Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`The Gillette Company
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00604
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1  
`
`II.   TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................4  
`
`A.   Overview of Plasma Generation Systems ......................................................................4  
`
`B.   The ‘775 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Plasma Source. .....................7  
`
`III.   SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................15  
`
`IV.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................15  
`
`A.   “Means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second volume of
`feed gas.” .....................................................................................................................15  
`
`B.   “Means For Applying an Electric Field Across the Weakly ionized Plasma
`…”................................................................................................................................17  
`
`C.   “Means for Ionizing a Feed Gas” (Claim 36) and “Means for Ionizing a
`Volume of Feed Gas” (Claim 37). ............................................................................18  
`
`V.   PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................20  
`
`A.   Defects in Ground 1: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 30, 37
`are Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with Mozgrin’s Thesis and
`Lantsman ....................................................................................................................20  
`
`1.   Overview of Claims 30, 37. ................................................................................20  
`
`2.   Legal Standards for Comparison of the Claim to the Prior Art. .....................23  
`
`3.   Scope and Content of Prior Art. .............................................................................24  
`
`a.  
`
`b.  
`
`c.  
`
`Mozgrin’s Thesis Is Not Prior Art. .........................................................24  
`
`Overview of Mozgrin ...............................................................................26  
`
`Differences Between Mozgrin and the Claims ......................................27  
`
`4.   Overview of Lantsman .......................................................................................29  
`
`5.   Differences Between Lantsman and the Claims ...............................................32  
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`6.   Conclusion ...........................................................................................................34  
`
`B.   Defects in Ground 2: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claim 35 is
`Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with Mozgrin’s Thesis, Lantsman
`and Kudryavtsev .........................................................................................................35  
`
`1.   Overview of Claim 35. .........................................................................................35  
`
`2.   Differences Between Claim 35 and the Prior Art. .................................................38  
`
`a.  
`
`b.  
`
`c.  
`
`d.  
`
`Differences Between Mozgrin and Claim 35 .........................................38  
`
`Petitioner Failed to Prove Inherency ......................................................39  
`
`Incompatibilities of Kudravtsev and Mozgrin .......................................41  
`
`Differences Between Claim 35 and Kudravtsev ....................................43  
`
`3.   Conclusion ............................................................................................................43  
`
`C.   Defect in Ground 3: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 36 is
`Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with Kudryavtsev ....................................44  
`
`D.   Defect in Ground 4: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 30, 37
`are Obvious In view of Wang Combined with Mozgrin and Lantsman ...............45  
`
`1.   Overview of Wang. .............................................................................................45  
`
`2.   Differences Between Wang and the Claims. ....................................................48  
`
`3.   Differences Between Lantsman and Claims 30, 37 ..........................................49  
`
`4.   Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Prevailing on Ground 4 Because They Fail to shown that Claims 30,
`37 are Obvious in View of Wang Combined With Mozgrin and
`Lantsman. .........................................................................................................51  
`
`E.   Defect In Ground 5: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claim 35 is
`Obvious In view of Wang Combined with Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev ................................................................................................................51  
`
`1.   Review of the Claim Features at Issue ...................................................................51  
`
`2.   Comparison to the Cited Art ...............................................................................52  
`
`3.   Petition Fails to Prove Inherency. .....................................................................54  
`
`4.  
`
`Incompatibilities of Kudravtsev and Wang ......................................................56  
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`5.   Conclusion ............................................................................................................57  
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`
`
`F.   Defect In Ground 6: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claim 36 is
`Obvious In view of Wang Combined with Mozgrin ...............................................57  
`
`VI.   CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................59  
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`The present petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`(“the ‘775 patent”) is the second of two petitions filed by the Gillette Company
`
`challenging the ‘775 patent. This petition challenges three independent claims
`
`30, 36, 37 and six dependent claims, nos. 31 – 35.
