`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`
`Filed on behalf of The Gillette Company
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (Lead Counsel)
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368 (Back-up Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6025
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`
`Patent Owner of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 34 ARE OBVIOUS ........................... 3
`
`Mozgrin discloses a “feed gas” as used in claims 1 and 34 ....... 3
`A.
`B.
`Mozgrin teaches “an ionization source that generates a
`weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to the anode and the
`cathode assembly” as recited in claims 1 and 34 ......................................... 4
`C.
`The combination of Mozgrin with Fortov discloses choosing
`an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse 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 required
`by claims 21 and 40 ......................................................................................... 6
`D.
`One skilled in the art would have been able to combine the
`cited references with reasonable expectation of success ............................ 8
`III. THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE ALSO OBVIOUS ............................ 9
`
`Dependent claim 10 .................................................................... 10
`A.
`Dependent claim 13 .................................................................... 10
`B.
`Dependent claim 18 .................................................................... 11
`C.
`Dependent claims 5 and 36 ........................................................ 12
`D.
`Dependent claims 3, 4 and 35 (and independent claim 34) .... 12
`E.
`Dependent claims 11 and 14 ....................................................... 13
`F.
`IV. MOZGRIN THESIS IS PRIOR ART ........................................................ 15
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003)………………………………………………………………………….15
`
`Pronova BioPharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. 549 Fed. Appx. 934, 938 (Fed.
`Cir. 2013)……………………………………………………………………….…15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`
`In its Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board recognized there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims 1-20 and 34-39 are unpatentable. See
`
`IPR2014-580 (“IPR580”) DI at p. 2. None of the arguments raised by Zond alters
`
`that conclusion.
`
`The only disputes remaining as to the independent claims are as follows. First,
`
`Zond proposes to interpret the claim term “feed gas” to require a constantly-
`
`flowing gas (to the exclusion of a static gas in a chamber) in a misguided effort to
`
`distinguish the prior art. The Board has already rejected such a narrow reading of the
`
`term “feed gas.” But even if Zond’s interpretation were adopted, the cited prior art
`
`nevertheless renders the claims unpatentable.
`
`Second, Zond has taken the incorrect position that Mozgrin does not teach “an
`
`ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly.” Mozgrin generates a plasma between the
`
`shaped anode and cathode that are separated by about 10 mm, which is squarely
`
`within the range of “proximate” (3 mm – 100 mm) of the ’773 patent. Moreover,
`
`Zond omits any discussion of the planar magetron embodiment shown in Mozgrin
`
`that teaches the claim limitations.
`
`Third, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to combine
`
`Mozgrin with Fortov to achieve the “particular sputtering yield by choosing the
`
`amplitude and rise time of the applied voltage pulse.” IPR580 Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`Response (“PO Resp.”) at pp. 40-41. Mozgrin discloses choosing voltage amplitudes
`
`
`
`and rise times. Fortov describes the relationship between the sputtering yield and
`
`target temperature (which depends on the voltage amplitudes and rise times applied to
`
`the target), including when that relationship becomes “non-linear” as required by the
`
`claims. Moreover, the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov would have been
`
`obvious—indeed, recognizably advantageous—to a person of ordinary skill, despite
`
`Zond’s argument that Mozgrin is directed to etching while Fortov is directed to
`
`sputtering (as explained below, Mozgrin is directed to sputtering as well as etching).
`
`Fourth, the Petition, supported by Mr. DeVito’s declaration, demonstrates why
`
`one of ordinary skill would have combined Mozgrin with the teachings of Fortov,
`
`Lantsman and Kudryavtsev, with reasonable expectation of success. In fact, the cross
`
`examination testimony of Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s declarant, confirms that the
`
`motivation to combine existed well before the ‘773 patent. Petitioner also provides
`
`the declaration of Dr. John Bravman, who reached the same conclusion: that the
`
`references would have been combined by one of ordinary skill, and that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.1
`
`Finally, as to the dependent claims, the concessions made by Dr. Hartsough
`
`and an accurate representation of the factual record clearly indicate that these claims
`
`too are invalid.
