`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`Entered: October 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Gillette v. Zond
`GILLETTE 1027
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 B2 (“the ’775
`Patent”). Paper 9 (“Pet.”)1. Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.”
`Upon consideration of Gillette’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Gillette would prevail
`in challenging claims 1–29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to
`be instituted as to claims 1–29 of the ’775 Patent.
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`Gillette indicates that the ’775 Patent was asserted in Zond, Inc. v. The
`
`Gillette Co., No.1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Gillette also
`identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’775 Patent
`against third parties, as well as other Petitions for inter partes review that are
`related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`
`1 We refer generally to the Revised Petition filed in response to defects noted
`in the Notice of Filing Date Accorded the Petition (Paper 4).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`B. The ’775 Patent
`The ’775 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating
`magnetically enhanced plasma. Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:14–25. The ’775 Patent indicates that
`prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit films having low uniformity
`and poor target utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform
`manner). Id. at 3:34–44. To address these problems, the ’775 Patent
`discloses that increasing the power applied between the target and anode can
`increase the uniformity and density in the plasma. Id. at 3:45–56. However,
`increasing the power also “can increase the probability of generating an
`electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
`(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’775 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 7:4–15. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:16–24. The ’775 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 5:59–67.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 15 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 2–14 and 16–29 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1
`or 15. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`1. A magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus
`comprising:
`an anode;
`a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and
`forming a gap there between;
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode;
`a magnet that is positioned to generate a magnetic field
`proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode;
`a power supply that produces an electric field across the gap,
`the electric field generating excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma and generating secondary electrons from the cathode,
`the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby
`creating a strongly-ionized plasma comprising a plurality of
`ions; and
`a voltage supply that applies a bias voltage to a substrate that
`is positioned proximate to the cathode, the bias voltage causing
`ions in the plurality of ions to impact a surface of the substrate
`in a manner that causes etching of the surface of the substrate.
`
`15. A method of magnetically enhanced plasma processing,
`the method comprising:
`ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to a cathode;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized
`plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in
`the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the cathode;
`applying an electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma
`that excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and that
`generates secondary electrons from the cathode, the secondary
`electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating a
`strongly-ionized plasma comprising a plurality of ions; and
`applying a bias voltage to a substrate that is positioned
`proximate to the cathode, the bias voltage causing ions in the
`plurality of ions to impact a surface of the substrate in a manner
`that causes etching of the surface of the substrate.
`Ex. 1001, 21:45–67, 22:46–64.
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512
`Feb. 20, 2001
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`July 2, 2002
`Kouznetsov
`
`US 2005/0092596 May 5, 2005
`Fu
`
`
`US 6,306,265
`Oct. 23, 2001
`
`
`(Ex. 1025)
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1014)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1002) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1003) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1006) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin Thesis”).2
`
`N. Li et al., Enhancement of Aluminum Oxide Physical Vapor Deposition
`with a Secondary Plasma, 149 Surface and Coatings Tech. pp. 161–170
`(2002) (Ex. 1010) (hereinafter “Li”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`Basis
`Claim(s)
`1–7, 9–26, 28, and 29 § 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Mozgrin Thesis
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin
`Thesis, and Kouznetsov
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin
`Thesis, and Li
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Kouznetsov
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Li
`
`8
`
`27
`1–7, 9–16, 18–26, 28,
`and 29
`8
`
`17
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`2 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. The citations to the
`Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by Gillette (Ex. 1005).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`three claim terms. Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 13–15. We address the claim
`terms identified by the parties below.
`
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Claim 1 recites “the electric field generating excited atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma and generating secondary electrons from the cathode,
`the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating a
`strongly-ionized plasma,” with claim 15 reciting a similar limitation.
`Gillette proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should
`be interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the claim term
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density
`plasma.” Pet. 5.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively
`low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma”
`should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`ions.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Zond also directs our attention to the Specification
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 Patent”), which was being
`challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., IPR2014-00843, now terminated. Id.
