IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-006041
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC §§ 316 AND 37 CFR §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01482, has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-006041
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC §§ 316 AND 37 CFR §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01482, has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 4
`
`
`A. Plasma Fundamentals. .................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Plasma Ignition ............................................................................................... 7
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas ..................................................................................... 9
`
`
`III. THE ‘775 PATENT ......................................................................................... 10
`
`IV. ARGUMENT. ................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`A. A skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention of the ’775 patent. ........... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Scope and content of prior art. ................................................................... 20
`
`2. Differences between the prior art and the claims. ...................................... 29
`
`B. Claim 30 is patentable over the cited references because the petition fails to
`address all of the limitations of the claim. .......................................................... 34
`
`C. Wang and Mozgrin and Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman do not suggest the
`“means for ionizing,” recited in independent claims 36 and 37. ......................... 37
`
`D. Wang, Mozgrin and Lantsman do not suggest the requirements of
`claim 33. .............................................................................................................. 44
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 20
`
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 42
`
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 20
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 20, 34
`
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 19
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 19
`
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 18, 33
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit of Etai Lahav in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2002 Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2003 Affidavit of Tigran Vardanian in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2004 Transcript of Deposition of Richard DeVito, IPR2014-00578 &
`IPR2014-00604, Dec. 11, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2005 Transcript of Deposition of Richard DeVito, IPR2014-00578 &
`IPR2014-00604, Dec. 17, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2006 Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2007 Eronini Umez-Eronini, SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL,
`Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. (1999), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2008 Robert C. Weyrick, FUNDAMENTALS OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL,
`McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2009 Chiang et al., U.S. Patent 6,398,929.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`All of the challenged claims are patentable over Wang and Mozgrin, whether
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`considered alone or in combination with Lantsman. Wang describes applying DC
`
`power pulses to a plasma when sputtering material from a target, but fails to teach
`
`or suggest controlling voltage during such activities or when generating a high-
`
`density plasma. In fact, Wang does not explain any electrodynamics of high-
`
`density plasmas.1 Mozgrin relates to “high-power quasi-stationary low-pressure
`
`discharge in a magnetic field.”2 The study used two different “[d]ischarge device
`
`configurations,”3 and Mozgrin determined that when employing a magnetic field
`
`(like Wang), a supply unit “providing square voltage and current pulses with rise
`
`times (leading edge) of 5 – 60 µs and durations as much as 1.5 ms” was needed.4
`
`Wang, on the other hand, deemed it important that pulses have “significant” rise
`
`times and pulse widths preferably less than 200 µs and no more than 1 ms.5
`
`
`1 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 12.
`
`2 Ex. 1102 at p. 400, Abstract.
`
`3 Id. at p. 401, Figs. 1a and 1b.
`
`4 Ex. 1102 at p. 401, rt. col. ¶ 1.
`
`5 Ex. 1108 at 5:26-27, 43-48; 8:41-42.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Whereas Mozgrin controlled voltage pulses,6 Wang controlled power
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`
`
`pulses.7 Control of power is very different from controlling voltage8 and even
`
`Wang acknowledges this distinction.9 Thus, the teachings of Mozgrin would be of
`
`little value to a skilled artisan when considering Wang.10 Petitioners and their
`
`expert fail to account for these differences in their analyses and further fail to
`
`account for the actual teachings of Wang insofar as it suggests anode-cathode
`
`geometry very different from that required by the ‘775 patent. Significant
`
`experimentation would still be required in order to adapt any teachings of Mozgrin
`
`to the regime of Wang.11 Accordingly, the patentability of the claims should be
`
`confirmed over Wang and Mozgrin.12
`
`
`6 Ex. 1102 at p. 401, rt. col.
`
`7 Ex. 1108 at 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse
`
`width is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse widths.”).
`
`8 Ex. 2006 at ¶¶ 58-60.
`
`9 Ex. 1108 at 5:52-54.
`
`10 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 15.
`
`11 Id.
`
`12 Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Lantsman relates to “a power supply circuit which reduces oscillations
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`generated upon ignition of a plasma within a processing chamber.”13 In particular,
`
`Lantsman’s circuit has two power supplies: “[a] secondary power supply pre-
`
`ignites the plasma by driving the cathode to a process initiation voltage. Thereafter,
`
`a primary power supply electrically drives the cathode to generate plasma current
`
`and deposition on a wafer.”14 Significantly, Lantsman does not disclose a pulsed
`
`power supply, any type of electrical pulse, or even a strongly-ionized plasma as
`
`recited in the claims of the ‘775 patent.15 Lantsman thus differs substantially from
`
`both Wang and Mozgrin.16 Whereas Wang is concerned with a “target 14 [ ]
`
`powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power supplied from a pulsed DC power
`
`supply,”17 and Mozgrin discloses a “pulsed discharge supply unit,”18 Lantsman
`
`relies on separate power supplies, one to ignite a plasma and the other to provide
`
`
`13 Ex. 1104 at Abstract.
