Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
` THE GILLETTE COMPANY, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA
`CORP., FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2014-00580, 01479,
`00726, 01481
`
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Larry Hartsough, Ph.D., hereby declare:
`
`
`
`
`1. I am making this declaration at the request of patent owner Zond, LLC, in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 (the “’773
`
`Patent”), as set forth in the above caption.
`
`2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $300 per
`
`hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3. The list of materials I considered in forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration includes the ’773 patent, the file history of the ’773 patent, the Petitions
`
`for Inter Partes Review and the exhibits, the PTAB’s Institution Decisions, the
`
`transcript of the deposition of the Petitioners’ expert on the ‘773 patent, and the
`
`prior art references discussed below.
`
`I. Education and Professional Background
`
`4. My formal education is as follows. I received a Bachelors of Science degree
`
`in 1965, Master of Science degree in 1967, and Ph.D. in 1971, all in Materials
`
`Science/Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked in the semiconductor industry for approximately 30
`
`years. My experience includes thin film deposition, vacuum system design, and
`
`plasma processing of materials. I made significant contributions to the
`
`development of magnetron sputtering hardware and processes for the metallization
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`of silicon integrated circuits. Since the late 1980’s, I have also been instrumental
`
`in the development of standards for semiconductor fabrication equipment
`
`published by the SEMI trade organization.
`
`6.
`
`From 1971-1974, I was a research metallurgist in the thin film
`
`development lab of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. In 1975 and 1976, I
`
`developed and demonstrated thin film applications and hardware for an in-line
`
`system at Airco Temescal. During my tenure (1977-1981) at Perkin Elmer, Plasma
`
`Products Division, I served in a number of capacities from Senior Staff Scientist, to
`
`Manager of the Advanced Development activity, to Manager of the Applications
`
`Laboratory. In 1981, I co-founded a semiconductor equipment company, Gryphon
`
`Products, and was VP of Engineering during development of the product. From
`
`1984-1988, I was the Advanced Development Manager for Gryphon, developing
`
`new hardware and process capabilities. During 1988-1990, I was Project Manager
`
`at General Signal Thinfilm on a project to develop and prototype an advanced
`
`cluster tool for making thin films. From 1991-2002, I was Manager of PVD
`
`(physical vapor deposition) Source Engineering for Varian Associates, Thin Film
`
`Systems, and then for Novellus Systems, after they purchased TFS. Since then, I
`
`have been consulting full time doing business as UA Associates, where my
`
`consulting work includes product development projects, film failure analysis,
`
`project management, technical presentations and litigation support.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Throughout my career, I have developed and/or demonstrated
`
`processes and equipment for making thin films, including Al, Ti-W, Ta, and Cu
`
`metallization of silicon wafers, RF sputtering and etching, and both RF and dc
`
`magnetron reactive sputtering, for example SiO2, Al2O3, ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide),
`
`TiN, and TaN. I have been in charge of the development of two sputter deposition
`
`systems from conception to prototype and release to manufacturing. I have also
`
`specialized in the development and improvement of magnetically enhanced sputter
`
`cathodes. I have experience with related technology areas, such as wafer heating,
`
`power supply evaluation, wafer cooling, ion beam sources, wafer handling by
`
`electrostatics, process pressure control, in-situ wafer/process monitoring, cryogenic
`
`pumping, getter pumping, sputter target development, and physical, electrical and
`
`optical properties of thin films.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional organizations including
`
`the American Vacuum Society, Sigma Xi (the Scientific Research Society), and as
`
`a referee for the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology. I have been a leader
`
`in the development of SEMI Standards for cluster tools and 300mm equipment,
`
`including holding various co-chair positions on various standards task forces. I
`
`have previously served as a member of the US Department of Commerce’s
`
`Semiconductor Technical Advisory Committee.
`
`9.
`
`I have co-authored many papers, reports, and presentations relating to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`semiconductor processing, equipment, and materials, including the following:
`
`a. P. S. McLeod and L. D. Hartsough, "High-Rate Sputtering of Aluminum
`for Metalization of Integrated Circuits", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 14 263
`(1977).
`b. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Copper Distribution in Sputtered
`Al/Cu Films", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 17 1326 (1980).