`
`Claims 30 and 37 are directed to a magnetically enhanced plasma
`
`processing method and apparatus for etching a substrate, wherein a substrate is
`
`positioned in proximity to a cathode and wherein a bias voltage is applied to
`
`the substrate to cause ions from a plasma to impact and etch the substrate’s
`
`surface. To form ions for such etching, a feed gas is ionized into a strongly–
`
`ionized plasma by an applied electrical pulse. The strongly ionized plasma
`
`formed by the pulse is exchanged with a second volume of feed gas during the
`
`pulse to thereby generate strongly-ionized plasma made of a second plurality of
`
`ions. As explained in the patent, “transporting the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`through the region 245 by a rapid volume exchange of the feed gas 264
`
`increases the level and the duration of the power that can be applied to the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma and, thus, generates a higher density strongly-ionized
`
`plasma in the region 246.”1
`
`
`1 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 10, lines 29 – 34.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`The Petition cites to several prior art references that are primarily
`
`directed to deposition, not etching, and therefore do not disclose the claimed
`
`substrate proximate to a cathode and which is biased to cause ions to impact
`
`and etch the substrate. Furthermore, with regard to the claimed gas exchange,
`
`the Petition argues that any gas exchange in a plasma chamber, no matter how
`
`slow and diffuse, and regardless of the location of the gas flux in the chamber
`
`relative to the location where the strongly ionized plasma is formed, will
`
`inherently perform the claimed exchange. But the Petition does not back this
`
`assertion with any teaching in the printed literature.
`
`Claim 36 is directed to a magnetically enhanced plasma processing
`
`method for etching a substrate (such as described in claims 30, 37) that
`
`includes a means for applying an electric field across a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`to induce a type of multi-stage ionization that generates a strongly ionized
`
`plasma for etching. Dr. Chistyakov teaches in his ‘775 patent that the
`
`parameters of the electric field applied to the weakly ionized plasma, in
`
`combination with the dimensions of the gap between the electrodes that
`
`generated the field, can determine whether the gas atoms directly ionize from
`
`the ground state, or first enter an excited state and then ionize from the exited
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`state.2 The claimed type of ionization (in which ions are first excited before
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`being ionized by electrons from the cathode), can be promoted by tailoring the
`
`parameters of the electric pulse for the system’s electrode gap and other
`
`operating conditions of the plasma.3
`
`The Petitioners recognize that their primary references (Mozgrin and
`
`Wang) do not teach the claimed type of multi-stage ionization for forming a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma for etching. But they contend that Mozgrin and Wang
`
`inherently perform such ionization, citing to Kudryavtsev. As explained in
`
`detail below, Kudryavtsev describes a mathematical model of a tubular
`
`electrode structure, wherein the model predicts that ionization from excited
`
`ions may or may not occur in such a structure depending on a variety of
`
`conditions, namely, the gas pressure p, the radius R of the tubular electrode
`
`structure, the strength of the applied electric field E, and the density of ground
`
`state argon atoms, n1.4 Furthermore, Kudyavtsev does not address the role of
`
`electrons from the cathode in that process. Nor does Kudryavtsev’s model
`
`consider the impact on the process of the relatively closely spaced electrodes in
`
`
`2 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 8, line 52 – col. 9, line 22.
`
`3 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 14 – 50.
`
`4 Ex. 1103, Kudryatsev, page 34.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Mozgrin and Wang or of the magnetic field in their systems: Both Mozgrin
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`and Wang use electrodes that are much more closely spaced than
`
`Kudryavtsev’s electrodes, and which are immersed in a magnetic field that can
`
`dramatically influence ion formation and ion density. Yet Kudryavtsev does
`
`not consider such conditions in his mathematical model or in his experimental
`
`set up. For at least these reasons, Kudryavtsev does not prove that Mozgrin’s
`
`or Wang’s systems would inherently provide the claimed type of multi-stage
`
`ionization.