`
`14 Id.; see also 4:11 and 4:19 (describing two DC power supplies).
`
`15 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 66.
`
`16 Id.
`
`17 Ex. 1108 at 5:18-22.
`
`18 Ex. 1102 at p. 401, left col, ¶ 5.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`power for an entire deposition period.19 Systems that use a pulsed discharge supply
`
`unit, like those of Wang and Mozgrin, would operate very differently if modified to
`
`use two DC power supplies as taught by Lantsman, requiring significant changes to
`
`semiconductor processing methods employing such apparatus. Petitioners failed to
`
`provide any objective evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`
`modify Wang and/or Mozgrin in such a fashion. Indeed, inasmuch as Lantsman
`
`fails to even mention strongly-ionized plasma, there appears to be little, if any,
`
`reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have consulted Lantsman for any
`
`relevant teachings concerning systems in which an electrical pulse is applied across
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma, as recited in the
`
`‘775 patent.20 Accordingly, the patentability of the claims should be confirmed
`
`over Wang, Mozgrin and Lantsman.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`The claims of the ‘775 patent are directed to a magnetically enhanced
`
`plasma processing apparatus and corresponding method in which an electric field
`
`is applied across weakly-ionized plasma proximate a cathode to “generate[ ]
`
`19 Ex. 1104 at Fig. 6; 2:49-51, 4:33-37, 5:42-52.
`
`20 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 66.
`
`4
`
`
`
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma . . ., thereby creating a strongly-
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`ionized plasma.”21 Accordingly, we first review some fundamentals concerning
`
`plasmas, and strongly-ionized (or high-density) plasmas in particular, and then
`
`address Dr. Chistyakov’s particular solution for generating such a plasma.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plasma Fundamentals.
`
`Plasma is a distinct state of matter characterized by a significant number of
`
`electrically charged particles. In an ordinary gas, each atom or molecule contains
`
`an equal number of positive and negative charges, so that each is electrically
`
`“neutral.” When the atoms or molecules of the gas are subjected to heat or other
`
`energy, they begin to lose electrons and are left with a positive charge. This
`
`process is called ionization. When enough gas atoms or molecules have been
`
`ionized such that the ions, together with the free electrons, significantly affect the
`
`electrical characteristics of the substance it is said to be plasma. Although made up
`
`of charged particles the plasma remains electrically neutral overall.22
`
`Common examples of the use of plasmas include applications in neon signs
`
`and fluorescent lights. Plasmas are also used in a number of industrial processes,
`
`21 Ex. 1101 at Abstract.
`
`22 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 45.
`
`5
`
`
`
`including the manufacture of semiconductor devices. To that end, consider an
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`object (hereinafter referred to as a “target”) in or near a plasma. If the target (or an
`
`object in its vicinity) is made electrically negative compared to the plasma,
`
`positively charged ions in the plasma will be accelerated towards the target. At the
`
`surface of the target, a number of different interactions can occur (see Figure 1,
`
`below).23
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`Plasma
`
`Surface
`of
`Target
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Interactions at a target’s surface
`In Figure 1, an arriving ion is “adsorbed” onto the surface of the target at
`
`(A). At (B), the incoming ion transfers some of its momentum to one of the target’s
`
`surface atoms and causes it to be displaced. If the energy of the incoming ion is
`
`sufficiently high, surface atoms of the target may be removed in a process referred
`
`to as sputtering (shown in (C)). If the ion energy is even greater, then it may be
`
`
`23 Id. at ¶ 46.
`
`6
`
`
`
`implanted into the target (at (D)).24 Sputtering is often used to deposit layers of
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`material on a semiconductor substrate as part of an integrated circuit fabrication
`
`process.25
`
`Conversely, so-called sputter etching involves “the ejection of atoms from
`
`the surface of a substrate due to energetic ion bombardment.”26 That is, while
`
`sputtering involves impacting and displacing target atoms with ions from a plasma
`
`and depositing those atoms on a substrate, etching involves removing atoms from
`
`the substrate by impacting them with ions from a plasma. The ‘775 patent teaches
`
`plasma processing apparatus configured for various kinds of etching.27
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plasma Ignition
`
`To ignite a plasma, a gas is introduced in a space between two electrodes,
`
`for example in a tube or other container, and an electric field is applied between
`
`the electrodes. An example of such an arrangement is shown in Figure 2.28
`
`24 Id. at ¶ 47.
