Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 30–37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 B2 (“the ’775
`
`Patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of Gillette’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Gillette would prevail
`
`in challenging claims 30–37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to
`
`be instituted as to claims 30–37 of the ’775 Patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’775 Patent was asserted in Zond, Inc. v. The
`
`Gillette Co., No.1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass. 2013). Pet. 1. Gillette also
`
`identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims of the ’775 Patent
`
`against third parties, as well as other Petitions for inter partes review that are
`
`related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`B. The ’775 Patent
`
`The ’775 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating
`
`magnetically enhanced plasma. Ex. 1101, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:14–25. The ’775 Patent indicates that
`
`prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit films having low uniformity
`
`and poor target utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform
`
`manner). Id. at 3:34–44. To address these problems, the ’775 Patent
`
`discloses that increasing the power applied between the target and anode can
`
`increase the uniformity and density in the plasma. Id. at 3:45–56. However,
`
`increasing the power also “can increase the probability of generating an
`
`electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
`
`(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`
`According to the ’775 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`
`cathode and anode. Id. at 7:4–15. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`7:16–24. The ’775 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`
`ionized plasma. Id. at 5:59–67.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 30, 36, and 37 are independent
`
`claims. Claims 31–35 depend from claim 30. Claims 30 and 37, reproduced
`
`below, are illustrative:
`
`30. A method of magnetically enhanced plasma processing,
`the method comprising:
`
`ionizing a volume of feed gas to form a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a cathode;
`
`generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized
`plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in
`the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the cathode;
`
`applying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma comprising a first
`plurality of ions;
`
`exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second
`volume of feed gas while applying the electrical pulse across
`the second volume of feed gas to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma comprising a second plurality of ions; and
`
`applying a bias voltage to a substrate that is positioned
`proximate to the cathode, the bias voltage causing ions in the
`first and the second plurality of ions to impact a surface of the
`substrate in a manner that causes etching of the surface of the
`substrate.
`
`
`37. A magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus
`comprising:
`
`means for ionizing a volume of feed gas to form a weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to a cathode;
`
`means for generating a magnetic field proximate to the
`weakly-ionized plasma,
`the magnetic
`field substantially
`trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to
`the cathode;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`means for applying an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`ionized plasma
`to generate a strongly-ionized plasma
`comprising a first plurality of ions;
`
`means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a
`second volume of feed gas while applying the electrical pulse
`across the second volume of feed gas to generate a strongly-
`ionized plasma comprising a second plurality of ions; and
`
`means for applying a bias voltage to a substrate that is
`positioned proximate to the cathode, the bias voltage causing
`ions in the first and the second plurality of ions to impact a
`surface of the substrate in a manner that causes etching of the
`surface of the substrate.
`
`Ex. 1101, 23:46–67, 24:45–65.
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Lantsman
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`(Ex. 1108)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1102) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1103) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1106) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Gillette asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–34 and 37
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and
`Lantsman
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, Lantsman,
`and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`35
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`30–34 and 372
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`
`35
`
`36
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Mozgrin
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. The citations to the
`Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by Gillette (Ex. 1105).
`2 Although “Ground 3” is recited in the Petition as being directed to “Claims
`30–35 and 37,” Pet. 38 (emphasis added), there is no analysis or discussion
`of claim 35 in that ground. We take the reference to claim 35 as a
`typographical error and consider the ground as being applied to claims 30–
`34 and 37.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`
`five means-plus-function claim terms. Pet. 12–15; Prelim. Resp. 15–19. We
`
`address the claim terms identified by the parties below.
`
`We agree that those claim elements are written in means-plus-function
`
`form and fall under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, because: (1) each claim element
`
`uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for” in each claim element is
`
`modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means for” is not
`
`modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed
`
`function. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161
`
`F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim element using the term “means
`
`for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6) (citations omitted); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126
`
`F.3d 1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The presumption is not rebutted if the
`
`term “means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by
`
`any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function.).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`
`1424 (Fed. Cir.1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`
`Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`“means for ionizing a [volume of] feed gas”
`
`Claim 36 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a cathode,” with claim 37 reciting a similar
`
`limitation of “means for ionizing a volume of feed gas to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a cathode.” We first observe that the recited
`
`function for these claim elements is to ionize a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Gillette submits that the corresponding structure for
`
`that recited function is “a power supply that is electrically coupled to an
`
`anode and a cathode,” as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11 of the ’775 Patent
`
`and described therein. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1101, 4:42–67, 6:1–4, 8:27–31).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Zond does not appear to dispute the structure identified by Gillette,
`
`but argues that Gillette treats the word “feed” in “feed gas” as being
`
`superfluous. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. Zond argues that “a feed gas” is a flow
`
`of gas and proposes that the function of the claim limitation requires
`
`ionization of gas that is being fed while it is being ionized to form the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at 19. We do not agree.
