Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`Entered: October 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`Entered: October 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On April 30, 2014, Gillette Corporation (“Gillette”) filed a Revised
`
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–20 and 34–39 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 B2 (“the ’773 patent”).
`
`Paper 7 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Taking into account Zond’s Preliminary Response, and based on the
`
`information presented in the Petition, we are persuaded a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that Gillette would prevail in challenging claims 1–20 and
`
`34–39 as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an
`
`inter partes review as to claims 1–20 and 34–39 of the ’773 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates the ’773 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v. The
`
`Gillette Co., No.1:13-CV-11567-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1 and Paper 5.
`
`Gillette also identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the
`
`’773 patent against third parties. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`B. The ’773 patent
`
`The ’773 patent relates to a method and an apparatus for high-
`
`deposition sputtering. Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:5–6. According to the ’773 patent,
`
`conventional magnetron sputtering systems deposit films with relatively low
`
`uniformity. Id. at 1:53–54. Although film uniformity can be increased by
`
`mechanically moving the substrate and/or magnetron, the ’773 patent
`
`indicates such systems are relatively complex and expensive to implement.
`
`Id. at 1:54–57. The’773 patent further states conventional magnetron
`
`sputtering systems also have relatively poor target utilization (how
`
`uniformly the target material erodes during sputtering) and a relatively low
`
`deposition rate (the amount of material deposited on the substrate per unit of
`
`time). Id. at 1:57–66.
`
`To address these issues, the ’773 patent discloses that increasing the
`
`sputtering yield (the number of target atoms ejected from the target per
`
`incident particle) will increase the deposition rate. Id. at 2:1–4. However,
`
`dramatically increasing power applied to plasma, although resulting in more
`
`uniform erosion of target 116 and high sputtering yield, may increase the
`
`probability of an electrical break-down condition leading to an undesirable
`
`electrical discharge between cathode assembly 114 and anode 130,
`
`regardless of pulse duration. Id. at 4:29–36. This undesirable electrical
`
`discharge will corrupt the sputtering process, causing contamination in
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`vacuum chamber 104, and will overheat the target, causing target damage.
`
`Id. at 4:37–40.
`
`Figure 4 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Figure 4 illustrates a cross-sectional view of magnetron sputtering apparatus
`
`200. As illustrated by Figure 4, in one embodiment, magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus 200 includes vacuum chamber 202 electrically coupled to ground
`
`and to feed gas source 208 by one or more feed gas lines 207. Id. at 5:60–
`
`6:2. Magnetron sputtering apparatus 200 includes cathode assembly 216,
`
`which includes sputtering target 220. Id. at 6:22–28. Pulsed power supply
`
`234 is coupled directly or indirectly to both cathode assembly 216 and anode
`
`238. Id. at 6:40–57. Anode 238 is positioned to form gap 244 between
`
`anode 238 and cathode assembly 216 sufficient to allow current to flow
`
`through region 245 between anode 238 and cathode assembly 216. Id. at
`
`7:3–7.
`
`Feed gas is supplied to chamber 202 directly between cathode
`
`assembly 216 and anode 238, allowing increase of flow rate of the gas. Id.
`
`at 7:44–49. “Increasing the flow rate of the gas allows longer duration
`
`impulses and thus, can result in the formation [of] higher density plasmas.”
`
`Id. at 7:49–51.
`
`An ionization source includes pulsed power supply 234 that applies a
`
`voltage pulse (a pre-ionizing voltage) having an amplitude and shape
`
`between cathode assembly 216 and anode 238 across feed gas 256, such that
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma is generated. Id. at 7:53–62. Once the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma is formed, power supply 234 applies high-power pulses
`
`between cathode assembly 216 and anode 238, across weakly-ionized
`
`plasma 262, generating strongly-ionized plasma 268 from weakly-ionized
`
`plasma 262. Id. at 8:65–9:1, 13:41–45; Figs. 5B–5D. Electric field 266
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`causes the feed gas to experience stepwise ionization, increasing formation
`
`of ions that enhance strongly-ionized plasma 268. Id. at 20:34–38. As
`
`illustrated in Figure 11B, after the strongly-ionized plasma is formed (step
`
`626), sputtering yield is monitored (step 628) and the power is increased if
`
`sputtering yield is insufficient (step 630). Id. at 20:53–57. In one
`
`embodiment, power delivered (step 632) to the plasma is “sufficient to
`
`vaporize a surface layer of the target,” thus, increasing sputtering yield in a
`
`substantially non-linear fashion. Id. at 20:60–63.
