, if you will, and you could be generating a magnetic field
`by electromagnets, and that would be turned on or not
`depending on whether there is a power supply associated with
`it.
`
`And the Patent Owner, we can imagine, would want
`to have their claim, like, cover both conditions, as they have
`said, as their expert has said. Yet they take the position that
`ionizing the feed gas must occur before generating a magnetic
`field.
`
`I would like to move from the particulars of the
`claim limitations that the Patent Owner alleges are not present
`in Wang to present, you know, the reasons why someone would
`combine the references and would have combined the prior art
`to arrive at the invention.
`I will talk a little bit about -- and now I'm on slide
`22 -- as an introductory I will talk a little bit about the
`
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`purpose of each of the pieces of prior art, and I want to also
`walk through what the Patent Owner is alleging the reasons
`why they can't be combined or they shouldn't be combined,
`and then I'll talk about what the experts have said.
`So all of the prior art -- now I am on slide 23 -- all
`of the prior art relates to increasing plasma density using
`pulses. That's clear from each of the references. Wang is on
`the top left- hand side and it's in the middle part of the abstract
`that's presented, "whereby a very high plasma density is
`produced during the pulse adjacent to the area of the
`magnetron."
`Mozgrin also talks about the need for greater
`plasma density, and being with pulse regimes appear to be of
`interest. So what he is saying in kind of an oblique way is
`that, you know, because there is a need for greater plasma
`density, these pulse regimes are important.
`And then finally with Kudryavtsev, he teaches
`explicitly that there is an inert gas discharge plasma and the
`electron density with highly-ionized plasma. The electron
`density increases explosively in time. So each one is directed
`to the same orientation, if you will, of increasing plasma
`density using pulses.
`One of the things that, you know, that the Patent
`Owner has alleged that somehow the association with high
`plasma density with a high etch rate may not be present to
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00578 and IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775
`
`
`someone skilled in the art. That, too, is well presented in the
`petition. High plasma density results in a high etch rate. It is
`also true in Mozgrin.
`And as I put on the bottom of slide 24: "Hence, it
`can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching in microelectronics
`and provide a means for controlled pulsed etching of layers."
`So they are all directed toward a high etch rate.
`So whatever the '775 patent is oriented toward,
`these references are oriented toward the same thing or at least
`cognizant of the same issues, the same problems and recognize
`the same benefits of the technology. And, indeed, Patent
`Owner's expert, Dr. Hartsough, agrees that it would be
`available to someone of ordinary skill or someone motivated to
`increase the etch rate.
`And I won't read the transcript into the record but
`it is clear that the Patent Owner's expert recognizes that it is
`desirable to increase the sputter etching rate. And that's on
`slide 25.
`
`So on slide 26, I want to really particularly go
`through this combination of references because we want to
`make sure that the Board appreciates that all of these
`references, despite, you know, the language, despite the
`technology, are all o

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket