U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00194US1
`Filed on behalf of The Gillette Company
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Andrej Barbic, Ph.D., Reg. No. 61,908
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (6172) 526-6000
`Email: michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
` andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,896,773
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 2
`B. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT ............................................................ 5
`A. Overview of Sputtering ......................................................................... 5
`B.
`Sputtering Yield .................................................................................... 6
`C.
`Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield ................................ 6
`D.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent ............................... 7
`E.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
`F.
`Summary of the prior art ....................................................................... 8
`G.
`References Are Not Cumulative ........................................................... 9
`H. Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002) .......................................................... 9
`I.
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1003) ............................................................ 10
`J.
`Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1004) ........................................................... 11
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 13
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 and 36-39 would have been
`obvious over Mozgrin and Fortov ....................................................... 13
`B. Ground II: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Fortov, and Kawamata ........................................................................ 25
`C. Ground III: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 would have been obvious over
`Wang and Fortov ................................................................................. 27
`D. Ground IV: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Wang,
`Fortov and Kawamata ......................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground V: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Fortov and Lantsman .............................................. 41
`Ground VI: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious in
`view of Wang, Fortov and Lantsman .................................................. 45
`G. Ground VII: Claim 7 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ...................................................... 51
`H. Ground VIII: Claim 7 would have been obvious in view of
`Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ........................................... 55
`Ground IX: Claim 2 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Fortov as evidenced by Raiser .......... 56
`Ground X: Claim 2 would have been obvious in view of Wang,
`Fortov and Fu as evidenced by Raizer ................................................ 58
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Gillette Company (“Petitioner”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond, Inc. v. The Gillette Co. and the Procter and Gamble Co., Civil Action
`
`No. 1:13-CV. 11567-DJC (D. Mass. 2013), would affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in the proceeding. Additionally, the Patent Owner is suing Petitioner
`
`and/or other parties under one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,147,759; 6,896,775;
`
`6,853,142; 7,604,716; 8,125,155; 7,811,421; 6,805,779; 7,808,184; and 6,806,652,
`
`all of which have generally similar subject matter.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Andrej Barbic, Ph.D. (Registration No. 61,908)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-256-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-20 and 34-39 (“challenged claims”) of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability:1
`
`(1) 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” (Ex. 1002)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (2) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art at least under §§ 102(a) and
`
`(e); (3) 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” (Ex. 1004)); the Russian language version
`
`is Ex. 1010, which is prior art under § 102(b); (4) A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al,
`
`
`1 As the ’773 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA,) the pre-
`
`AIA statutory framework for prior art is used herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov.
`
`Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1006)), which is
`
`prior art under § 102(b); (5) U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1007)), which is
`
`prior art under § 102(b); (6) U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1008)),
`
`which is prior under § 102(b); (7) U.S. Pat. No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata” (Ex.
`
`1009)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (9) U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang”
`
`(Ex. 1011)), which is prior art under §§ 102(a) and 102(e); (10) Gas Discharge
`
`Physics, by Raizer, Table of Contents, pp. 1-35, Springer 1997 (“Raizer” (Ex.
`
`1012)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (11) File History of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,896,773, Amendment mailed October 19, 2004 (“10/19/04 Amendment” (Ex.
`
`1013)); and (12) 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” (Ex.