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 34 are independent. Claims 2–
`
`20 and 35–39 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 and 34. Claim 1,
`
`reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. A sputtering source comprising:
`
`a cathode assembly that is positioned adjacent to an anode, the
`cathode assembly including a sputtering target;
`
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`from a feed gas proximate to the anode and the cathode
`assembly; and
`
`a power supply that generates a voltage pulse between the
`anode and the cathode assembly that creates a strongly-ionized
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma, an amplitude and a
`rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density
`of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma enough to generate
`sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of
`the sputtering target.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:8–24.
`
`
`
`D. The Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1009)
`(Ex. 1011)
`
`July 2, 2002
`Oct. 23, 2001
`Feb. 20, 2001
`Sep. 28, 1999
`Jun. 4, 2002
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
`Wang
` US 6,306,265 B1
`Fu
`
` US 6,190,512 B1
`Lantsman
`Kawamata US 5,958,155
`
`Chiang
` US 6,398,929 B1
`
`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”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1015) (hereinafter “Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`Interaction of Low-Temperature Plasma With Condensed Matter, Gas, and
`Electromagnetic Field in (III) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LOW-TEMPERATURE
`PLASMA, (V.E. Fortov ed., 2000)(Ex. 1004)(hereinafter “Fortov”).2
`
`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.,
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (Ex. 1006) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`1 Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference (Ex. 1016). The citations
`to Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by Gillette (Ex. 1015).
`2 Fortov is a Russian-language reference (Ex. 1010). The citations to Fortov
`are to the certified English-language translation submitted by Gillette (Ex.
`1004).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 6, and 8–20 3
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`5
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin, Fortov, and Kawamata
`
`1, 6, and 8–20
`
`§ 103 Wang and Fortov
`
`5
`
`§ 103 Wang, Fortov, and Kawamata
`
`3, 4, and 34–39
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin, Fortov, and Lantsman
`
`3, 4, and 34–39
`
`§ 103 Wang, Fortov, and Lantsman
`
`7
`
`7
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`§ 103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fortov
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Fortov
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, Fortov,
`and Raizer
`
`§ 103 Wang, Fortov, Fu, and Raizer
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Printed Publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`As an initial matter, we address the issue of whether Mozgrin Thesis
`
`is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the purposes of this
`
`
`
`3 We note under this Ground, Gillette includes claims 36–39 which depend
`from independent claim 34, in the headings. Pet. i, 13. These claims are not
`argued in the ground nor is independent claim 34 addressed under this
`ground. Accordingly, we determine this was an inadvertent typographical
`error and do not address these claims in the discussion of this ground.
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`decision. In its Petition, Gillette asserts that Mozgrin Thesis is a doctoral
`
`thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, published in 1994, and thus,
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 8, 55–57. As support, Gillette
`
`proffers a copy of the catalog entry for Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State
`
`Library. Ex. 1014.
`
`Zond responds that Gillette fails to demonstrate the Morgrin Thesis is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Prelim. Resp. 55–57. Specifically, Zond
`
`contends the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the document was
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent ordinarily skilled
`
`artisans, exercising reasonable diligence, would have been able to locate it.
`
`Id. at 55–56.
`
`Additionally, Zond asserts the 2002 date printed below the catalog
`
`entry does not establish that Mozgrin Thesis was available publicly prior to
`
`the critical date (i.e., November 14, 2002—the filing date of the application
`
`that issued as the ’773 patent). Id. at 56. Zond also alleges Gillette “did not
`
`provide any explanation of the meaning of that date, such as whether or not
`
`it is the date on which Mozgrin Thesis became accessible to interested
`
`persons.” Id.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments, as these arguments are
`
`predicated on the incorrect assumption that the 2002 date is the publication
`
`date of Mozgrin Thesis. As shown in the catalog entry, the 2002 date
`
`appears to be a claim of copyright in the Ex Libris database from which the
`
`catalog entry was retrieved. Ex. 1014, 2. More importantly, the catalog
`
`entry clearly shows a publication date of 1994 (“Imprint Moscow 1994”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Id. The certified English-language translation of the catalog entry is
`
`reproduced below (Ex. 1014, 1 (annotation added)):
`
`Ex. 1014, 1 is an English translation of the catalog entry of Mozgrin
`
`
`
`Thesis.