`The Specification of the ’652 Patent provides:
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma from the
`initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also referred
`to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-density
`plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined herein to
`mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma density. For
`example, the peak plasma density of the high-density plasma is
`greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge current that is
`formed from the high-density plasma can be on the order of
`about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the range of about
`50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of about 5 mTorr
`to 10 Torr.
`IPR2014-00843, Ex. 1101, 10:57–67.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Zond characterizes the ’652 Patent as “a related patent” (Prelim.
`Resp. 14), Zond does not explain how the ’652 Patent is related to the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’775 Patent). In fact,
`those patents do not share the same written disclosure, nor do they derive
`from the same parent application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference between the
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. More importantly, the
`claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” appear
`to be used consistently across both the ’652 Patent and the ’775 Patent. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:4–15. For this decision, we construe the claim term
`“weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of
`ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a
`relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`“ionizing a feed gas”
`Claim 15 recites “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a cathode,” and Zond argues that Gillette’s comparisons
`between the claims and the applied art in the Petition “treat[] as superfluous
`the word ‘feed.’” Prelim. Resp. 15. Zond proposes that the claim limitation
`“ionizing a feed gas” should be construed as “ionization of a gas while that
`gas is being fed to the region where ionization occurs,” because that implies
`that “a feed gas” is a flow of gas. Id. We do not agree.
`The recitation of “a feed gas” in method claim 15 does not necessarily
`imply the flow of gas. Certainly, the gas is provided, but claim 15 does not
`recite “feeding a gas,” for example. Construing the claim limitation as Zond
`suggests would be equivalent to adding a method step thereto, thus changing
`the scope of claim 15. We are cognizant that if a prior art reference
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`disclosed ionizing “stray gas molecules,” for example, i.e., not a gas
`supplied, that might not meet the claim limitation. We are not persuaded
`that the claim term “ionizing a feed gas” needs a specific construction, and
`instead rely on its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`C. Claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–26, 28, and 29
`Obviousness over Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev
`Gillette asserts that claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–26, 28, and 29 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 36–57. As support, Gillette
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`references and rationales for combining the references, as well as a
`declaration of Mr. DeVito (Ex. 1011). Id.
`Zond responds that Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev are incompatible and
`cannot be combined as alleged. Prelim. Resp. 30–33. Zond also responds
`that Wang and Kudryavtsev cannot render claims 1 and 15 obvious because
`differences exist between Wang and those claims. Id. at 43–52. Zond also
`argues that the combination does not disclose every claim element of the
`specific claims. Id. at 43, 52–57.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Gillette has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–26, 28, and 29 would have been unpatentable as
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev. Our
`discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1008, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at 3:57–4:55.
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high density plasma
`in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow controller 34, which
`ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into positively
`charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id. at 4:5–34.
`Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered particles are
`ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and effectively—the
`sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively charged substrate,
`coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and deep. Id. at 1:24–
`29. Wang also incorporates Fu (Ex. 1014; see Ex. 1008, 1:42–49), which
`Gillette argues discloses a magnetron sputtering system with a gap between
`the anode and cathode, at the top, that is similar to that described in the ’775
`Patent and Mozgrin. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1014, Fig. 1).
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Ex.
`1008, 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Mr. DeVito, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 150–156; see also Pet. 38–40.
`
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1003, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added) illustrates the atomic
`energy levels during the slow and fast stages of ionization. Annotated
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Mr. DeVito explains
`that Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization
`can be the dominant ionization process. Ex. 1011 ¶ 81; Pet. 41.
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`Ex. 1003, 31, right col, ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes
`that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`Reasons to combine Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev
`Gillette notes that Mozgrin provides for a similar system to that
`described in Wang (Pet. 37), and that Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev such
`that it would have been obvious to have operated with a high-density plasma
`to produce secondary electrons, in accordance with Kudryavtsev. Pet. 44.