`
`1015)); the Russian language version is Ex. 1016, which is prior art under §
`
`102(b); a copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State
`
`Library is attached as Exhibit 1014.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-20 and 34-39 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of the ‘773 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on the 10
`
`grounds identified herein. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Richard
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`DeVito (“DeVito” (Ex. 1005)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that
`
`each challenged claim is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`broadest reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim language. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any
`
`claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a
`
`broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). 2 Should the Patent Owner contend that the claims have a
`
`construction different from their broadest reasonable construction in order to avoid
`
`the prior art, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`2 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT
`A. Overview of Sputtering
`Sputtering is a technique for depositing a thin film of a material onto a
`
`surface called a substrate. This technology is widely used in thin film deposition
`
`processes, including in semiconductor wafer processing and razor blade
`
`manufacturing. DeVito ¶22 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Sputtering is performed in a plasma chamber under low pressure, e.g.,
`
`between 1-100 mTorr, and typically with an inert feed gas, such as argon. The
`
`material to be deposited is typically provided in the form of a solid disk, or a plate,
`
`and is referred to as a target. A plasma of ground state argon atoms, excited argon
`
`atoms, positive argon ions, and electrons is created by applying an electric field to
`
`electrodes near the feed gas. The target develops a negative potential, Vb, related
`
`to the applied field. Positive argon ions in the plasma are attracted to the target and
`
`are accelerated at a potential Vb. These ions strike the target and cause target
`
`atoms to be dislodged through momentum exchange. These atoms can themselves
`
`become ionized under certain plasma conditions. The dislodged target atoms are
`
`then deposited on the substrate surface, often in part by providing a bias signal on
`
`the substrate to attract the ionized sputtered and ionized argon atoms. A magnet
`
`system or “magnetron” is often used to control the location of the plasma relative
`
`to the target by trapping electrons close to the target. DeVito ¶¶23-24 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Further detail about plasma sputtering, including sputtering with high power
`
`pulses for providing an electric field is provided at DeVito ¶¶26-63 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Sputtering Yield
`
`B.
`Sputtering yield refers to the number of target atoms ejected from the target
`
`per incident ion, such as an Ar+ ion. An increase in sputtering yield is desirable
`
`because it increases the deposition rate of the sputtering target onto the substrate.
`
`This was known in the art well before the ‘773 Patent was filed. DeVito ¶64 (Ex.
`
`1005).
`
`It was also known that sputtering causes the temperature of the target surface
`
`to increase, and that the sputtering yield is a function of a number of parameters,
`
`including target temperature, angle of the sputtering ions relative to the target and
`
`the energy of the sputtering ions. DeVito ¶65 (Ex. 1005).
`
`C. Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield
`If certain conditions are met, the sputtering yield can be related to the target
`
`temperature in a non-linear way. Usually, the non-linear dependence occurs when
`
`the sputtering target is heated to a certain temperature, which depends on the
`
`chemical composition of the sputtering target. DeVito ¶66 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The relationship of the sputtering yield to the temperature of the sputtering
`
`target was known before the ‘773 Patent. The ‘773 Patent essentially copied its
`
`disclosure about the relationship between temperature and sputtering yield from
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fortov (Ex. 1004), as is apparent from the comparison of their disclosures. DeVito
`
`¶67 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent
`
`D.
`The ‘773 Patent describes a sputtering technique in which a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma. The ions in the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma impact the sputtering target to generate sufficient thermal energy in
`
`the sputtering target and are said to cause the sputtering yield to be related to a
`
`temperature of the sputtering target in a non-linear way.
`
`The ‘773 Patent indicates that the sputtering yield is related to a temperature
`
`of a sputtering target in a non-linear way when: (1) the bombarding ion energy is
`
`greater than “several hundred eV” (4:42-45); (2) the temperature of the target is
`
`greater than 0.7 x the melting temperature (Tm) of the target (18:67-19:1); or (3)
`
`the deposition rate of the sputtered material is related to the temperature of the
`
`target in a non-linear way (4:59-60) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Without providing any experimental evidence or guidance about how to
`
`achieve the claimed effects, the ‘773 Patent states that the non-linearity of the
`
`sputtering yield is achieved when the weakly-ionized plasma is being pulsed with a
`
`pulse described in Fig. 6 and 15:45-50 over very broad ranges of parameters. Such
`
`pulse, which can last between 1µs and 10s (7 orders of magnitude), produces
`
`voltage in the range of 50V-30kV (about 3 orders of magnitude), current in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`range of 10A-5kA, and power in the very broad range of 1kW to 10MW (4 orders
`
`of magnitude) (col. 15:45-50) .
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further obvious operational details such
`
`as characteristics of the voltage pulse, plasma, ionization source, the sputtering
`
`source, natural properties of the system and observations about such a system.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`E.
`In an Amendment dated 10/19/ 2004 (Ex. 1013), the Patent Owner stated:
`
`“Fortov describes the relationship between the sputtering yield and the temperature
`
`of the target, but does not describe how to achieve the non-linear relationship
`
`between the sputtering yield and the target temperature.” Id. at 11.
