`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131-00269 US1
`‘779 Patent
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`6,805,779, CLAIMS 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, AND 29
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED:
`
`MARCH 21, 2003
`
`ISSUED: OCTOBER 19, 2004
`
`PLASMA GENERATION USING MULTI-STEP IONIZATION
`
`TITLE:
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, AND 29 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`
`
`INTEL 1002
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,805,779 (the “‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). I understand that the ‘779
`
`Patent was filed on March 21, 2003. I understand that, for purposes determining
`
`whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the ‘779 Patent
`
`could be entitled to is March 21, 2003.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
`• 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, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)).
`
`• 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” (Ex. 1004)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1005)).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1006)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1007)).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`Of these, I understand that only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution of
`
`the ‘779 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘779 Patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘779 Patent would have found
`
`the ’779 invalid.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ‘779 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`14.
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`16.
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`• the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`Plasma
`A.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`21. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are present in
`
`roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no overall electrical
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.1
`
`22. Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘779 Patent was filed. For example, sputtering is an industrial
`
`process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a surface
`
`called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing
`
`operation). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`B.
`23. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`24. On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state
`
`that is higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited
`
`atom.” A metastable atom is a type of excited atom that is relatively long-lived,
`
`because it cannot transition into the ground state through dipole radiation, i.e.,
`
`through the emission of electromagnetic radiation. See also ‘779 Patent at 7:22-25
`
`(“The term ‘metastable atoms’ is defined herein to mean excited atoms having
`
`energy levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden. Metastable
`
`atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared with other excited atoms.”) (Ex.
`
`1001). “All noble gases have metastable states.” ‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1001).
`
`When generating excited atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed. Of
`
`these, some of the lowest states are metastable, and would typically be more
`
`common than the higher states. This would be generally known in the field of
`
`plasma physics and sputtering, as indicated for example, in the articles cited at
`
`Exhibits 1011 and 1012. Exhibit 1011 identifies two metastable levels among the
`
`four lowest excited levels of argon. The other two levels are called resonant levels,
`
`since they can transition directly to the ground state through emission of dipole
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`radiation. However, when they do so, the radiation can be absorbed by any ground
`
`state atom nearby, which in practice happens with very high efficiency. Hence
`
`even though they are not technically metastable (i.e., spin or dipole forbidden),
`
`they have a high population since for every resonant state that decays into the
`
`ground state, another ground state atom nearby is excited into a resonant state.
`
`Hence the excitation was just passed from one atom to the next, which effectively
`
`extends the life-time of the resonant states. Page 624 of Exhibit 1011 identifies the
`
`levels with n=2 and n=4 as metastable. Table 1 shows that these states are among
`
`the four lowest excited states, and, in fact, the n=2 level has the lowest excitation
`
`energy. The levels with n=3 and n=5 are the resonant levels. Exhibit 1012 shows
`
`experimental results and results of the model presented in Exhibit 1011 for argon.
`
`Table 2 shows that some of the conditions shown are for a high density plasmas (ne
`
`> 1x1012 cm-3), and others are for low density plasmas. Figure 5 and 6 show that
`
`the four lowest excited states, called 4s levels, have at least 100 times higher
`
`density than the next higher excited states, called 4p levels (Compare Table 1 in
`
`Exhibit 1012 or in Exhibit 1011). Figure 9 of Exhibit 1012 compares the 4s, n=2
`
`(metastable) and n=3 (resonant) levels, to some higher states such as 4p, 5p, 5d,
`
`and 7s. It is clear that the population of the 4s lowest excited levels is several
`
`orders of magnitude higher than that of the higher excited levels. Hence if we
`
`assume that the vast majority (e.g. > 95%) of all excited atoms are in one of the 4s
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`levels, the metastable 4s levels n=2,4 account for at least 50% of all excited atoms,
`
`with the remainder essentially being accounted for by the resonant 4s states n=3,5.
`
`Thus, as indicated above, generating excited atoms means also generating
`
`metastable atoms.