`c. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Step Coverage in Multiple Pass
`Sputter Deposition" J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A3 686 (1985).
`d. G. C. D’Couto, G. Tkach, K. A. Ashtiani, L. Hartsough, E. Kim, R.
`Mulpuri, D. B. Lee, K. Levy, and M. Fissel; S. Choi, S.-M. Choi, H.-D.
`Lee, and H. –K. Kang, “In situ physical vapor deposition of ionized Ti
`and TiN thin films using hollow cathode magnetron plasma source” J.
`Vac. Sci. Technol. B 19(1) 244 (2001).
`
`My areas of expertise include sputter deposition hardware and processes,
`
`thin film deposition system design and thin film properties. I am a named inventor
`
`on twelve United States patents covering apparatus, methods or processes in the
`
`fields of thin film deposition and etching. A copy of my CV is attached as
`
`Attachment A.
`
`
`
`II. Summary of Opinions
`
`10.
`
`It is my opinion that none of the claims of the ‘773 patent are obvious.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`11. In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards. I have
`
`been informed of these legal standards by Zond’s attorneys. I am not an attorney
`
`and I am relying only on instructions from Zond’s attorneys for these legal
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`standards.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12. In my opinion, given the disclosure of the ’773 Patent and the disclosure of
`
`the prior art references considered here, I consider a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of filing of the ‘773 Patent to be someone who holds at least a
`
`bachelor of science degree in physics, material science, or electrical/computer
`
`engineering with at least two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of
`
`development of` plasma-based processing equipment. I met or exceeded the
`
`requirements for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and
`
`continue to meet and/or exceed those requirements.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`13. I understand that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if (i) each and
`
`every element and limitation of the claim at issue is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference, and (ii) the elements and limitations are
`
`arranged in the prior art reference in the same way as recited in the claims at issue.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`14. I understand that obviousness must be analyzed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made. In
`
`analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, and the scope and content of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims.
`
`15.
`
` I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`17.
`
`I understand
`
`that an obviousness determination
`
`includes
`
`the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims; and (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that a party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious
`
`must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. This is determined at the time the
`
`invention was made. I understand that this temporal requirement prevents the
`
`forbidden use of hindsight. I also understand that rejections for obviousness cannot
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`be sustained by mere conclusory statements and that the Petitioners must show
`
`some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to
`
`combine particular available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art,
`
`to reach the claimed invention.” I also understand that the motivation to combine
`
`inquiry focuses heavily on “scope and content of the prior art” and the “level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on
`
`a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`IV. Background Topics
`20. The prior art references cited in the Petition and the Board’s Decision
`
`describe pulses for generating a plasma, but do not disclose the type of method and
`
`apparatus described in the ‘773 patent and its claims.
`
`A. Voltage, current, impedance and power
`21. As is commonly known, when a voltage “V” is applied across an impedance
`
`“I,” an electric field is generated that forces a current I to flow through the
`
`impedance. For purely resistive impedance, the relation between the voltage and
`
`the resultant current is given by: V = I * R.
`
`22. A common analogy is that voltage is like a pressure that causes charge
`
`particles like electrons and ions to flow (i.e., current), and the amount of current
`
`depends on the magnitude of the pressure (voltage) and the amount of resistance or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`impedance that inhibits the flow. The ‘773 patent and the prior art considered here
`
`involve the flow of current through an assembly having a pair of electrodes with a
`
`plasma in the region between them. The effective impedance of such an assembly
`
`varies greatly with the density of charged particles in the region between the
`
`electrodes. Although such an impedance is more complex than the simple resistive
`
`impedance of the above equation, the general relation is similar: a voltage between
`
`the electrode assembly forces a current to flow through the plasma, such that the
`
`amount of current is determined by the amplitude of the voltage and the impedance
`
`of the plasma. Thus, the current through the electrode assembly increases with the
`
`electrode voltage and, for a given electrode voltage, the current will increase with a
`
`drop in the impedance of the plasma.
`
`23. The impedance varies with the charge density of the plasma: With a high
`
`density of charged particle the impedance is relatively small, and with a low
`
`density of charge particles the impedance is relatively large. Simply, the more ions
`
`and electrons to carry the charge, the less resistance. However, the charges and
`
`fields react with each other in a very complicated manner.