`
`However, before the ‘773 Patent was filed, it was generally known in the art
`
`that high power would provide a high density plasma, and thus a high level of heat
`
`to the target, thus showing how to achieve high target temperature. As shown
`
`below, Mozgrin and Wang both operate at high power, as does the ‘773 Patent
`
`itself. DeVito ¶¶70, 87, 93 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Summary of the prior art
`
`F.
`As explained in detail below, there is nothing new or non-obvious in Zond’s
`
`claims. As Mozgrin and Wang show, using high power pulses to go from a weakly
`
`to strongly ionized plasma was known, and techniques for increasing sputtering
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`yield by increasing target temperature were well understood before the ‘773 Patent.
`
`DeVito ¶¶64-76 (Ex. 1005).
`
`G. References Are Not Cumulative
`Wang and Mozgrin have in common that they disclose the concept behind
`
`the patent – providing a pulse to transition from a weakly to a strongly ionized
`
`plasma. But they should not be considered cumulative because their focus and
`
`type of disclosure are different. Each Mozgrin reference is an academic paper, so
`
`they do not necessarily show certain details of a working sputtering system, even
`
`though such details would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill.
`
`Wang is a patent assigned to a major supplier of sputtering equipment, and
`
`therefore is less focused on physics, as compared to Mozgrin.
`
`H. Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`Mozgrin teaches forming a high density plasma during a voltage pulse
`
`without forming an arc. FIG. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-
`
`voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions: (1) “pre-ionization,”
`
`Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the
`
`voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage)”) (Ex. 1002); (2) “high
`
`current magnetron discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4; application of a high
`
`voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2; (3) “high
`
`current diffuse discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5; increasing the current
`
`applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to
`
`transition to region 3; and (4) “arc discharge,” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3;
`
`further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3
`
`to the “arc discharge” region 4. DeVito ¶¶87-91 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1002);
`
`region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5; DeVito ¶89 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`
`I.
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a movable magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown
`
`in FIG. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang, Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`
`FIG. 6 shows a graph of the power Wang applies to the plasma. A lower
`
`power level, PB, is generated by a DC power supply 100 (shown in FIG. 7), and a
`
`higher power level, PP, is generated by the pulsed power supply 80. Wang 7:56-
`
`64. The lower power level, PB, “is chosen to exceed the minimum power
`
`necessary to support a plasma” after ignition, and application of the higher power
`
`level, PP, “increases the density of the plasma.” Wang 7:17-31; 8:2-5; DeVito
`
`¶ 93 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`J. Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1004)
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fortov is a Russian language encyclopedia of plasma physics that was
`
`published in 2000. Fortov teaches the non-linear relationship between the target
`
`temperature and the sputtering yield Y above temperature T0. Fortov at 123, left
`
`col. (Ex. 1004). DeVito ¶98 (Ex. 1005) (including a chart showing how the ‘773
`
`Patent virtually copied the Fortov reference).
`
`Fortov observes that above certain temperature, the sputtering yield Y starts
`
`to grow rapidly. (“At temperature being less than T1 coefficient Y is not actually
`
`dependent on the temperature, and at Т ≈ T1 starts to grow rapidly concurrently
`
`with the growth of temperature (Pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 119, left col. Fortov
`
`also depicts this effect graphically in Pic. VI.1.315:
`
`
`
`“Pic. VI.1.315. Sputtering coefficient of cuprum [copper] being bombarded by the
`
`ions of Аr+ with the energy of 400 eV, from the temperature: 1 — electrolytic
`
`copper, 2 — rolled copper, 3 — cuprum monocrystal, facet (101)” (Fortov at 119,
`
`left col. (Ex. 1004)). DeVito ¶99 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘773 Patent adopted sections and equations from Fortov without
`
`attributing those disclosures to Fortov, and then claims this effect in a particular
`
`type of system, even though there is nothing to indicate that the effect described in
`
`Fortov would work in some different way in the system of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the DeVito Declaration (Ex. 1005), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claims of the ‘773 Patent, and how those
`
`claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 and 36-39 would have been obvious
`over Mozgrin and Fortov
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`a) The preamble: “A sputtering source comprising”
`Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime
`
`2 was characterized by intense cathode sputtering…”)3. Further, Figure 1 of
`
`Mozgrin shows two configurations of magnetrons that can be used for sputtering.