`
`Zond does not address why the 1994 imprint date on the catalog entry
`
`at the Russian State Library is insufficient to establish that Mozgrin Thesis
`
`was accessible publicly before the critical date. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d
`
`897, 899–900 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding a dissertation shelved in the stacks
`
`and indexed in the catalog at a university library is a printed publication
`
`under § 102). To the contrary, the catalog entry demonstrates Mozgrin
`
`Thesis was made available to interested persons by virtue of its title and
`
`“Subject” characterization.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine Gillette has shown
`
`sufficiently that Mozgrin Thesis is a “printed publication” within the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, Mozgrin Thesis is available
`
`as prior art for the purposes of this decision to demonstrate that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`B.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`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).
`
`Here, both parties agree the broadest reasonable construction standard
`
`applies to the claims involved in the instant proceeding, and propose
`
`constructions for the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 19–20.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 1 recites “a voltage pulse . . . that creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Gillette proposes the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should
`
`be interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and the claim term “strongly-
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet. 4–
`
`5.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes the claim term “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted 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.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:31–33 (“strongly-ionized plasma 268 having a large ion
`
`density being formed”)).
`
`Zond directs our attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”), which is being challenged in Gillette
`
`Corp. v. Zond, Inc., Case IPR2014-01000 (PTAB), for claim construction.
`
`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). Here, although Zond
`
`characterizes the ’652 patent as “a related patent” (Prelim. Resp. 19–20),
`
`Zond does not explain how the ’652 patent is related to the involved patent
`
`(the ’773 patent) in the instant proceeding.
`
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference exists between the
`
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 19–20. On this record,
`
`therefore, we construe the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “plasma
`
`with a relatively low peak density of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” as “plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`C.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`Obviousness
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`We analyze the grounds asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Ground: Claims 1, 6, and 8–20 – Obviousness over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`
`
`
`Gillette asserts claims 1, 6, and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 103 for
`
`obviousness over the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov. Pet. 13–25. As
`
`support, Gillette provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`
`limitation is met by the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov. Id. Gillette
`
`proffers a declaration of Mr. DeVito as support. Ex. 1005.
`
`Zond responds Fortov describes the relationship between sputtering
`
`yield and target temperature, but does not describe how to achieve the non-
`
`linear relationship recited. Pet. 26–27. Moreover, Zond contends neither
`
`Fortov nor Mozgrin teaches the recited limitations. Pet. 26–29. Zond
`
`further responds that Gillette has failed to demonstrate the recited claims
`
`would have been obvious because Gillette did not show why an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov, and did not follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis. Prelim. Resp. 20–23, 43–47, 53–55.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine Gillette has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 6, and 8–20
`
`would have been rendered obvious by the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Fortov. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the
`
`alleged unpatentability of the claims.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`1. Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`Mozgrin discloses experimental research conducted on high-current
`
`low-pressure quasi-stationary discharge in a magnetic field. Ex. 1002, 400,
`
`Title; right column. In Mozgrin, pulse or quasi-stationary regimes are
`
`discussed in light of the need for greater discharge power and plasma
`
`density. Id. In Mozgrin, experiments are conducted using a discharge
`
`device configuration having a cathode (1), anode (2) adjacent and parallel to
`
`cathode (1), and magnetic system (3), as shown in Figure 1(a). Id. at 401.
`
`The cathode, which includes a sputtering target, is placed on a cooled
`
`surface. Id. at 401, left col.; 403, right col.
`
`Figure 2 of Mozgrin illustrates a discharge (power) supply unit. The
`
`supply unit includes a pulsed discharge supply unit and a system for pre-
`
`ionization. Id. at 401, left col. For pre-ionization, a stationary magnetron
`
`discharge was used. Id. In this pre-ionization regime, the initial plasma
`
`density was in the 109 and 1011 cm-3. Id. Various gasses are used in the
`
`Mozgrin system in the discharge regimes. Id. at 400, right col.; 401, left col.