`
`The recitation of “a feed gas” in claims 36 and 37 does not imply
`
`necessarily the flow of gas. Certainly the gas is provided, but those claims
`
`do not require “feeding a gas,” for example, to be part of its recited function.
`
`Construing the claim limitation as Zond suggests would be equivalent to
`
`adding a “means for feeding a gas” thereto, and thus, improperly changing
`
`the scope of those claims. Additionally, we can find no specific structure in
`
`the disclosure of the ’775 Patent that would perform Zond’s proscribed
`
`function requiring specifically, the flow of a gas. As such, we are not
`
`persuaded that determining the corresponding structure requires the
`
`ionization of a gas specifically being fed.
`
`Given the cited disclosure in the ’775 Patent, we identify the
`
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function—“ionizing a
`
`feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma”—to be a power supply
`
`electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field”
`
`Claims 36 and 37 both recite “means for generating a magnetic field
`
`proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field substantially
`
`trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the cathode.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`We observe that the recited function for this claim element is “generating a
`
`magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`
`substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to
`
`the cathode.” Gillette does not include the aspect of trapping electrons in its
`
`proposed function, but does allege that the corresponding structure is “one or
`
`more magnets arranged as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 6A–6D, 7, 10[,] or 11 and as
`
`described in the text of the [’775] Patent at 5:31–46, 8:27–40, 13:37–5:31.”
`
`Pet. 14. Zond does not propose any construction for this claim term.
`
`Upon review of the Specification of the ’775 Patent, we agree with
`
`Gillette that the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`
`function—“generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to the cathode”—to be a magnet assembly having
`
`either a permanent magnet or a current source coupled to one or more
`
`electro-magnets.
`
`
`
`“means for applying an electrical field [or pulse]”
`
`Claims 36 recites “means for applying an electric field across the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma that excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and
`
`that generates secondary electrons from the cathode, the secondary electrons
`
`ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`comprising a plurality of ions.” Similarly, claim 37 recites “means for
`
`applying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma comprising a first plurality of ions.” We observe
`
`that the recited function for these claim elements is “applying an electric
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`field across the weakly-ionized plasma thereby generating secondary
`
`electrons to create a strongly-ionized plasma.” Gillette argues for a slightly
`
`different function and argues that the ’775 Patent discloses a power supply,
`
`electrically coupled to an anode and a cathode, with the electrodes arranged
`
`relative to each other as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11, and described in
`
`the text of the ’775 Patent at 4:42–67, 6:1–4, 8:27–31. Pet. 14. We are
`
`persuaded by Gillette that the citations disclose the corresponding
`
`structure(s). Zond argues that more is required.
`
`Specifically, Zond argues that the disclosed structure is more than the
`
`power supply and the electrode structure, as it also includes “the geometry of
`
`the electrode structure combined with parameters of the voltage emitted by
`
`the power supply . . . that induces the type of ionization described.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 17. We note, however, that claims 36 and 37 are apparatus claims,
`
`which recite structures of those apparatuses and not methods of using.
`
`While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or as
`
`structure described in functional terms, claims directed to an apparatus
`
`encompass such structure alone and must be distinguished from the prior art
`
`in terms of that structure rather than any function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
`
`1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). As such, we are
`
`persuaded that the corresponding structure is limited to the structures
`
`disclosed and not to how those structures are made to function.
`
`Upon review of the Specification of the ’775 Patent, we are persuaded
`
`that the corresponding structure for performing the recited function—
`
`“generating an electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma thereby
`
`generating secondary electrons to create a strongly-ionized plasma”—to be a
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`
`electrode.
`
`
`
`“means for exchanging”
`
`Claim 37 recites “means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`with a second volume of feed gas while applying the electrical pulse across
`
`the second volume of feed gas to generate a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`comprising a second plurality of ions.” We observe that the recited function
`
`for this claim element is “providing a feed gas to the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma sufficiently to exchange a volume of that plasma with a second
`
`volume of feed gas.”
`
`Gillette argues that the ’775 Patent discloses “a gas inlet, e.g., from
`
`gas source 208, as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10[,] or 11, and described in the
`
`text of the ’775 Patent at 4:14–17” as being the equivalent structure. Pet. 15.
`
`Zond cites to gas flow control system 210 and structures for feeding the gas,
`
`“such as conduit 207 and its structural relation to the electrode configuration
`
`216, 218 shown in [’775 Patent ‘s] figures 2 and 3.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We
`
`are persuaded that the gas flow control system is necessary for the
`
`corresponding structure to perform the prescribed function.