`
`25. Excited and metastable atoms are electrically neutral – they have
`
`equal numbers of electrons and protons. A collision with a low energy free
`
`electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited or metastable atom. For
`
`example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘779 Patent at
`
`8:7 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`26. An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of
`
`its electrons. A collision between a free, high energy electron and a ground state,
`
`excited, or metastable atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘779 Patent uses
`
`the following equations to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground
`
`state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and
`
`8:9 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`27. The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 Patent
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`A.
`28. The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step
`
`ionization process with an excited/metastable atom/molecule source that generates
`
`excited atoms, or metastable atoms or molecules, and then provides the
`
`excited/metastable atoms or molecules to a plasma chamber where the plasma is
`
`formed, thereby generating a plasma with a “multi-step ionization” process. For
`
`convenience, this section will just use the term “excited atom source.” In any
`
`event, there appears to be no substantial difference between excited and metastable
`
`sources. The ‘779 Patent does not indicate any particular difference in the
`
`operation of an excited atom source when it is a metastable atom source. The
`
`specification repeatedly refers to “an excited atom source such as a metastable
`
`atom source”, see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 2:13-14, 17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1001), and says
`
`that “[i]n some embodiments, the metastable atom source 204 generates some
`
`excited atoms that are in excited states other than a metastable state.” ‘779 Patent
`
`at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1001)
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`29. Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the
`
`‘779 Patent shows a plasma chamber,
`
`consisting of a magnetron sputtering system,
`
`without an excited atom source. It generates
`
`plasma through a process that the patent refers
`
`to as a direct ionization process. ‘779 Patent at
`
`3:36-47 (“The ionization process in known
`
`plasma sputtering apparatus is generally
`
`referred to as direct ionization… The collision between the neutral argon atom and
`
`the ionizing electron results in an argon ion (Ar+) and two electrons.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`30. As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly
`
`114 for holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a
`
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. ‘779
`
`Patent at 2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1001).
`
`31. The alleged invention generally relates to coupling an excited or
`
`metastable atom source to some plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The
`
`metastable atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such
`
`as the chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`commercially available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma
`
`generators can be modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process according to the present invention.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`32. FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators
`
`“according to the present invention” that are coupled with separate metastable
`
`atom sources (annotated in color below). ‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`shows metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). The metastable
`
`atom sources 204 and 304 “generate[] a volume of metastable atoms 218 from [a]
`
`volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the source where they are generated to
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`the region between the cathode 114/306 and substrate support 136/352, where
`
`plasma 202/302 is formed.
`
`34. Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to
`
`the metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 60-62 (Ex. 1001). Another
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at
`
`11:4-14 (“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable
`
`atoms 218. The power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a
`
`pulsed power supply, a RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power
`
`supply… The power supply 316 generates an electric field 322 between the
`
`cathode 306 and the anode 308 that raises the energy of the volume of metastable
`
`atoms 218 so that at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms 218 are
`
`ionized, thereby generating the plasma 302.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`35. The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted
`
`to the inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2).
`
`‘779 Patent at 4:31-34) (Ex. 1001).
`
`36. Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the
`
`specification, the “excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the
`
`excited atoms in a source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`later raise the energy of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with
`
`“multi-step ionization,” a term the ‘779 Patent defines as an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`37. The first substantive office action for the application that led to the
`
`‘779 Patent rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art
`
`that showed a first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second
`
`chamber for increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a
`
`plasma using multi-step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3. (Ex. 1008).
`
`38. The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the
`
`independent claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes
`
`“a magnet that generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons
`
`proximate to the ground state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. (Ex.
`
`1009). The claims were then allowed.
`
`39. Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does not indicate that
`
`an excited atom source with magnets has any special significance over other
`
`energy sources for generating excited/metastable. For example, the ‘779 Patent
`
`states:
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`In other embodiments, the ground state atoms 208 are energized to a
`
`metastable state by using an energy source, such as a DC plasma source, a
`
`radio frequency (RF) plasma source, an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source, an
`
`X-ray radiation source, an electron beam radiation source, an ion beam
`
`radiation source, an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source, a capacitively
`
`coupled plasma (CCP) source, a microwave plasma source, an electron
`
`cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma source, a helicon plasma source, or a
`
`magnetron plasma discharge source. ‘779 Patent at 19:1-10 (Ex. 1001)
`
`40.