`
`Mozgrin at Figure 1. (Ex. 1002). DeVito ¶108 (Ex. 1005).
`
`b) Limitation (a): “a cathode assembly that is positioned
`adjacent to an anode, the cathode assembly including a
`sputtering target”
`
`
`3 All bold/italic emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin’s Figure 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is adjacent to
`
`Mozgrin’s anode “2.” Mozgrin also discloses that its cathode includes a sputtering
`
`target, and that sputtering occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4
`
`(“Regime 2 was characterized by intense cathode sputtering….”). The sputtered
`
`material comes from the cathode. Id. ¶ 4 (“The pulsed deposition rate of the
`
`cathode material….”). In a magnetron, the portion of the cathode that can be
`
`sputtered is the “sputtering target.” DeVito ¶109 (Ex. 1005).
`
`c) Limitation (b): “an ionization source that generates a
`weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to the
`anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin teaches using the power supply shown in Fig. 2 of Mozgrin to
`
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma with density less than 1012 ions/cm3 from the
`
`feed gas. For example, Mozgrin states (Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2):
`
`For pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; the
`discharge current ranged up to 300 mA…. We found out that only the
`regimes with magnetic field strength … provided the initial plasma
`density in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range. (emphasis added)
`
`Mozgrin’s plasma is generated from a feed gas between and proximate to the
`
`anode “1” and cathode “2” as shown in Mozgrin’s Figures 1 and 6. Mozgrin at
`
`401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma] discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent
`
`to the cathode.”). DeVito ¶110-111 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin teaches using feed gasses such as argon and nitrogen for forming
`
`its plasmas. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3; 402, ¶ spanning left and right cols (“We
`
`studied the high-current discharge … using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or
`
`their mixtures of various composition….”). DeVito ¶112 (Ex. 1005).
`
`d) Limitation (c)
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode…[with] an amplitude
`and a rise time”
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows the voltage pulse generated by the “high-
`
`voltage supply unit” of Mozgrin’s power supply, is copied below.
`
`
`
`Region 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig 3(b) represents the voltage used for pre-ionization,
`
`corresponding to generating of the weakly-ionized plasma. Mozgrin at 402, right
`
`col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary
`
`discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) DeVito ¶113 (Ex. 1005). FIG. 1 of Mozgrin
`
`shows two configurations of magnetrons, each with a cathode 1 and an anode 2.
`
`Mozgrin, 401, FIG. 1 caption (“FIG. 1 Discharge device configuration… (1)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Cathode; (2) anode….”) . Mozgrin’s FIG. 1 also shows the anode adjacent to the
`
`cathode, in parallel and arranged such that there is a gap between them.
`
`Also, Mozgrin teaches using a pulse with a rise time of 5 – 60 µs. Mozgrin
`
`at 401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[t]he power supply was able to deliver square voltage and
`
`current pulses with [rise] times (leading edge) of 5 – 60 µs ….”). Region 2 of
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig 3(b) represents a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise time,
`
`that is applied to the weakly-ionized plasma between Mozgrin’s anode and
`
`cathode. DeVito ¶114 (Ex. 1005)
`
`(2) Generating a “strongly-ionized plasma” from the
`“weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`Mozgrin’s voltage pulse generates a “strongly-ionized plasma.” In
`
`Mozgrin’s sputtering region 2, the plasma density exceeded 1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).” In Mozgrin’s
`
`region 3, the plasma density is even higher. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“large-
`
`volume uniform dense plasmas ni  1.5x1015cm-3. DeVito ¶115 (Ex. 1005).