`
`24. In response to the electric field in the region between the electrodes (i.e., the
`
`voltage across the electrodes), all charged particles in the region (the electrons and
`
`positive ions) feel a force that propels them to flow. This flow is an electric
`
`current “I.” Obviously, the amount of current depends upon the number of charged
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`particles. When there are no charged particles (i.e., no plasma), there is no current
`
`flow in response to the electric field. In this condition, the impedance of the
`
`electrode assembly is extremely high, like that of an open circuit. But when there
`
`is a dense plasma between the electrodes (with many charged particles), a
`
`substantial current will flow in response to the electric field. In this condition, the
`
`impedance of the electrode assembly is very low. Thus, in general, the impedance
`
`of an electrode assembly varies greatly with the charge density of the plasma: The
`
`impedance is effectively infinite (an open circuit) when there is no plasma, and is
`
`very low when the charge density is very high.
`
`25. It is also well known that electric power (P) is the product of voltage (V)
`
`and current (I): P = V * I. This too is a complex relationship. When the voltage
`
`and current are perfectly in phase, then one may simply multiply them to yield the
`
`power. Thus, for a given voltage across an electrode assembly, the amount of
`
`power will depend on the amount of corresponding current flowing through the
`
`electrode assembly. If there is no current flow (such as when there is no plasma
`
`between the electrodes), the power is zero, even if the voltage across the electrodes
`
`is very large. Similarly, at very low electrode voltages, the power can still be quite
`
`high if the current is large.
`
`26. To provide context for understanding this aspect of the ‘773 patent, I
`
`consider below some known basic principles of control systems (such as used in all
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`power supplies and all such control systems) for controlling a parameter such as
`
`voltage amplitude.
`
`B. Control systems
`27. The power supply mentioned in the ‘773 patent is an example of a control
`
`system. This system controls the voltage amplitude of a voltage pulse. A
`
`simplified block diagram of a common feedback control system is shown the
`
`figure below from a text by Eronini.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 Control system simplified block diagram
`
`28. The “reference input signal” represents a “desired value” or “set-point” of
`
`the controller. The “forward elements” directly control the “controlled variable.”
`
`In response to the difference between the set-point and a feedback signal (which
`
`represents the condition of the controlled variable), the forward elements direct the
`
`1 Ex. 2010, Eronini Umez-Eronini, System Dynamics and Control, Brooks Cole
`
`Publishing Co., CA, 1999, pp. 10-13.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`controlled variable in an attempt to reduce the difference to zero, thereby causing
`
`the controlled variable to equal the set point value.
`
`29. For example, the set-point for filling a water tank may be 1,000 gallons, or
`
`full. The desired value, set-point or desired level is the value “full” or “1000
`
`gallons.” An open loop control system might just fill the tank for a pre-calibrated
`
`time that result in the tank being full. The control system might be set to fill the
`
`tank once per day based on historical water usage. However, if water usage is not
`
`consistent, the tank may run empty before it is filled, or may overflow because
`
`there was less water usage than normal. On the other hand, a closed loop system
`
`such as shown above uses feedback control. For example, it measures the water
`
`level, and only adds the needed amount. It might have a switch or sensor that
`
`detects when the tank is full, and turns off the flow of water. The set-point is the
`
`desired value. “Here the comparison of the tank level signal with the desired value
`
`of the tank level (entered into the system as a set-point setting) and the turning of
`
`the pump on or off are all performed by appropriate hardware in the controller.” 2
`
`Further, a closed loop system could be left on to fill the tank if the level dropped to
`
`low. “In feedback control, a measurement of the output of a system is used to
`
`
`2 Ex. 2007, Eronini Umez-Eronini, System Dynamics and Control, Brooks Cole
`
`Publishing Co., CA, 1999, pp. 10-13.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`modify its input in such a way that the output stays near the desired value3.”
`
`C. Set point (Controlled Parameter)
`30. The parameter that is directed to a desired value is called the “controlled
`
`variable,” as shown in the figure from Eronini. Eronini’s diagram also shows that
`
`while controlling the “controlled variable,” the system may “manipulate” another
`
`control parameter that Eronini calls the “manipulated variable.”