`
`For the above reasons and others provided below, the Petition should be
`
`denied because it does not precisely state the relief requested5 and fails to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.6
`
`II. Technology Background
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems
`
`The claims at issue in this petition are all directed to a method and
`
`apparatus for etching material from a substrate with ions from a strongly-
`
`
`5 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`6 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`ionized plasma. “Sputter etching is the ejection of atoms from the surface of a
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`substrate due to energetic ion bombardment.”7
`
` A “plasma” is a gaseous mixture of electrons, positive ions and neutral
`
`molecules that can be formed by applying a strong electric field to a gas. A
`
`simplified illustration of a plasma formed between a pair of electrodes 238, 216
`
`is shown below in figure 2B of the related U.S. patent number 7,604,716 patent
`
`(the ‘716 Patent):8
`
`
`
`A plasma is on average electrically neutral because there are approximately as
`
`many negative electrons in the plasma as positive ions. However, the density
`
`of charged particles can vary greatly depending on the strength of the applied
`
`electric field and the length of time it is applied.
`
`
`7 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, co. 1, lines 14 – 15.
`
`8’716 Patent, Fig. 2B.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Figure 2D from the ‘716 patent below shows a “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`
`
`having a significantly higher density of charged particles than in the figure
`
`above, due in part to a stronger electric field applied across the electrodes:
`
`
`
`The ‘775 patent explains that if the plasma has a high concentration of
`
`ions in certain regions, then there is a corresponding lack of uniformity in the
`
`etching of the substrate by ion bombardment.9 One way to increase
`
`uniformity is to apply more power to the plasma to increase ion density.
`
`However, “the amount of applied power that is necessary to achieve a
`
`significant increase in uniformity can increase the probability of generating an
`
`electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
`
`(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.”10 Accordingly, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`
`9 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 3. lines 34 – 44.
`
`10 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 3, lines 52 – 56.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`describes in the ‘775 patent techniques for increasing the ion density in a
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`plasma, and the uniformity of ions over the surface of a substrate to be etched.
`
`B. The ‘775 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Plasma
`Source.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov invented an improved plasma device for etching material
`
`from a substrate. The device combines a pair of electrodes and a magnet for
`
`generating electric and magnetic fields in the region proximate to the cathode,
`
`to thereby induce a special type of ionization for etching material from a
`
`substrate located near the cathode. A cross-sectional side view of one
`
`embodiment is shown in figure 2 of the patent reproduced below:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`In this figure, the cathode is separated from the anode 238 by a gap 244, and
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`the substrate to be etched is located directly beneath the cathode as shown.11 A
`
`voltage source 214 applies a bias voltage to the substrate so that the substrate is
`
`at a negative potential relative to the cathode, thereby causing positive ions
`
`formed by the electrode to accelerate into the substrate thereby etching the
`
`surface of the substrate:12
`
`The ions in the strongly-ionized plasma accelerate towards the
`
`substrate 211 and impact the surface of the substrate 211. The
`
`strongly ionized plasma results in a very high etch rate of the
`
`substrate material. Furthermore, as described herein in connection
`
`with FIG. 6A though FIG. 6D, the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`generated by the plasma processing systems according to the
`
`present invention tends to diffuse homogenously in the area 246
`
`due to the interaction of generated magnetic fields. The
`
`homogenous diffusion results in a more uniform distribution of
`
`ions impacting the surface of the substrate 211 compared with
`
`conventional plasma etching systems, thereby resulting in
`relatively uniform etching of the substrate 211.13
`
`
`11 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 5, lines 15 – 18.
`
`12 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 7, lines 59 - 65.