`
`25 Ex. 1108 at 1:10-15.
`
`26 Ex. 1101 at 1:13-14.
`
`27 Id. at 4:7-14.
`
`28 Ex. 2006 at ¶ 48.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`Cathode
`
`Anode
`
`Tube
`
`Gas
`
`Electric Field
`
`+
`
`_
`
`Voltage
`Source
`Figure 2: Simplified plasma system
`Ions and electrons in the gas are accelerated towards the electrically negative
`
`
`
`electrode (the “cathode”) and the electrically positive electrode (the “anode”),
`
`respectively. As electrons collide with gas atoms, they produce new ions.29
`
`When the ions are in close proximity to the cathode (e.g., on the order of a
`
`few Angstroms), electrons can tunnel from the cathode, neutralizing the ions and
`
`releasing energy. If sufficient energy is transferred to a surface electron at the
`
`cathode, “secondary electrons” are emitted into the gas. The secondary electrons
`
`are accelerated towards the anode, and when they collide with gas atoms they
`
`generate new ions and free electrons. The process of ionization proceeds in this
`
`fashion; and, if the applied power is sufficiently high, a plasma is created.30
`
`
`29 Id.
`
`30 Id. at ¶ 49.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`The ‘775 patent is particularly concerned with high-density plasmas, for
`
`example, plasmas having a density greater than 1012 cm-3.31 As explained by Dr.
`
`Chistyakov, dense plasmas provide rapid etching of substrates in vicinities directly
`
`adjacent the higher concentration of ions.32 Magnetrons develop high-density
`
`plasmas using a magnetic field configured parallel to a target surface to constrain
`
`the secondary electrons. The ions also concentrate in the same region, maintaining
`
`the quasi-electrical neutrality of the plasma.33 The trapping of electrons and ions
`
`creates a dense plasma, which, in turn, leads to an increased etching rates.
`
`Conventional magnetron systems suffer from undesirable, non-uniform
`
`erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.34 To address
`
`such problems, researchers tried increasing the applied power and later pulsing the
`
`applied power. However, increasing the applied power increased “the probability
`
`of establishing an electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable
`
`31 See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 23:31-33.
`
`32 Id. at 3:38-44.
`
`33 Id. at 3:34-40.
`
`34 Id. at 3:41-44.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber.”35 With the pulsed approach,
`
`“very large power pulses can still result in an electrical breakdown condition
`
`regardless of their duration [and] [a]n undesirable electrical discharge will corrupt
`
`the [ ] process . . . .”36
`
`
`
`III. THE ‘775 PATENT
`
`To overcome some of the deficiencies of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`invented a magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus and corresponding
`
`method in which a multi-step ionization process (in which atoms are first raised to
`
`excited states before being ionized) is employed to create a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.37
`
`
`35 Id. at 3:51-56.
`
`36 Id. at 3:63-65.
`
`37 Ex. 1101 at Abstract.
`
`10
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 2 of the ‘775 patent, Dr. Chistyakov’s apparatus
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`includes a chamber 202 in which is disposed a substrate 211, an anode 238 and a
`
`cathode 216.38 The anode 238 is
`
`positioned adjacent to the cathode
`
`assembly “so as to form a gap 244
`
`between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode 216 that is sufficient to allow
`
`current to flow through a region 245
`
`between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode 216.”39 “The dimensions of
`
`the gap 244 and the total volume of
`
`region 245 are parameters in the ionization process . . . .”40 “[A] pulsed power
`
`supply 234 is a component of an ionization source that generates the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma,”41 by “appl[ying] a voltage pulse between the cathode 216 and the
`
`
`38 Id. at 4:14-15, 31-32, 42-43, and 53-54.
`
`39 Id. at 5:15-18.
`
`40 Id. at 5:21-24.
`
`41 Id. at 6:1-3.
`
`11
`
`
`
`anode 238.”42 “The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between the anode 238 and
`
`the cathode 216.”43 “[T]he peak plasma density of the [weakly-ionized] plasma
`
`depends on the properties specific plasma processing system,”44 and the
`
`conductivity of the weakly-ionized plasma is chosen to “greatly reduce[ ] or
`
`prevent[ ] the possibility of a breakdown condition when high power is applied to
`
`the plasma.”45
`
`“Once the weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are then
`
`generated between the cathode 216 and the anode 238.”46 The high power pulses
`
`generate an electric field that produces the optimum conditions for exciting neutral
`
`atoms in the weakly ionized plasma, and to cause ions in the plasma to strike the
`
`cathode thereby causing secondary electron emission from the cathode. These
`
`secondary electrons are trapped by a magnetic field (254) in the region near the
`
`
`42 Id. at 6:3-4.