`
`31. For example, Eronini’s text on control systems shows a control system that
`
`directs the “controlled variable” to its desired value (or “set point”):
`
`
`
`32. Eronini’s diagram also shows that while controlling the “controlled
`
`variable,” the system may “manipulate” another control parameter that Eronini
`
`calls the “manipulated variable.” Another reference by Weyrick uses the same
`
`terminology as Eronini:
`
` “The controlled output is the process quantity being controlled.”
`
`
`3 Id. at p. 12.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
` “The manipulated variable is the control signal which the control
`
`elements process.”4
`
`33. Similarly, Kua and Sinka also show that the “controlled parameter” is
`
`widely understood to mean the parameter being controlled by the control system.5
`
`34.
`
` With this understanding, I now consider the difference between
`
`controlling the amplitude of a voltage and controlling the power.
`
`D. Power Control vs Voltage Control
`35. To demonstrate the difference between the control of voltage and the control
`
`of power, I will refer to the generic diagram of a feedback control system from
`
`Eronini shown above. In a system for controlling voltage, the set point is a
`
`specified voltage and the “controlled variable” obviously is voltage. Thus, in a
`
`feedback control system as shown in Eronini, a feedback signal representative of
`
`the measured voltage is fed back and compared to the desired voltage level or “set
`
`point.” Based on the difference between the measured voltage and the desired
`
`voltage or set point, the forward elements are instructed to drive or restrain the
`
`voltage in an attempt to move the actual voltage to match the desired voltage.
`
`36. In a system for controlling power, the set point is a specified power value
`
`and the controlled variable is power. In such a system, the voltage and/or current
`
`4 Ex. 2011, Weyrick at 13
`
`5 Ex. 2009, Kua, Automatic Control, Prentice Hall Inc., 1987; Ex. 2006, Sinha,
`
`Naresh, K., Control Systems, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`can be driven by the feed forward elements to whatever levels are needed to
`
`achieve the target power level. Thus, in the example of a system for controlling
`
`the power of a plasma electrode assembly, if there is no plasma between the
`
`electrodes (and therefore little or no current) a controller attempting to achieve a
`
`target power level will drive the voltage extremely high in an attempt to achieve
`
`the target power P, i.e., P = V * I, (because I is very low or zero in this situation).
`
`37. Thus, in a control system for controlling power to a desired set point,
`
`voltage will vary as the controller attempts to achieve the desired power level (i.e.,
`
`a desired product of voltage and current). However, the amplitude of the voltage is
`
`not controlled and instead the voltage and/or the current vary as needed to achieve
`
`the desired power.
`
`38. The rise time of a voltage therefore, is a different parameter than the rise
`
`time of power. For example, consider a scenario in which a voltage source outputs
`
`a constant voltage. If that source is connected across an impedance that gradually
`
`drops, the current will increase as the impedance drops. Since power is the product
`
`of voltage (here a constant) and current, the power too will rise as the current
`
`increases. Thus, in this situation, power rises at a rate determined by the rate at
`
`which the impedance decreases. But there is no rise in voltage because the source
`
`maintains a static, constant voltage at its output in this example. This demonstrates
`
`that a rise time in voltage is a different parameter than rise time in power.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`39. This example can also be used to demonstrate the difference between a
`
`controlled change in the output of a voltage source, and a reaction to a change in
`
`impedance. If the impedance drops so fast that the voltage source cannot maintain
`
`the voltage at its target level, the voltage output by the source can drop due to
`
`limitations of the voltage source. This drop in voltage is not a controlled drop,
`
`caused by the power supply in response to a programmed change in the voltage set
`
`point: It is a transient drop caused by a change in the impedance load that exceeds
`
`the capacity of the voltage source.
`
`E. Magnetron Sputtering History and Operation
`40. Since the late 1970s, DC magnetron sputtering has become the preferred
`
`method for the deposition of thin metal films for many applications, including
`
`semiconductor devices and protective layers on cutting tools. Several significant
`
`advantages of this method over alternatives, such as thermal evaporation or diode
`
`sputter deposition, are higher deposition rate and improved film structure.
`
`41.