`
`In other words, although the magnet embodiment was claimed, the
`
`specification indicates that there were approximately twelve (12) different ways to
`
`generate excited atoms, and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9,
`
`and 11—without the magnets that were required for the claims to be allowed. The
`
`“magnet” of the source chamber recited in the claims refers particularly to the
`
`embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7 and 10, and specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a,
`
`and 506b in FIG. 6, magnets 566a-d, 570a-d in FIG. 7, and magnets 712 and 714 in
`
`FIG. 10. ‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6 and 7; 14:46-15:4516:12-20 (Ex. 1001).
`
`41. European Counterpart. The applicants had also identified these
`
`magnets, located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed
`
`magnets in counterpart claims in Europe, which read in part:
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`characterised [sic] in that the excited atom source (204) comprises a magnet
`
`(504, 506) that is arranged to generate a magnetic field (508) that traps
`
`electrons proximate to the ground state atoms.
`
`24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136 (Ex. 1010)
`
`42. However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`Summary of the Prior Art
`A.
`43. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`44. Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below,
`
`shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge generated by
`
`Mozgrin. As shown, Mozgrin divides this
`
`CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`45. Mozgrin calls region 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. 1003).
`
`46. Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1003). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for
`
`sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`47. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is
`
`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`48. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`1003). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`49. Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a
`
`plasma with voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1004).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1004). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Id. (Ex. 1004). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain
`
`conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g.,
`
`Id. (Ex. 1004). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when
`
`designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols.
`
`(“Designing the unit, we took into account the dependences which had been
`
`obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a
`50.
`
`surface of an object…” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1007). “A first plasma
`
`generation unit for preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned
`
`upstream along the flow path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`generation unit for activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the
`
`flow path of the gas in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma
`
`generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates
`
`the gas and forms activated gas species. Then, the activated gas species formed by
`
`the second plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-
`
`65. (Ex. 1007).
`
`51.
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable
`
`atoms, and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by
`
`a further energy providing step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-50,
`
`claim 1 (Ex. 1007).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`52. Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing
`
`gas laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a
`
`magnetic field which is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the
`
`electric field to overcome the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1005). The
`
`transverse magnetic field traps electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the
`
`interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result in an upstream
`
`force as indicated by the force vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons,
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`and tends to maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”)
`
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`53. Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic
`
`field to maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated
`
`and pass through. The Angelbeck patent (with a lead inventor who is also a co-
`
`inventor on the Pinsley patent) makes clear that gas lasers of the type disclosed by
`
`Pinsley generate excited atoms as part of their operation. Angelbeck at 1:21-25
`
`(“This invention relates to gas lasers, and particularly to a method and apparatus
`
`for increasing and controlling the light output of a gas laser by applying a
`
`transverse magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20 (“A high gas pressure P is
`
`advantageous, however, for creating a high density of excited atoms in the laser.”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). Neither Pinsley nor Angelbeck were of record during the prosecution
`
`of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`54.
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`55.
`
`I have interpreted some claim terms which use the language “means
`
`for” with a function identified in the same manner I understand the Board will use
`
`to determine the meaning of the means plus function claim. In the attached petition
`
`the function of the limitation is identified, the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the function (and equivalents) is identified. I have
`
`identified the function and the corresponding structure in the prior art during my
`
`invalidity analysis.
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration - Ex. 1002
`‘779 Patent, US1, Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`56. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 of the ‘779
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 would have
`been obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`1.
`The preamble: “[a] plasma generator that generates a plasma
`with a multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator
`comprising”
`57. As discussed above, Mozgrin studies conditions that allow a high
`
`plasma density to be achieved without transitioning into the arc regime. Mozgrin
`
`at Abstract (“Two noncontracted discharge regimes…were studied. These
`
`discharges had much higher cathode current densities than those of other known
`
`discharge types…The properties of both discharge types are expected to open up
`
`new fields of application in technology.”).
`
`58. Mozgr