`
`13 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 16, lines 48 - 60.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`To create ions for use in etching, a neutral gas flows in the gap 244 between a
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`cathode 216 and anode 238 where is it ionized by an electric field across the
`
`gap.14 The patent explains that “the dimensions of the gap 244 and the total
`
`volume in the region 245 are parameters in the ionization process as described
`
`herein.”15
`
` A voltage is applied across the electrodes, wherein the voltage is chosen to
`
`ionize the gas to form a weakly ionized plasma whose conductivity is chosen
`
`to “greatly reduce of prevent the possibility of a breakdown condition when
`
`high power is applied to the plasma.16 A magnetic field 245 is generated
`
`proximate to the cathode 216 to trap electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma at
`
`a location proximate to the cathode surface as shown.17
`
`The system then applies a strong electrical pulse across the plasma that
`
`generates an electric field that produces the optimum conditions for exciting
`
`neutral atoms in the weak plasma, and to cause ions in the plasma to strike the
`
`
`14 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 5, lines 15 – 18.
`
`15 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 5, lines 21 - 24.
`
`16 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 6, lines 6 – 9; col. 7, lines 13 – 15.
`
`17 Ex. 1101, ‘755 patent, col. 5, lines 31 – 58; col. 9, lines 31 – 33..
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`cathode to thereby knock “secondary electrons” from the cathode.18 These
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`secondary electrons are also trapped by the magnetic field in the region near
`
`the cathode surface.19
`
`These secondary electrons from the cathode surface then interact with
`
`the excited atoms in the plasma, causing them to ionize and thereby increase
`
`the ion density in the plasma. The weakly ionized plasma, the magnetic field,
`
`the dimensions of the gap and the corresponding electric pulse thus cooperate
`
`to achieve a strongly ionized plasma for etching using a multi-stage ionization
`
`process.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov further teaches that the type of electric pulse applied to
`
`the weakly ionized plasma in combination with the dimensions of the gap
`
`between the electrodes can 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.20 The specification of the ‘755 patent explains the two
`
`types of ionization in more detail and the role of these parameters.
`
`
`18 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 14 - 17.
`
`19 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 31 - 32.
`
`20 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 8, line 52 – col. 9, line 22.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`The typical ionization process is referred to as “direct ionization” or
`
`“atomic ionization by electron impact.”21 In this ionization process, a free
`
`electron collides with a neutral atom with enough energy to ionize the atom,
`
`thereby producing another free electron.22
`
`In the multi-stage ionization process described in the ‘775 patent, the
`
`strong electric field applied to a weakly ionized plasma is chosen to excite
`
`atoms in the weakly ionized plasma from the ground state into an excited
`
`state. The patent teaches that this type of ionization (in which ions are first
`
`excited before being ionized), can be promoted by tailoring the parameters of
`
`the electric pulse for the system’s electrode gap and other operating conditions
`
`of the plasma.
`
`First, the patent explains the electrodynamics behind atom excitation
`
`and ion formation. It says that a ground state atom requires more energy to
`
`directly ionize that 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
`of energy to ionize.23
`
`21 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 3, lines 15 - 27.
`
`22 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 3, lines 15 - 27.
`
`23 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 17 – 19, 26 - 27.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`Once an atom is in an excited state, it obviously requires less energy to ionized
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`than is required to directly ionize the atom from the ground state:
`
`The excited [argon] atoms only require about 4 eV of energy to
`
`ionize while neutral atoms require about 15.76 eV of energy to
`ionize.24
`
`The patent also explains the formation of secondary electrons from the
`
`cathode, and how they are trapped by the magnetic field in the same region
`
`where the excited atoms reside.25 Since relatively little energy is required to
`
`ionize excited atoms, the excited atoms are ionized when they interact with
`
`these trapped electrons, to further increase the density of the plasma in that
`
`region.26
`
`Next, the patent explains how the electric field in the gap influences the
`
`type of ionization that occurs. The ‘775 patent says that a multi-stage
`
`ionization (in which ions are first excited before being ionized), can be
`
`promoted by tailoring the parameters of the electric pulse for the system’s
`
`electrode gap and other operating conditions of the plasma.
`
`
`24 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 25 - 28.
`
`25 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 23 – 35.