`
` The higher deposition rate is possible because the closed loop
`
`magnetic field of the magnetron traps the secondary electrons (produced when the
`
`inert gas ions bombard the metal target that is attached to the cathode assembly
`
`held at a negative voltage of several hundreds of volts). These electrons gain
`
`energy as they are accelerated across the dark space. Since most of the voltage
`
`drop from anode to cathode occurs in this region, the electrons arrive in the
`
`discharge region with more than enough energy to ionize the neutral gas atoms
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`there. The crossed electric and magnetic fields create a force on the electrons that
`
`causes them to circulate in a path that follows the shape of the magnetic loop and is
`
`only a few mm from the face of the target. The circulating current in this loop is
`
`about 10x the anode-cathode current of the sputtering discharge. It is these
`
`electrons that collide with, and create large numbers of ions of, the inert neutral
`
`sputtering gas atoms (usually argon) that have diffused into this region. The ions
`
`are accelerated toward the target and bombard it with energies that are nearly the
`
`full cathode-anode voltage. As the secondary electrons create an ion, they lose
`
`energy and move closer to the anode. After several ionizing collisions they no
`
`longer have enough energy to create ions. It is the secondary electrons that sustain
`
`a normal magnetron discharge.
`
`42. The magnetron discharge is characterized by higher current and lower
`
`voltage (i.e., lower impedance) compared to a diode discharge. This allows higher
`
`powers to be delivered than would be possible with diode sputtering, because the
`
`drop in yield with lower voltage is more than made up for by the increase in the
`
`number of ions. In DC magnetron sputtering, repeatability of film thickness is
`
`usually achieved by operating the power supply in power control mode and
`
`depositing for a specific time.
`
`43. The sputtered metal atoms are ejected from the target with high
`
`velocity, compared to evaporation, which contributes to film adhesion and
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`microstructure. However, this high velocity means that relatively few of the metal
`
`atoms have a chance to become ionized as they traverse the thin zone of high
`
`energy electrons on their way from the source target to the substrate workpiece
`
`(e.g., silicon wafer or razor blade).
`
`44. As research progressed over the ensuing decades, the advantages of
`
`increasing the ionization of the sputtered atoms became evident. Ions impacting
`
`the growing film improved qualities such as hardness, adhesion and density even
`
`further. Furthermore, the trajectories of the incoming ions could be made more
`
`perpendicular to the substrate surface by application of a negative bias. This
`
`allowed more film to be deposited in the bottom of high aspect ratio holes enabling
`
`the production of semiconductor devices with ever-decreasing geometries.
`
`45. The challenge of increasing the degree of ionization of the sputtered
`
`atoms could be met by increasing the chances that they would encounter an
`
`ionizing collision in the space between target and substrate. This could be
`
`achieved by expanding the high density plasma into that space. Just increasing the
`
`DC power to the magnetron would do this and would increase the power density
`
`delivered to the target, increasing the sputtering rate and the ionization of the
`
`sputtered atoms. However, this approach, if applied steady state, would require
`
`large power supplies and would overheat the target. Therefore, other techniques
`
`were developed to meet the challenge.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`46. One approach, introduced by Rossnagel and Hopwood6 was to create
`
`a separately sustained plasma in the target-substrate space. Another was to use the
`
`hollow cathode magnetron invention of Helmer.7 Yet another approach was to use
`
`pulsed DC magnetron sputtering to create a short-lived high density magnetron
`
`plasma with enough time between pulses such that the average power delivered
`
`over many pulses did not exceed the steady state power delivery capability of the
`
`power supply or the cooling capacity of the cathode. As the density of the plasma
`
`increases it also expands, at least partially due to reduced trapping of the electrons
`
`circulating with the magnetic field loop. The large circulating current in this loop
`
`forms a one-turn (very high amperage) electromagnet that creates a magnetic field
`
`opposing the magnetic field produced by the magnetron magnets. This reduction
`
`in effective magnetic field allows an increase in width of the sputtering zone and
`
`an expansion of the plasma away from the cathode.
`
`47. However, this pulsed approach is accompanied by several risks. An
`
`abrupt large increase in applied voltage can cause localized instabilities in electric
`
`fields to be large enough to initiate an arc on the cathode, even if a low density
`
`magnetron discharge is already present. If the high density plasma is driven to
`
`
`6 S.M. Rossnagel and J. Hopwood, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology 12B
`
`(449-453) 1994.