`
`
`1 Mr. DeVito is no longer available to provide testimony.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 34 ARE OBVIOUS
`
`
`
`Zond’s own declarant, Dr. Larry Hartsough, concedes that all the limitations
`
`individually recited in the independent claims were well known before the effective
`
`date of the ‘775 patent. See Ex. 1025 (“’773 Hartsough Depo.”) at 76:5-10; 77:14-
`
`78:16; 80:13-18; 89:21-24; 37:25 – 38:4; and 32:9-14. The claimed combinations were
`
`similarly obvious.
`
`The only dispute remaining as to the independent claims is whether (1) the
`
`cited references render obvious generating a weakly-ionized plasma from the feed gas
`
`proximate to the anode and the cathode assembly and (2) the combination of
`
`choosing the precise voltage amplitude and rise time to achieve the nonlinear
`
`relationship would have obvious ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 39:21–40: 15.
`
`A. Mozgrin discloses a “feed gas” as used in claims 1 and 34
`
`Zond argues that “Mozgrin teaches a static gas and not a feed gas,” because
`
`feed gas requires a “constant flow of gas.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 39 and 3. This is
`
`wrong for three reasons.
`
`First, the Board already considered and rejected Zond’s proposal that the term
`
`“feed gas” requires a constant flow of gas to the exclusion of a “static” gas.
`
`Specifically, “[t]he recitation of ‘a feed gas’ … does not necessarily imply the flow of
`
`gas.” Ex. 1027 (“IPR2014-00578 DI”) at p.9.
`
`Second, as Mr. DeVito explained, one skilled in the art would understand
`
`Mozgrin to teach a constant flow of gas:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`Q: Just point me to where in the Mozgrin reference he’s talking
`about using a constant flow of gas.
`A: … I think he teaches it because … he’s applying these pulses
`over many periods. He’s getting these very high deposition rates. And,
`you know, just the body of the work suggests to me that this is a
`constant flow of gas going on. He mentions about the pressure. So …
`in order for the pressure to stay constant, you’d have to keep applying
`this flow of gas and pumping it out.
`Ex. 2010 (“’773 DeVito Depo.”) at 84:13-85:1.
`
`Third, Zond argues that the reference to needle valves in the Mozgrin Thesis is
`
`inconsistent with a continuous flow of gas in Mozgrin. IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 39,
`
`56. This is incorrect. Dr. Bravman explained that “it is well-known that needle valves
`
`provide a continuous flow of gas” (Ex. 1028 (Bravman Dec.) at ¶ 48) and,
`
`Ehrenberg, a book published in 1981, expressly teaches that “while still pumping,
`
`argon gas is allowed to enter the bell-jar through a needle valve… This continuous
`
`flow method tends to sweep away any impurities….”2 (Ex. 1026 (“Ehrenberg”) at p.
`
`81). Thus, use of needle valves allows a continuous flow of gas into a chamber.
`
`B. Mozgrin teaches “an ionization source that generates a weakly-
`ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to the anode and the
`cathode assembly” as recited in claims 1 and 34
`
`Zond further argues that “Mozgrin does not teach a weakly ionized plasma
`
`proximate to both the anode and the cathode assembly.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp.
`
`
`2 All emphasis is added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`35-36. Zond argues that by measuring the plasma density at the symmetry center of
`
`
`
`the shaped-electrode, Mozgrin cannot teach “proximate” because that point is “as far
`
`away from both the cathode (1) and anode (2) as it possibly can be while still being
`
`between the cathode and the anode.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 36-38. However, the
`
`symmetry center of the shaped-electrode is equidistant from both the anode and the
`
`cathode.
`
`In addition, Mozgrin’s shaped electrodes
`
`are “separated by about 10 mm.” Mozgrin at p.
`
`401, left col, ¶2. Dr. Hartsough conceded that in
`
`the ‘773 patent, the entire region of Figure 5B,
`
`shown as annotated on right3, which has a distance up to 100 mm, (i.e., 10 times larger
`
`than Mozgrin), is proximate to both the anode and the cathode. Ex. 1001 (“’773
`
`Patent”) at 10:23-24 and ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 120:4-8. Therefore, under Dr.
`
`Hartsough’s definition of “proximate,” any point between Mozgrin’s shaped
`
`electrodes is proximate to both the anode and the cathode, particularly a point that is
`
`equidistant from the electrodes (i.e., 5 mm from each).
`
`Lastly, Zond omits any discussion of Mozgrin’s
`
`planar electrode configuration. As discussed in the
`
`Petition, (IPR580 Petition at p. 14), Mozgrin’s planar
`
`
`3 Anode is annotated as red and cathode is annotated as green.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`configuration has a gap between the anode (colored red) and the cathode (colored
`
`
`
`green), where the “[plasma] discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the
`
`cathode.” Ex. 1002 (“Mozgrin”) at p. 401, left col, ¶ 1. This planar electrode
`
`configuration forms a region that is substantially similar to the region 245 of Figure
`
`5B of the ‘773 patent, shown above. As noted above, Dr. Hartsough conceded that in
`
`the ‘773 patent, the entire region 245 defined by gap 244 of Figure 5B, which has a
`
`distance up to 100 mm, is “proximate” to both the anode and the cathode.
`
`C. The combination of Mozgrin with Fortov discloses choosing an
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse 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 required by claims 21 and 40
`
`Zond also argues that Mozgrin and Fortov individually or in combination do
`
`not teach the claim limitation of choosing an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage
`
`pulse for the purpose of generating “sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target
`
`to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`
`target.” Zond further asserts that one skilled in the art would not have combined the
`
`two references without using the ‘773 as a blueprint for that combination. IPR580
`
`PO Resp. at pp. 40-42. This is incorrect.
`
`Each and every individual component of this limitation is taught by the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Fortov. As conceded by Dr. Hartsough, “Mozgrin
`
`delivers a voltage pulse to [a] weakly-ionized plasma” that “has an amplitude” and
`
`“has a rise time.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 77:20 – 78:8. Mozgrin used a typical
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`control system where the controlled variable could be the voltage. Id. at 83:12-25
`
`
`
`(“Q. So one of ordinary skill in the art could expect that the pulsed power supply used
`
`by Mozgrin would operate using such a known control system; correct? … [A.] Yes.
`
`Q. And the controlled variable in Mozgrin’s control system would be voltage because
`
`that’s what he’s applying; right? … [A.] It -- it’s a little difficult to determine what he
`
`means -- what -- when -- how a controlled variable would be, but it could be.”). This
`
`applied voltage pulse would lead to “a rapid increase from the weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`to grow into “a strongly-ionized plasma generated in the sputtering regime of
`
`Mozgrin.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 78:11-16; 79:3-6; and 80:13-18. The sputtering
`
`yield of the copper target, described in Mozgrin (‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 69:7-13)
`
`would behave according to the non-linear relationship with temperature of the
`
`sputtering target, as described in Fortov. ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 75:10-13. See
`
`Bravman Dec. at ¶¶ 61-64.
`
`Faced with these facts and concessions, Zond argues that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would not have combined Mozgrin with Fortov. But as Dr. Hartsough concedes,
`
`“a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase the sputtering yield
`
`in a sputtering application.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 53:13-17. Moreover, Dr.
`
`Hartsough concedes that “[i]ncreasing the ionization of sputtered atoms is
`
`advantageous in sputtering applications.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 51:21 – 52:1.
`
`Therefore, increasing the sputtering yield of Mozgrin—which provides well-known
`
`benefits—would lead to the non-linear relationship described in Fortov at sufficiently
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`high temperatures. In other words, Zond’s own declarant actually supports the
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ position. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine Fortov with Mozgrin to achieve the non-linear increase in sputtering yield
`
`taught in Fortov. Bravman Dec.at ¶¶ 65-66.
`
`Finally, Zond argues that there are “serious discrepancies” between Mozgrin
`
`and Fortov that would prevent their combination. Zond argues that Fortov discloses
`
`sputtering over a large range of plasma densities while Mozgrin has no sputtering in
`
`its “regime 3” and, therefore, “these contradictory teachings” would not have led a
`
`person of ordinary skill to combine the references. IPR580 PO Resp. at 24-25.
`
`However, this argument ignores the fact that Mozgrin teaches a regime 2 that is
`
`dedicated to sputtering. Mozgrin at p. 409, left col, ¶¶ 4-5. As Mozgrin states, “[e]ach
`
`point of the discharge characteristic [of Figs. 4 and 7] represent a pair of voltage and
`
`current oscillograms [of Fig. 3].” Mozgrin at p. 402, right col., ¶2. Accordingly, Fig.
`
`3b of Mozgrin shows a voltage pulse generated by a power supply for either
`
`sputtering or etching regimes. Ex. 1028 (“Bravman Dec.”) at ¶¶ 59-60.
`
`D. One skilled in the art would have been able to combine the cited
`references with reasonable expectation of success
`
`In addition to the argument that a person of ordinary skill would not combine
`
`Mozgrin with Fortov addressed in the prior section, Zond also argues that one skilled
`
`in the art would not combine Mozgrin with Lantsman because “a system that uses a
`
`pulsed discharge supply … would operate very differently if it were modified to use
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`two DC power supplies…” IPR580 PO Resp. at 28-29. However, Mozgrin itself
`
`
`
`combined a constant DC power supply unit with a pulsed supply unit into a single
`
`power supply. Mozgrin at p. 401, left col, ¶ 4. Indeed, Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`
`“it wouldn’t be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill … to combine a constant
`
`DC supply with a pulsed DC supply.” Ex. 1029 (“’775 Hartsough Depo.”) at 152:9-
`
`18. See Bravman Dec. at ¶¶ 67-68.
`
`Zond also argues that one skilled in the art would not combine Mozgrin with
`
`Kudryavtsev. IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 30-34. However, Mozgrin himself explicitly
`
`“took into account the dependenc[i]es which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]”
`
`when designing his own system. Mozgrin at p. 401, right col, ¶1; see also Bravman
`
`Dec.at ¶¶ 69-70. Zond’s argument that one of skilled in art would not have done
`
`exactly what Mozgrin himself actually did do makes no sense.
`
`The differences cited by Zond are inconsequential. A person of ordinary skill
`
`would have known how to apply the teachings of these references to systems for
`
`performing sputtering, irrespective of different pressures, dimensions, sizes, magnets
`
`and/or other feature differences. See Bravman Dec.at ¶¶ 71-72.
`
`III. THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE ALSO OBVIOUS
`
`Zond provides no argument that dependent claims 2, 6-8, 12, 15-17, 19, 20 and
`
`37-39 add any patentable subject matter, thereby conceding that these claims are
`
`unpatentable. Dependent claims 3-5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 34-36 are also obvious, as
`
`discussed more fully below.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Dependent claim 10
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`
`Zond argues that claim 10 requires “the ionization source [that generates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma…]” to include an “electrode” other than the cathode assembly
`
`or the anode recited in claim 1. As support, Zond identifies an embodiment of the
`
`‘773 patent specification that uses a third electrode as an “ionization source” that
`
`generates weakly-ionized plasma. IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 43-44. However, the ‘773
`
`patent expressly teaches a “DC power supply generates an initial voltage of several
`
`kilovolts between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238 in order to generate
`
`and maintain the [weakly-ionized or] pre-ionized plasma.” ‘773 Patent at 8:19-23.