`
`26 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 27 - 35.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`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
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma that is transformed to the
`excited atoms is very high for a pulsed discharge in the feed gas.27
`
` The patent also proposes controlling the flow of gas into the plasma in a
`
`region where the strong electric field transforms the weakly ionized plasma
`
`into a strongly ionized plasma. Figure 3 below shows a pair of electrodes 216
`
`and 204 separated by a gap 220:
`
`
`27 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 14 – 22; lines 56 - 61.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Feed gas 264 flows between the electrodes under the direction of flow
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`
`
`
`controller 210 (fig. 2) to provide a relatively high volume gas exchange in the
`
`regions 245 between the electrodes.28 The patent explains that this volume
`
`exchange allows the use of high power pulses having a longer duration that
`
`results in the formation of a higher density plasma:
`
` The level and duration of the high-powered electrical pulse is
`
`limited by the level and duration of the power that the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma can absorb before the high power discharge
`
`contracts and terminates. In one embodiment, the flow rate of the
`
`feed gas 264 is increased so that the strength and the duration of
`
`the high-power electrical pulse can be increased in order to
`increase the density of the strongly-ionized plasma. 29
` The claims at issue in this Petition are directed at least in part to some of the
`
`features just described. The Petition alleges that these claim are obvious in
`
`view of the prior art references shown in the following summary of the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds.
`
`
`
`
`28 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 8, lines 23 - 26.
`
`29 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 10, lines 14 - 21.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`Art
`Claims
`30 – 34, 37 Mozgrin, Mozgrn Thesis, Lantsman
`35
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, Lantsman, Kudryavtsev
`36
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev
`30 – 35, 37 Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev
`35
`Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, Kudryavtsev
`36
`Wang, Mozgrin
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim to the
`
`cited art.
`
`A.
`
` “Means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a
`second volume of feed gas.”
`
`The function of this claimed means is: exchanging the strongly ionized
`
`plasma with a second volume of feed gas while applying “the electric pulse”
`
`across the second volume of feed gas. This language indicates that the volume
`
`exchange occurs in the region where “the electric pulse” generates a strongly
`
`ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. It also indicates that the
`
`exchange occurs during the time that “the electric pulse” is applied, referring
`
`back to the previously mentioned pulse for generating “a strongly ionized
`
`plasma comprising a first plurality of ions.” Thus, the claim language indicates
`
`that the claimed means provides a gas flow in the region where the strongly-
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`ionized plasma is formed, that is fast enough relative to the pulse duration and
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`plasma volume to exchange a volume of the strongly ionized plasma with a
`
`second volume of feed gas, during the pulse.
`
`The corresponding structure for performing this function is the gas flow
`
`control system 210 and the disclosed structures for feeding gas at a high flow
`
`rate to the region where the strongly ionized plasma is formed (and
`
`equivalents), such as conduit 207 and its structural relation to the electrode
`
`configuration 216, 238 shown in figures 2 and 3 below:
`
`
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`“Means For Applying an Electric Field Across the Weakly
`ionized Plasma …”
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The function of this claimed means is to apply an electric field across a
`
`specified region (i.e., the region were the weakly-ionized plasma resides), so as
`
`to achieve a particular plasma condition recited in the claim. That condition
`
`requires that atoms in the weakly ionized plasma are caused to enter an excited
`
`state and that electrons from the cathode interact with the excited atoms to
`
`ionize them. The corresponding disclosed structure is a power supply such as
`
`pulsed supply 234 and an electrode structure coupled to the power supply,
`
`wherein the geometry of the electrode structure combined with parameters of
`
`the voltage emitted by the power supply, generate a type of electric field in the
`
`region between the electrodes that induces the type of ionization described. As
`
`explained by the ‘755 patent, this type of ionization (in which ions are first
`
`excited before being ionized), can be promoted by tailoring the parameters of
`
`the electric pulse for the system’s electrode gap and other operating conditions
`
`of the plasma.