`
`7 U.S. Patent No. 5,482,611.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`over-expansion it can essentially form a short between the cathode and anode
`
`leading to a breakdown mode in which no sputtering occurs.
`
`48. There are large changes in plasma impedance during a pulsed DC
`
`magnetron discharge. The more charged particles within it, the more electrically
`
`conducting it becomes. During ignition, the impedance may be in the hundreds of
`
`ohms, dropping to the tens of ohms in the low density mode. In the transition from
`
`a low to a high density plasma, the impedance drops to a few ohms, accompanied
`
`by up to two orders of magnitude increase in current. Depending on power supply
`
`design and control settings, the density of the plasma may increase quite unevenly,
`
`also leading to the possibility of plasma breakdown or arcs, if the transitions are
`
`uncontrolled.
`
`49. Power supplies in the art prior to the ‘773 patent for DC magnetron
`
`sputtering include those that set power for the duration of a deposition step. In
`
`power control mode, the output is controlled until the product of discharge voltage
`
`and current equals the set power. In pulsed power mode, the total energy delivered
`
`during a pulse is controlled.
`
`50. However, such pulsed power systems are prone to arcing upon
`
`igniting the plasma, especially when working with high-power pulses.8
`
`51. Such arcing can result in the release of undesirable particles in the
`
`8 Ex. 1001, ‘773 patent, col. 1, lines 38-40.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`chamber that can contaminate the sample, which is especially undesirable in
`
`semiconductor processing.9
`
`V. The ’773 Patent
`
`
`52. Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target surface
`
`where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”10 Then, “The target
`
`material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit as a film of
`
`target material.”11 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs formed by the
`
`collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons generated at the target
`
`surface.”12
`
`53. A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.13
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and to
`
`concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment of the
`
`target surface.”14 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the discharge
`
`and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the substrate.”15
`
`
`9 Ex. 1001, ‘773 patent, col. 1, lines 40-42.
`
`10 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9-10.
`
`11 Id. at col. 1, ll. 10-12.
`
`12 Id. at col. 1, ll. 30-33.
`
`13 Id. at col. 1, ll. 42-58.
`
`14 Id. at col. 1, ll. 34-36.
`
`15 Id. at col. 1, II. 49-51.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`54. But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems deposit low uniformity
`
`films, poorly utilize the target, and have a low deposition rate and yield.16
`
`“[C]onventional magnetron sputtering systems have a relatively low deposition
`
`rate [meaning] the amount of material deposited on the substrate per unit of time”17
`
`“The deposition rate is proportional to the sputtering yield.”18 The sputtering yield
`
`means “the number of target atoms ejected from the target per incident particle.”19
`
`55. To overcome the problems of low deposition rate and sputtering yield of the
`
`prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a sputtering source containing (i) a cathode
`
`assembly, containing a sputtering target, adjacent to an anode; (ii) an ionization
`
`source to generate weakly ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to the anode;
`
`and (iii) a power supply generating a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise
`
`time chosen to generate a strongly ionized plasma with an increase in the density
`
`of ions enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to
`
`cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`
`target, as recited in independent claims 1 and 34, and as illustrated in Fig. 5A of
`
`the ’773 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`16 Id. at col. 1, ll. 52-66.
`
`17 Id. at col. 1, ll. 63-66.
`
`18 Id. at col. 2, ll. 66-67.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2, ll. 1-2.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56. As illustrated by FIG. 5A, Dr. Chistyakov’s sputtering source 200 includes a
`
`pulsed power supply 234, and a cathode assembly 216 including the sputtering
`
`target 220. In one embodiment, the “cathode assembly 216 is coupled to the
`
`output 222 of a matching unit 224.”20 “An input 230 of the matching unit 224 is
`
`coupled to the first output 232 of a pulsed power supply 234. A second output 236
`
`of the pulsed power supply 234 is coupled to an anode 238.”21 “The anode 238 is
`
`positioned so as to form a gap 244 between the anode 238 and the cathode
`
`assembly 216 that is sufficient to allow current to flow through the region 245
`
`between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216. In one embodiment, the
`
`
`20 Id. at col. 6, ll. 39-40.
`
`21 Id. at col. 6, ll. 42-45.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`width of the gap 244 is between approximate
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