`
`Hence, the ‘773 patent teaches that the ionization source can be either the anode,
`
`cathode assembly or a third electrode. Bravman Dec. at ¶ 76. Dr. Hartsough
`
`conceded as such during his cross examination regarding the ‘142 patent. Ex. 1030
`
`(“’142 Hartsough Depo.”) at 35:23 – 36:4 and 99:6-19.
`
`B. Dependent claim 13
`
`Zond argues that Mozgrin fails to teach claim 13 because the claim limitation
`
`“requires the strongly-ionized plasma to be substantially uniform in a particular area:
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly.” IPR580 PO Resp. at 48. However, as discussed
`
`above with respect to independent claim 1, Mozgrin teaches that the “[plasma]
`
`discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the cathode.” Mozgrin at p. 401,
`
`left col, ¶1. Further, the sputtering regime (regime 2), “the discharge expands over a
`
`considerably larger area of the cathode surface than it occupied in the stationary pre-
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`ionization regime,” Mozgrin at p. 403, left col, last ¶; see also
`
`
`
`IPR2014-580 Petition at p. 23. Bravman Dec. at ¶79. Indeed,
`
`Figure 6(a)(1), which is in the sputtering regime (regime 2),
`
`shows such a uniform annular shape. This annular shape results due to the presence
`
`of the magnetic field. Mozgrin at p. 401, left col, ¶1 and Figures 1 and 6(a)(1); see
`
`also Bravman Dec.at ¶80. As Dr. Hartsough conceded, this is the same magnetic field
`
`discussed in the ‘773 patent that “uniformly distribute[s] the [strongly-ionized]
`
`plasma.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 163:21 – 164:7. Thus, the ‘773 patent and
`
`Mozgrin both teach generating a strongly-ionized uniform plasma proximate to the
`
`cathode assembly using a magnetic field. Bravman Dec.at ¶¶ 81-83.
`
`C. Dependent claim 18
`
`Zond argues that Mozgrin teaches two distinct power supplies. IPR’580 PO
`
`Resp. at 52. This is factually incorrect. Mozgrin shows a single “discharge supply
`
`unit” in Figure 2, and states that “Figure 2 presents a simplified scheme of the
`
`discharge supply system [that] involved a pulsed discharge supply unit and a system
`
`for pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at Fig. 2 and p. 401, left col, ¶5. A person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that the combination of the pulsed discharge supply unit and
`
`the stationary discharge supply unit can be viewed as a single power supply. Bravman
`
`Dec. at ¶¶ 87-88. Dr. Hartsough concedes that Mozgrin shows “one interconnected
`
`circuit where you couldn’t simply remove the high-voltage supply unit and have it
`
`operate the same.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 170:23 – 171:3. Bravman Dec. at ¶ 89.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`
`D. Dependent claims 5 and 36
`
`Zond argues that the cited references do not teach “‘the thermal energy
`
`generated in the sputtering target does not substantially increase an average
`
`temperature of the sputtering target,’ as recited in claim 5, and as similarly recited in
`
`claim 36.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 53-55. There is no dispute that Kawamata
`
`discloses applying cooling water to the substrate on the side opposite the plasma and
`
`that this cooling water maintains the cathode temperature constant. ‘773 Hartsough
`
`Depo. at 143:17-24. Bravman Dec. at ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`Instead, Zond argues that Kawamata teaches heating the target to raise the
`
`average temperature of the entire target. IPR580 PO Resp. at 54. However, the
`
`passages on which Zond cites in Kawamata, like the ‘773 patent, does not teach
`
`heating the entire target, but rather teaches heating only the surface of the film source
`
`material and indeed maintains the average temperate of the target constant by
`
`cooling the opposite side with water. See Ex. 1009 (“Kawamata”) at 3:62-63
`
`(describing “first aspect” of invention); id. at 3:3-11 (“In the first aspect…, there is
`
`provided a process for producing a thin film which comprises heating a surface of the
`
`film source material so that at least a part of the film source material is ejected in
`
`molecular form…”). Accordingly, Kawmata is simply explaining that surface
`
`temperature of the target is raised, not the entire target.