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`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
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma that is transformed to the
`excited atoms is very high for a pulsed discharge in the feed gas.30
`
`Thus, this text, in combination with an example electrode configuration shown
`
`in figure 3, describe to one skilled in the art an electrode structure and voltage
`
`power supply that correspond to the claimed means for applying an electrical
`
`pulse across the weakly ionized plasma
`
`
`C. “Means for Ionizing a Feed Gas” (Claim 36) and “Means for
`Ionizing a Volume of Feed Gas” (Claim 37).
`
`The general function of this claimed means is to ionize a gas to thereby
`
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma, and in particular to ionize a type of gas that
`
`the claim calls a “feed gas.” The Petitioner treats the word “feed” in the claim
`
`as if it describes any gas, regardless of whether the gas is being fed during
`
`ionization. However, this renders superfluous the word “feed” in the
`
`expression “feed gas in a chamber” – “a methodology of claim construction
`
`
`30 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 9, lines 14 – 22; lines 56 - 61.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`that [the Federal Circuit] has denounced.”31 Even under the broadest
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the claim term “feed” cannot be read out of
`
`the claim and cannot be deemed superfluous over the claimed “gas in a
`
`chamber.”
`
`“A feed gas,” as its name implies, is a flow of gas. As explained in the
`
`specification, the “electric field in the gap 472 between the electrode 452 and
`
`the cathode 204' is adapted to ignite the plasma from the feed gas 226 flowing
`through the gap 472.”32 The function of the claimed means therefore requires
`
`ionization of gas that is being fed while it is being ionized to form the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.
`
`The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is the various
`
`power supplies disclosed in the patent electrically coupled electrodes that are
`
`physically coupled to a structure that supplies feed gas between the electrodes.
`
`The patent describes various power supplies for this purpose, for example at
`
`column 6, lines 1 – col. 7, line 3. Example structures to which such voltage
`
`supplies can be connected include electrode structures 216, 238 coupled to a
`
`structure for delivering feed gas, such as represented in figures 2, 3, 10 and 11.
`
`
`31 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`32 Ex. 1101, ‘775 Patent, col. 18, lines 9 – 12.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`V.
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`A. Defects in Ground 1: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`Claims 30, 37 are Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined
`with Mozgrin’s Thesis and Lantsman
`1. Overview of Claims 30, 37.
`
`The challenged claim 30 is generally directed to a magnetically enhanced
`
`plasma processing method for etching the surface of a substrate. Claim 37 is a
`
`corresponding apparatus claim that implements the recited etching method,
`
`using the means described in the claim construction above.
`
`The method and apparatus include a substrate that is position proximate
`
`to a cathode, wherein a bias voltage is applied to the substrate to cause ions
`
`form a plasma to impact and etch the substrate’s surface. To create the plasma
`
`and its ions, the method and device first ionizes a volume of feed gas to form a
`
`weakly ionized plasma. As explained in the claim construction above, “a feed
`
`gas” as its name implies, is a gas that feeds or flows during ionization.
`
` The claimed method and device generates a magnetic field proximate to
`
`the weakly ionized plasma to thereby trap ions in the weakly ionized plasma in
`
`a region proximate to the cathode. They then apply an electric pulse across the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly ionized plasma.
`
`They next exchange the strongly ionized plasma with a second volume
`
`of feed gas while applying “the electric pulse” across the second volume of feed
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`gas. This language indicates that the strongly-ionized plasma is displaced from
`
`Patent No. 6,896,775
`IPR2014-00604
`
`
`the region with a second volume of feed gas pulse that formed the displaced
`
`plasma is applied. The claims indicate that this exchange of a volume of
`
`plasma with a volume of feed gas occurs during the electric pulse, because they
`
`says that the exchanging step occurs while “the electric pulse” is applied,
`
`referring back to the previously mentioned pulse that generates a “strongly
`
`ionized plasma comprising a first plurality of ions.” Thus, t