`Gillette also argues that the similarities between the systems of Wang and
`Mozgrin would have made it obvious to have used the system of Wang for
`etching, as taught by Mozgrin. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002, 403, right col, ¶ 4,
`409, left col, ¶ 5).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Additionally, Gillette argues that it would have been obvious to
`combine Wang and Kudryavtsev because Kudryavtsev generally discloses
`the characteristic of ionization whenever a field is applied suddenly to a
`weakly ionized gas. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003, 34, right col, ¶ 4). The applied
`pulses of Wang, discussed above, would act to generate suddenly an electric
`field, and one of ordinary skill reading Wang would have been motivated to
`consider Kudryavtsev to further appreciate the effects of applying Wang’s
`pulse. Id. Mr. DeVito provides similar conclusions testifying that
`“Kudryavtsev teaches that ionization proceeds in a slow stage followed by a
`fast stage and that excited atoms are produced in both stages,” and that this
`would have been obvious to have been applied to the system in Wang. Ex.
`1011 ¶ 157.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev,
`arguing that Kudryavtsev discloses the use of a tubular electrode structure,
`whereas Mozgrin uses planar electrodes. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. Zond
`continues that Kudryavtsev does not address multi-stage ionization in other
`electrode arrangements and that Kudryavtsev uses a specially designed
`circuit to generate its pulses that is not disclosed. Id. at 31–32. Zond alleges
`that Gillette has ignored the differences in attempting to combine the
`systems and the citation of Kudryavtsev in Mozgrin does not render the
`references wholly compatible. Id. at 32–33.
`Those arguments are not persuasive on the present record. “It is well-
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
`multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
`Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion
`for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined physically,
`but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of
`the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one with ordinary skill in the art is
`not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over
`the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
`Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S.
`at 420–21 (A person of ordinary skill [in the art] is also “a person of
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able
`to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`Zond has not shown, based on the present record, that the sputtering
`apparatuses differ significantly from each other. Both apparatuses are used
`in sputtering and both employ two stage plasma formation processes, as
`discussed above. On this record, Zond has not demonstrated adequately that
`the disclosed apparatuses would have been beyond the level of ordinary
`skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`disclosures of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev is merely a predicable use of prior
`art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
`improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to
`improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
`obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`Zond also argues that Wang is very different from the system and
`method of claims 1 and 15. Prelim. Resp. 46–50. Zond argues that Wang’s
`sputter target is part of its cathode and not proximate to the cathode, as
`recited in the claims. Id. at 46. Zond continues that Gillette may argue that
`modifying the target in Wang may be obvious, but Gillette ignores the
`impact of such modifications to the ionization process therein. Id. at 46–47.
`Zond also argues that the ’775 Patent teaches that the applied pulse must be
`tailored to the electrode configuration, and Gillette has not demonstrated
`how the changes, such as the addition of a substrate and applying voltages
`sufficient to drive ions into that substrate to perform etching, would allow
`Wang to produce the same results. Id. at 47–49. Lastly, Zond argues that
`the claims require the secondary electrons to ionize the excited atoms, and
`thus be proximate to each other, but that this is not demonstrated in
`Gillette’s Petition. We do not agree.
`As discussed above, Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev and provides that
`[d]esigning the unit, we took into account the dependenc[i]es which had
`been obtained in [Kudryavtsev].” Ex. 1002, 401. This illustrates that the
`teachings of Kudryavtsev can be applied to other systems. Given the results
`described, we are not persuaded that such results would not have been
`possible in the system of Wang, given the similarities discussed above. An
`express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for
`another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout,
`675F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). On this record, Zond has not demonstrated
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`adequately that the disclosed apparatuses would have been beyond the level
`of ordinary skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. While
`it certainly is correct that the pulse would need to be tailored to the specific
`electrode configuration in Wang, Zond has not presented persuasive
`evidence that such tailoring would be beyond the ordinary skill in the art for
`such skilled artisans at the time of invention. Additionally, while Gillette’s
`Petition does not specify that the secondary electrons are proximate to the
`excited atoms, we are persuaded that Kudryavtsev, as discussed above,
`makes clear the relationship between the two so that one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood.