`
`(3) 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”
`
`Fortov discloses a relationship between the target temperature and the
`
`sputtering yield. Fortov further discloses that the sputtering yield Y becomes non-
`
`linear above temperature T0: “Y increases with the increase of target temperature
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`T0, meanwhile, the relation Y(T0) has an exponential character which explains the
`
`thermal dependence of the sputtering yield (see pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 123, left
`
`col. (Ex. 1004). Fortov discloses that “[a]t temperature being less than T1
`
`coefficient Y is not actually dependent on the temperature, and at Т ≈ T1 starts to
`
`grow rapidly concurrently with the growth of temperature (Pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov
`
`at 119, left col. Pic. VI.1.315 depicts sputtering yield as a function the temperature
`
`of a copper cathode in argon plasma, and shows that the sputtering yield increases
`
`with increasing surface temperature of the sputtering target in a non-linear way
`
`above certain temperature. DeVito ¶116 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The ‘773 Patent admits it was known in the prior art that the sputtering
`
`process generates heat at the surface of the target. ‘773 Patent, Figs. 2-3, 4:62-
`
`5:16. One of ordinary skill reading Mozgrin would have understood that
`
`controlling discharge parameters, such as the current or the characteristics of the
`
`pulse (e.g., duration, amplitude and rise time), could have been performed to cause
`
`the plasma to remain in the region 2 that is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403,
`
`right col, ¶ 4- 404, left col. ¶ 1 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode
`
`sputtering due to both high energy and density of ion flow. [] The pulsed
`
`deposition rate of cathode material [] turned out to be about 80 µm/min in the
`
`argon discharge, Id = 65 A, Ud = 900 V. The … pulse duration was 25 ms, and the
`
`repetition frequency was 10Hz….”); Figs. 5a and 7. DeVito ¶117 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` The natural operation of Mozgrin over at least some range of disclosed
`
`parameters would read on this limitation. For example, the ‘773 Patent describes
`
`that a strongly-ionized plasma is greater than 1012 ions cm-3. ‘773 Patent, 7:61-64
`
`(“The weakly-ionized plasma is also referred to as a preionized plasma. In one
`
`embodiment, the peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about
`
`106 and 1012 cm-3 for argon feed gas.”). DeVito ¶118 (Ex. 1005). Mozgrin teaches
`
`that the plasma density can be greater than 1013 in region 2 that is useful for
`
`sputtering, and even 1015 in region 3 in which the cathode would be sputtered in an
`
`etching process. ’773 Patent, Claim 30. DeVito ¶119 (Ex. 1005). Thus, Mozgrin
`
`discloses over 10 times the plasma density described in the ‘773 Patent as suitable
`
`for increasing the sputtering yield in a non-linear way. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶4
`
`(“…plasma density (exceeding 2 x 1013 cm-3)….” DeVito ¶119 (Ex. 1005).
`
`It would have been obvious to follow Mozgrin to obtain a non-linear
`
`increase in yield. Because increasing sputtering yield is beneficial for
`
`manufacturing applications, it would have been obvious to pulse the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma in Mozgrin with sufficient power to generate strongly-ionized
`
`plasma. This would increase the density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma to
`
`generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to increase the sputtering
`
`yield to a point where “it starts to grow rapidly in a non-linear way with the growth
`
`of temperature,” as taught in Fortov. DeVito ¶120 (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘773 Patent admits, and Fortov teaches, that the sputtering yield is
`
`related in a non-linear way to the temperature of the sputtering target when the
`
`temperature of the target is greater than 0.7 x the melting temperature (Tm) of the
`
`target. ‘773 Patent, 18:67-19:1. The melting temperature of copper, which is the
`
`target described in Fortov, is about 1,085ºC. Thus, the sputtering yield of the
`
`copper cathode in Fortov is related in a non-linear way to the target temperature
`
`above 0.7 x 1,085 ºC, which is above 759.5 ºC. This can also be seen in Pic.
`
`VI.1.315 of Fortov (Ex. 1004). Like Fortov, Mozgrin describes the use of a copper
`
`cathode in argon plasma as a suitable system for sputtering. Mozgrin at 406, Table
`
`1 (Ex. 1002). DeVito ¶121 (Ex. 1005).
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Mozgrin and Fortov because they both describe argon plasma
`
`sputtering using copper as the cathode material. They are, therefore, in the same
`
`field of endeavor, and both references describe ways to enhance the sputtering
`
`rate. Applying the teaching of Fortov to Mozgrin would be to the use known
`
`processes to achieve Fortov’s predictable result of greater sputtering yield. DeVito
`
`¶123 (Ex. 1005).
`
`2.
`
`Dependent claims 6 and 8-20
`
`Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites: “further comprising a magnet
`
`that is positioned to generate a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma proximate to the sputtering target.” Claim 20 depends from claim 6 and
`
`recites: “wherein the magnet is chosen from the group compri