`
`43 Id. at 6:6-9.
`
`44 Id. at 6:14-16.
`
`45 Id. at 7:13-15.
`
`46 Id. at 7:16-18.
`
`12
`
`
`
`cathode surface and interact with the excited atoms in the plasma, causing them to
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`ionize and thereby increase the ion density in the plasma.47 “The desired power
`
`level of the high power pulse depends on several factors including the nature of the
`
`etch process, desired etch rate, density of the pre-ionized plasma, and the volume
`
`of the plasma.”48 “The high-power pulses generate a strong electric field . . . across
`
`the gap 244 between the cathode 216 and the anode 238. . . . [and] generate a
`
`highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.”49
`
`Because “the substrate 211 is biased more negatively than the cathode 216[,] [t]he
`
`positively charged ions in the strongly-ionized plasma accelerate towards the
`
`substrate 211. The accelerated ions impact a surface of substrate 211, causing the
`
`surface of the substrate 211 to be etched.”50
`
`As explained by Dr. Chistyakov, “the ion flux density of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma and the ion energy of the ions in the strongly-ionized plasma [can
`
`be] independently controlled. [For example], the ion flux density is controlled by
`
`
`47 Id. at 7:16-18.
`
`48 Id. at 7:19-22.
`
`49 Id. at 7:36-52.
`
`50 Id. at 7:59-63.
`
`13
`
`
`
`adjusting the power level and the duration of the high-power pulses generated by
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`the pulsed power supply 234[, while] the ion energy of the ions that strike the
`
`substrate 211 and cause the surface of the substrate 211 to be etched is controlled
`
`by adjusting the negative substrate bias voltage generated by the bias voltage
`
`source 214 (FIG. 2).”51 Further, “the strongly-ionized plasma tends to diffuse
`
`homogenously in the region 246 and, therefore tends to create a more
`
`homogeneous plasma volume. The homogenous diffusion results in accelerated
`
`ions impacting the surface of the substrate 211 in a more uniform manner than with
`
`a conventional plasma etching system. Consequently, the surface of the substrate is
`
`etched more uniformly.”52
`
`The ‘775 patent explains how the parameters of the electrical pulse applied
`
`to the weakly-ionized plasma in combination with the dimensions of the gap
`
`between the cathode and the anode together determine whether the gas atoms
`
`directly ionize from the ground state, or first enter an excited state and then ionize
`
`from the exited state.53 In “direct ionization” or “atomic ionization by electron
`
`
`51 Id. at 7:66 – 8:8.
`
`52 Id. at 8:9-15.
`
`53 Id. at 9:14 et seq.
`
`14
`
`
`
`impact,” a free electron collides with a neutral atom with enough energy to ionize
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`the atom, producing another free electron in the process.54 In the multi-step
`
`ionization process, however, the strong electric field that results from application
`
`of the high power electrical pulse is applied across the weakly-ionized plasma and
`
`excites atoms in the weakly ionized plasma from the ground state into an excited
`
`state.55 Thereafter, the excited atoms “encounter the electrons that are trapped in
`
`the region . . . by the magnetic field . . . [and] ionize.”56 Because the excited atoms
`
`require only very little energy to ionize compared to neutral atoms in the ground
`
`state, “the excited atoms will ionize at a much higher rate than the neutral atoms.”57
`
`The ‘775 patent teaches the electrodynamics behind multi-step ionization,
`
`noting that a ground state atom requires more energy to directly ionize than to
`
`enter an excited state:
`
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`to become excited …. while neutral atoms require about 15.76 eV
`
`
`54 Id. at 3:15-27.
`
`55 Id. at 9:17-22.
`
`56 Id. at 9:23-27.
`
`57 Id. at 9:27-28.
`
`15
`
`
`
`of energy to ionize.58
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`Once in an excited state, the atom requires less energy to ionize:
`
`Excited [argon] atoms only require about 4 eV of energy to ionize
`while neutral atoms require about 15.76 eV of energy to ionize.59
`
`Secondary electrons from the cathode then interact with the excited atoms to
`
`further increase the density of the plasma in that region.60
`
`The ‘775 patent also explains how the electric field in the gap influences the
`
`type of ionization that occurs:
`
`The dimensions of the gap 244 and the parameters of the applied
`electric field 260 are chosen to determine the optimum condition
`for a maximum rate of excitation of the atoms in the region 245.