`Similar to the argument discussed above, Zond argues that Gillette has
`not shown that Wang implements the type of multi-step ionization disclosed
`in Kudryavtsev. Prelim. Resp. 50–52. Zond argues that the electrode
`structure in Wang is radically different so that it is not apparent that
`Kudryavtsev’s teachings can be applied to Wang. Id. As set forth in the
`arguments discussed above, we are unpersuaded by these arguments. On
`this record, Zond has not demonstrated adequately that the disclosed
`apparatuses would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, or why one
`with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
`success in combining the teachings. Additionally, Mr. DeVito provides
`testimony that “Kudryavtsev teaches that ionization proceeds in a slow stage
`followed by a fast stage and that excited atoms are produced in both stages,”
`and that this would have been obvious to have been applied to the system in
`Wang. Ex. 1011 ¶ 157.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`Alleged Missing Claim Elements from the Combination of Wang, Mozgrin,
`and Kudryavtsev
`
`With respect to claims 4 and 5, Zond argues that those claims require
`that the rise time of the electric pulse be “chosen,” and that Gillette has not
`demonstrated that Wang chooses the rise time of the voltage pulse to
`increase the ionization rate of excited atoms or to increase an etch rate of the
`surface of the substrate. Prelim. Resp. 53–55. We do not agree.
`Mr. DeVito testifies that “Wang’s voltage/power pulse rise time
`results in an increased ionization rate of excited atoms and a resulting
`increase in etching rate.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 176. While not expounded further, it is
`obvious that the etch rate is dependent on the number of ionized atoms, and
`that the characteristics of the pulse can produce a greater number of ionized
`atoms. We are persuaded, on the record before us, that one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have found it obvious to “choose” electrical pulse
`characteristics to meet the etching specified in Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev.
`
`With respect to claim 6, Zond argues that claim 6 specifically requires
`that “the weakly-ionized plasma reduces the probability of developing an
`electrical breakdown condition between the anode and the cathode,” but that
`Gillette treats this language “as encompassing any pre-ionized plasma to
`which an electrical pulse is applied.” Prelim. Resp. 55. Zond continues that
`Gillette’s citation to Wang’s teaching that the single initial plasma ignition at
`lower power levels reduces arcing (Pet. 49) does not demonstrate the
`recitation of claim 6, because it does not describe the weakly-ionized
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`plasma. Prelim. Resp. 56. We do not agree. We interpret Zond’s argument
`to imply that the weakly-ionized plasma, per claim 6, has some unique
`property, in and of itself, that reduces the probability of arcing, but we are
`persuaded that claim 6 is not so limited. Gillette’s argument that a single
`plasma ignition reduces particulates (Pet. 49; Ex. 1011 ¶ 178), and thus
`arcing, is a characteristic of the weakly-ionized plasma formed, i.e., fewer
`particulates. As so produced, we are persuaded that such a weakly-ionized
`plasma would be less likely to produce arcing and would comport with the
`recitations of claim 6.
`
`With respect to claims 7, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 29, Zond argues that
`those claims are directed to etching a substrate, with specific recitations of
`the energy of ion impact or the uniformity of etching. Prelim. Resp. 57.
`Zond points out that Gillette, in its Petition, points only to the disclosure of
`Wang in discussing the cited claims, but that Wang does not teach a biased
`substrate that is etched by the plasma. Id. We do not find this persuasive,
`however, because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
`individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Gillette does discuss
`“uniform sputter coating” and “to control ion energy on the surface of the
`substrate” (Pet. 49, 53), with respect to Wang, and also discusses how those
`aspects would to formulated in the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and
`Kudryavtsev. The rationale discussed in combining Wang, Mozgrin, and
`Kudryavtsev, with respect to claims 1 and 15, is not jettisoned from the
`analysis of dependent claims, even if not repeated specifically.
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00578
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Gillette has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–26, 28, and 29 would have been unpatentable as
`obvious over the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev.
`
`
`D. Claims 8, 17, and 27 – Obv