`
`Figure 3(b) is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin illustrates an oscillogram of voltage of the quasi-
`
`stationary discharge. Id. at 402. In Figure 3(b), Part 1 represents the voltage
`
`of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage); Part 2 displays the square
`
`voltage pulse application to the gap (Part 2a), where the plasma density
`
`grows and reaches its quasi-stationary value (Part 2b); and Part 3 displays
`
`the discharge current growing and attaining its quasi-stationary value. Id. at
`
`402, right col. More specifically, the power supply generates a square
`
`voltage with [rise] times (leading edge) of 5–60µs and durations of as much
`
`as 1.5 ms. Id. at 401, right col.
`
`In regime 2, the plasma density exceeds 2 x 1013 cm-3 and in regime 3
`
`the plasma density produces large-volume uniform dense plasmas η1 ≈ 1.5 x
`1015 cm-3. Id. at 409, right col.
`
`2. Fortov (Ex. 1004)
`
`Gillette’s cited portions of Fortov are directed to interaction of plasma
`
`with condensed matter and, more particularly, to sputtering. Ex. 1004, 3–4.
`
`In Fortov, Y is the coefficient of sputtering, “defined as the relation of the
`
`number of sputtered atoms of a target to the number of bombarding ions
`
`(atoms),” which “depends on the type of ions (its atomic number Zi and
`
`mass Mi).” Id. at 6.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Picture VI.1.315 describes the sputtering coefficient of copper
`
`(cuprum) being bombarded by ions of Ar+ with the energy of 400 eV, from
`
`the temperature: 1 –– electrolytic copper, 2 –– rolled copper, 3–– single
`
`crystal copper (cuprum monocrystal), facet (101). Picture VI.1.315 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Picture VI.1.315 describes the sputtering coefficient of copper (cuprum)
`
`being bombarded by ions of Ar+ with the energy of 400 eV, from the
`
`temperature: 1 –– electrolytic copper, 2 –– rolled copper, 3–– single crystal
`
`copper (cuprum monocrystal), facet (101). According to Fortov, at a
`
`temperature less than T1, coefficient Y is not actually dependent on the
`
`temperature, and at T ≈ T1, Y starts to grow rapidly, concurrently with
`
`growth of temperature. Id. at 9. Fortov further explains temperature T1 is
`
`sometimes defined according to the empirical relation T1 = 0.7 Tm where Tm
`
`is the melting temperature, though in some cases, e.g., for tin (stannum) T1 >
`
`Tm and T1 = U/40k (k is Boltzmann constant; U is the energy of sublimation
`
`correlated to one atom). Id. at 6–7, 9. Temperature T1 depends on the type,
`
`energy, and density of ion flow. Id. at 9.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Gillette argues the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov discloses “an
`
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a
`
`density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma enough to generate sufficient
`
`thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-
`
`linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 1. Pet. 15–19.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Zond initially argues Gillette has not
`
`shown an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings of Mozgrin and Fortov. Prelim. Resp. 21– 24, 26 –29.
`
`Furthermore, Zond contends Gillette has failed to address the Graham
`
`factors related to the “scope and content of the prior art” and the “level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Id. at. 23–24, 53–55.
`
`Zond additionally contends the claim requires more than separately
`
`having a voltage pulse with a rise time and amplitude and achieving greater
`
`sputtering yield; it requires achieving greater sputtering yield by choosing
`
`the amplitude and rise time of the applied voltage pulse. Id. at 44–46.
`
`According to Zond, Mozgrin does not teach achieving a sputtering yield that
`
`is non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target, by choosing
`
`an amplitude and rise time of the applied voltage pulse, or even discuss
`
`temperature of the target. Id. at 45. Moreover, Zond contends Fortov only
`
`mentions a non-linear relation of a sputtering yield to a temperature of the
`
`sputtering target, but does not teach how that non-linear relation would be
`
`achieved. Id. at 46.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`Based upon the record before us, Zond’s arguments are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Mozgrin teaches the power supply generates a square voltage with
`
`[rise] times (leading edge) of 5–60 µs and durations of as much as 1.5 ms.
`
`Ex. 1002, 401, right col. As illustrated in Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin, as the
`
`voltage pulse is applied, the plasma density increases. Id. at 409, right col.
`
`Therefore, we are persuaded Mozgrin teaches an amplitude and rise time of
`
`a voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma. We are also persuaded by Mr. DeVito’s testimony that
`
`sputtering will occur once the chosen voltage pulse is applied. Ex. 1005 ¶¶
`
`30, 38–39.