`
`E. Dependent claims 3, 4 and 35 (and independent claim 34)
`
`Zond argues that a person skilled in the art would not have been “motivated to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`combine Lantsman’s feed gas in Mozgrin’s static gas system.” IPR2014-580 PO Resp
`
`
`
`at p. 56. However, as explained above with respect to the independent claims, this
`
`argument is predicated on an incorrect understanding of the claim and prior art.
`
`Mozgrin teaches a continuous flow of gas. As such, Zond’s argument is
`
`deficient, and a person of ordinary skill would be able to combine Mozgrin with
`
`Lantsman with predictable results. Bravman Dec.at ¶¶ 104-105 and ¶¶ 44-49. Zond
`
`further argues that Lantsman is “silent with regard to controlling the flow of feed gas
`
`with a controller to diffuse strongly-ionized plasma.” IPR580 PO Resp. at p. 56. But,
`
`as Dr. Hartsough concedes, feed gas will “intermingle” because it “want[s] to diffuse
`
`the particles of both the plasma and the feed gas together.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at
`
`35:25 – 36:20. Thus, “addition of the feed gas would diffuse the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” IPR2014-580 Petition at p. 42; see also Bravman Dec.at ¶ 106.
`
`F. Dependent claims 11 and 14
`
`Zond argues Mozgrin fails to teach “increase an ionization rate” because it
`
`should mean “that the rate at which ions are generated at a time t1 increases to a
`
`higher rate at a later time, t2.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 45 and 50. This interpretation
`
`is not found in the patent specification or file history. Bravman Dec. at ¶ 112.
`
`Regardless, this limitation is taught by Mozgrin. Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`
`“if you have a quick increase in the plasma density, … that indicate[s] a quick increase
`
`in the rate of ionization.” Ex. 1031 (“’184 Hartsough Depo.”) at 88:21 – 89:6.
`
`Application of the “voltage pulse in Mozgrin will cause…the plasma density [to]
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`grow.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 78:11-16. “And looking at Mozgrin, it would be a
`
`
`
`rapid increase from the weakly-ionized plasma.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 79:3-6.
`
`Accordingly, Mozgrin also teaches this limitation. Bravman Dec. at ¶¶ 113-114.
`
`There is no dispute that Mozgrin teaches the limitations “a rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse” and “a distance between the anode and the cathode assembly.” As Dr.
`
`Hartsough conceded, Mozgrin “had the ability to choose the voltage pulse,” ‘773
`
`Hartsough Depo. at 89:21-24, where the voltage pulse “has a rise time.” ‘773
`
`Hartsough Depo. at 78:7-8. Similarly, Mozgrin discloses a “planar magnetron” with a
`
`“cathode” and an “anode.” ‘773 Hartsough Depo. at 76:2-10. Nevertheless, Zond
`
`asserts that the prior art does not teach choosing the “rise time of the voltage pulse”
`
`and the “distance between the anode and the cathode assembly” for the particular
`
`purpose of achieving an “increase [in the] ionization rate of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” IPR580 PO Resp. at pp. 51-53 and 57.
`
`Again, this is factually incorrect because Mozgrin’s “main purpose … was to
`
`study experimentally a high-power noncontracted quasi-stationary discharge in
`
`crossed fields of various geometry and to determine their parameter ranges.” Mozgrin
`
`at p. 400, right col, ¶3. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that various
`
`experimental variables (e.g., voltage pulse rise time and distance between anode and
`
`cathode) were chosen for the particular purpose of achieving a higher plasma density
`
`“[b]ecause of the need for greater discharge power and plasma density….” (Mozgrin
`
`at p. 400, left col, ¶3), which translates to a need to “increase an ionization rate” (‘184
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`Hartsough Depo. at 77:10-24; see also Bravman Dec.at ¶ 115-117).
