`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