`
`We also are persuaded Fortov teaches a non-linear relationship
`
`between the sputtering yield and the temperature of the target (Cu (copper)
`
`in argon plasma). Ex. 1004, 9. Specifically, we are persuaded Fortov
`
`illustrates that the sputtering coefficient of Cu being bombarded by Ar+ ions,
`
`relative to temperature is non-linear. Id. at 9, Picture VI.1.315. Fortov
`
`further teaches “[t]he dependence of sputtering coefficient on the target
`
`material is demonstrated, firstly, in the dependence of mass and atomic
`
`number of target atoms, and secondly, in the dependence of binding energy
`
`U which is usually considered to be equal to the energy of sublimation
`
`correlated to one atom.” Id. at 7. We credit Mr. DeVito’s testimony that it
`
`was known “that sputtering causes the temperature of the target surface to
`
`increase” and that “sputtering yield is a function of a number of parameters,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`including target temperature, angle of sputtering ions relative to the target,
`
`and the energy of the sputtering ions.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 65.
`
`Thus, we are persuaded, based on the record before us, Fortov teaches
`
`“generat[ing] sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a
`
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`
`target” and further persuaded that the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`teaches “an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to
`
`increase a density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma enough to generate
`
`sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield
`
`to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target,” as
`
`recited in claim 1.
`
`Zond argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined the
`
`teachings of Mozgrin and Fortov unless that person had used the ’773 patent
`
`as a blueprint for modifying Mozgrin by choosing the amplitude and rise
`
`time of the voltage pulse to achieve the non-linear relation in Fortov.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 44–47. According to Zond, Mozgrin does not mention the
`
`temperature of the target material during the pulse and Fortov does not teach
`
`how to achieve a non-linear relation between sputtering yield and
`
`temperature. Id. at 45–46. Thus, Zond argues Gillette used hindsight to
`
`achieve the recited invention and, further, failed to set forth a proper
`
`obviousness analysis. Id. at 46, 54.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. We are persuaded
`
`Gillette has articulated reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated and would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`teachings of Mozgrin and Fortov. Zond’s arguments appear to be
`
`predicated on an actual, physical substitution of Fortov’s teaching into the
`
`system of Mozgrin. “It is well-established that a determination of
`
`obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
`
`actual, physical substitution of 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)).
`
`Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
`
`individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
`
`See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 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 with
`
`ordinary skill in the art is “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.”).
`
`We credit Mr. DeVito’s testimony that increasing sputtering yield is
`
`beneficial for manufacturing applications. Ex. 1005 ¶ 120. We further
`
`credit Mr. DeVito’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`found it obvious to pulse the weakly-ionized plasma in Mozgrin with
`
`sufficient power to generate strongly-ionized plasma, thereby increasing the
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`strongly-ionized plasma ion density and generating sufficient thermal energy
`
`in the sputtering target so as 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 by Fortov.” Id. Additionally, we are persuaded,
`
`based on the record before us, that because both Fortov and Mozgrin
`
`describe the use of a copper cathode in argon plasma as a suitable system for
`
`sputtering, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
`
`combine the teachings to achieve Fortov’s predictable result of greater
`
`sputtering yield. Ex. 1004, Pic. VI.1.315; Ex. 1002, 406, Table1; Ex. 1005,
`
`¶ 123. In addition, we note that Mozgrin discusses both the gas temperature
`
`and the electrode temperature (Ex. 1002, 406–408), contrary to Zond’s
`
`assertion that Mozgrin does not mention the temperature of the target
`
`material. Prelim. Resp. 45.
`
`Gillette further contends applying the teaching of Fortov to Mozgrin
`
`would have been the use of known processes to achieve the predictable
`
`result of greater sputtering yield (Pet.19), whereas Zond contends such a
`
`combination would be the result of hindsight. Prelim. Resp. 45–46. On this
`
`record, we credit Mr. DeVito’s testimony, as it is consistent with the prior
`
`art disclosures, and agree with Mr. DeVito that combining Fortov’s teaching
`
`of a non-linear relationship between sputtering yield and target temperature
`
`and Mozgrin’s apparatus would have been a combination of known
`
`techniques, yielding the predictable results of increasing the ionization rate
`
`and the degree of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 122.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00580
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`
`disclosures of Mozgrin and Fortov 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 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.”).
`
`Accordingly, on
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