`
`
`
`Finally, Zond’s argument is legally flawed because it is well settled that “[a]n
`
`intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such
`
`statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.”
`
`See, e.g., Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Pronova BioPharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. 549 Fed.
`
`Appx. 934, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`IV. MOZGRIN THESIS IS PRIOR ART
`
`Despite the fact that the Board already determined that the Mozgrin Thesis is a
`
`printed publication, Zond argues that Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art. The Board
`
`should again dismiss this argument. Moreover, it is clear that Mozgrin Thesis was
`
`catalogued by the Russian Library – an institution which is by definition established to
`
`share the information that it houses with any interested persons – either by the
`
`imprint date of 1994 or at least by 1995 as shown on top of the Exhibit 1014.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board correctly found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`claims were are unpatentable and none of Zond’s arguments undermine that
`
`conclusion. Claims 1-20 and 34-39 are therefore unpatentable.
`
`Customer Number:
`Tel: (202) 663-6025
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale and Dorr, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /David l. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`For Petitioner
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on April 2, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Reply
`
` Exhibits 1025-1031
`
` Exhibit Appendix
`
`to be served via email, as previously agreed between the parties, on the following
`
`counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Date of service April 2, 2015
`
`Manner of service
`
`Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com; kurt@rauschenbach.com
`
`
`Persons Served Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`
`
`
`/Yung-Hoon Ha/
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Registration No. 56,368
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY10007
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`EXHIBIT APPENDIX
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-
`Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental
`Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1995
`(“Mozgrin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`Certified Translation of Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature
`Plasma Physics, Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov, V.E.,
`Ed., Nauka/Interperiodica, Moscow (2000); pp. 117-126
`(“Fortov”)
`Declaration of Richard DeVito (“DeVito”)
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys.
`28(1), January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,306,265 (“Fu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata”)
`Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature Plasma Physics,
`Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov, V.E., Ed.,
`Nauka/Interperiodica, Moscow (2000); pp. 117-126 (in
`Russian)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang”)
`Gas Discharge Physics, by Raizer, Table of Contents, pp. 1-35,
`Springer 1997 (“Raizer”)
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,896,773, Amendment mailed
`October 19, 2004 (“10/19/04 Amendment”)
`Catalogue Entry at the Russian State Library for the Mozgrin
`Thesis
`Certified Translation of D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-
`Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field:
`Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis”)
`Mozgrin Thesis (Original Russian)
`Thornton, J. and Hoffman, D.W. Stress related effects in thin
`films, Thin Sold Films, 171, 1989, 5-31
`
`Savvides and B. Window, Unbalanced magnetron ion‐assisted
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00580
`Docket No. 0110198-00194 US1
`deposition and property modification of thin films, J. Vac. Sci.
`Technol. A 4 , 504, 1986
`Grove TC. Arcing problems encountered during sputter
`deposition of aluminum, White Papers, ed: Advanced Energy,
`2000
`Asymmetric bipolar pulsed DC: the enabling technology for
`reactive PVD. Sellers, J. Surface & Coatings Technology vol. 98
`issue 1-3 January, 1998. p. 1245-1250
`Rossnagel and Hopwood. Rossnagel, S. M., & Hopwood, J.,
`Magnetron sputter deposition with high levels of metal
`ionization, Applied Physics Letters, 63(24), 3285-3287, 1993.
`CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Lide D.R., Ed.-in-
`Chief. CRC Press 2001. p. 4-9.
`Declaration of Mark Matuschak in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Cosmin Maier in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,896,773 (February 18, 2015)
`Ehrenberg and Gibbons “Electron bombardment induced
`conductivity and its applications,” 1981
`IPR2014-00578 Decision on Institution
`Declaration of John C. Bravman
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,896,775 (February 19, 2015)
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,853,142 (February 26, 2015)
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 7,808,184 (February 11, 2015)
`
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