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`to become excited. Thus, as the feed gas 264 flows through the
`region 245, the weakly-ionized plasma is formed and the atoms in
`the weakly-ionized plasma undergo a stepwise ionization process.
`
`***
`Under appropriate excitation conditions, the portion of the energy
`
`
`58 Id. at 9:17-27.
`
`59 Id. at 9:25-27.
`
`60 Id. at 9:62 – 10:4.
`
`16
`
`
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma that is transformed to the
`excited atoms is very high for a pulsed discharge in the feed gas.61
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`The relationship between the size of the gap and the applied voltage pulse is also
`
`important for optimizing the excitation of atoms:
`
`[T]he distance or gap 244 between the cathode 216 and the anode
`238 is chosen so as to maximize the rate of excitation of the atoms.
`The value of the electric field 260 in the region 245 depends on the
`voltage level applied by the pulsed power supply 234 (FIG. 2) and
`the dimensions of the gap 244 between the anode 238 and the
`cathode 216.
`
`***
`[T]he parameters of the applied electric field 260 are chosen to
`determine the optimum condition for a maximum rate of excitation
`of the atoms in the region 245.62
`
`The claims at issue are all directed to generating a strongly-ionized plasma using
`
`the multi-stage ionization described above for use in etching a substrate.
`
`
`
`
`61 Id. at 9:14-61.
`
`62 Id. at 9:14-61.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT.
`A. A skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention of the ’775 patent.
`
`Petitioners cannot prevail on any of the proposed grounds of rejection
`
`pending in this proceeding because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any
`
`of the challenged claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in view of the cited references. Generally, a party seeking to invalidate a
`
`patent as obvious must demonstrate that a “skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”63 This determination is one that must be made
`
`at the time the invention was made.64 This temporal requirement prevents the
`
`
`63 See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“To decide whether risedronate was obvious in light of the prior art, a
`
`court must determine whether, at the time of invention, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had ‘reason to attempt to make the composition’ known
`
`as risedronate and ‘a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`64 Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`“forbidden use of hindsight.”65 Furthermore, rejections for obviousness cannot be
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`sustained by mere conclusory statements.66 “Petitioner[s] must show some reason
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine particular
`
`available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach the
`
`claimed invention.”67 Inventions are often deemed nonobvious (and thus
`
`patentable) even when all of the claim elements are individually found in the prior
`
`
`65 See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Indeed, where the invention is less technologically complex, the need for
`
`Graham findings can be important to ward against falling into the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight.”).
`
`66 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`67 Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper
`
`12 at p. 9 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) (citing KSR, supra, at 418) (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`art because an “invention may be a combination of old elements.”68 The motivation
`
`to combine inquiry focuses heavily on “scope and content of the prior art” and the
`
`“level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” aspects of the Graham factors.69 The
`
`present petition did not adequately address either factor.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art.
`
`Any obviousness analysis requires a consideration of the scope and content
`
`of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims.70 Here, all
`
`of the patentability issues to be addressed revolve around questions of obviousness
`
`with respect to the combined teachings of Wang and Mozgrin and Wang, Mozgrin,
`
`and Lantsman. Therefore, it is appropriate to explore these teachings in some
`
`detail.
`
`68 Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`69 Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We
`
`further explained that the ‘motivation to combine’ requirement ‘[e]ntails
`
`consideration of both the ‘scope and content of the prior art’ and ‘level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art’ aspects of the Graham test.’”).
`
`70 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-000604
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,775
`
`
`
`
`a. Wang.
`
`Wang discusses “[a] pulsed magnetron sputter reactor [with] a high plasma
`
`density.”71 In this reactor, “narrow pulses of negative DC power” are used to
`
`sputter material from a target.72 In one example, Wang indicates that the pulses are
`
`applied to both ignite the plasma and maintain it,73 while in another example Wang
`
`describes maintaining the plasma using a background power level with the pulses
`
`applying a much greater peak power to increase the density of the plasma.74 In both
`
`examples it is the power applied to a cathode target that is driven to a prescribed
`
`level, not voltage.75
`
`
`71 Ex. 1108 at 3:16-22.
`
`72 Id. at 5:19-20.
`
`73 Id. at 5:29-30.
`
`74 Id. at 7:13-30.
`
`75 Id. at 5:18-20; 7:13-30; and see 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is
`
`changing, the power pulse width is preferably specified rather than the current or
`
`voltage pulse widths.”).
`
`21
`
`
`
`As is known in the art, power (P) is the product of voltage (V) and current
`
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