`
`Zond also emphasizes that the gas flow is provided where the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is formed and that it must be fast enough to
`
`exchange the discussed volumes during the duration of the pulse. Id. at 15–
`
`16. We agree that the flow must be sufficient to allow for the exchange, but
`
`we are not persuaded that the limitations of claim 37 require that the gas
`
`must be provided where the strongly-ionized plasma is formed, as opposed
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`to where the plasma exists. Also, with respect to claim 37, we are not
`
`persuaded that the function of the means for exchanging must occur during
`
`the pulse duration. We are mindful that an apparatus claim in means-plus-
`
`function format is directed to the structure of the apparatus and not how the
`
`apparatus functions. Claim 37 already recites “means for applying an
`
`electrical pulse,” such that the “means for exchanging” should not include
`
`that structure or its function.
`
`Upon review of the Specification of the ’775 Patent, we are persuaded
`
`that the corresponding structure for performing the recited function—
`
`“providing a feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma sufficiently to exchange
`
`a volume of that plasma with a second volume of feed gas”—to be a gas
`
`flow control system and structures for supplying the gas to the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`“means for applying a bias voltage”
`
`Claim 36 recites “means for applying a bias voltage to a substrate that
`
`is positioned proximate to the cathode, the bias voltage causing ions in the
`
`plurality of ions to impact a surface of the substrate in a manner that causes
`
`etching of the surface of the substrate,” with claim 37 reciting a similar
`
`limitation applicable to “the first and the second plurality of ions.” We
`
`observe that the recited function for these claim elements is “generating bias
`
`voltage to a substrate to cause etching of the surface of the substrate.”
`
`Gillette alleges that the corresponding structure is a “bias voltage
`
`source, electrically coupled to the substrate via a substrate support as shown
`
`in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10[,] or 11 and as described in the text of the ’775 Patent at
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`4:31–41, 7:66–8:8.” Pet. 15. Zond does not propose any construction for
`
`this claim term.
`
`Upon review of the specification of the ’775 Patent, we agree with
`
`Gillette that the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`
`function—“generating bias voltage to a substrate to cause etching of the
`
`surface of the substrate”—to be a bias voltage source electrically coupled to
`
`substrate.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Claims 30–34 and 37 – Obviousness
`
`over Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`
`Gillette asserts that claims 30–34 and 37 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and
`
`Lantsman. Pet. 38–51. As support, Gillette provides detailed explanations
`
`as to how each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for
`
`combining the references, as well as a Declaration of Mr. DeVito (Ex.
`
`1111). Id.
`
`Zond responds that Wang and Lantsman cannot render claims 30–34
`
`and 37 obvious because differences exist between Wang, Lantsman, and
`
`those claims. Prelim. Resp. at 48–50.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Gillette has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 30–34 and 37 would have been unpatentable as obvious over the
`
`combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman. Our discussion focuses on
`
`the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1108, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`
`pedestal electrode 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, pulsed DC power supply 80 and bias
`
`power supply 44, the latter used to apply a bias voltage to the substrate. Id.
`
`at 3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`
`the plasma. Id. According to Mr. DeVito, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 137–140; see also Pet. 43–45.
`
`
`
`Lantsman
`
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1104, Abs.
`
`The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
`
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
`
`when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
`
`to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
`
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`
`and RF sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also provides that
`
`“arcing which can be produced by overvoltages can cause local overheating
`
`of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target material into the
`
`processing chamber and causing substrate particle contamination and device
`
`damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes during
`
`processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
`
`Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
`
`introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
`
`the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
`
`Lantsman reproduced below:
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
`
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`
`
`
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`
`
`Reasons to combine Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman
`
`Gillette notes that Mozgrin provides for a similar system to that
`
`described in Wang (Pet. 40), and Gillette also argues that the similarities
`
`between the systems of Wang and Mozgrin would have made it obvious to
`
`have used the system of Wang for etching, as taught by Mozgrin. Pet. 47–48
`
`(citing Ex. 1102, 403, right col, ¶ 4, 409, left col, ¶ 5). With respect to
`
`Wang and Lantsman, Gillette argues that:
`
`[I]f one of ordinary skill took Lantsman’s teaching of
`continually introducing new feed gas during processing, then
`the electrical pulse of Wang would be applied across a second
`volume of feed gas, i.e., the additional volume of feed gas being
`supplied, and Mozgrin’s pulse would thus generate a second
`plurality of ions.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Pet. 45–46. Gillette also argues that it would have been obvious to
`
`continue to add feed gas during etching, as confirmed by Lantsman.
`
`Id. at 46.
`
`Zond argues that Wang is very different from the apparatuses and
`
`methods recited in claims 30–34 and 37. Prelim. Resp. 48–49. Zond argues
`
`that Wang’s sputter target is part of its cathode and not proximate to the
`
`cathode, as recited in the claims, and that Wang’s substrate is not
`
`sufficiently biased to allow for etching, per claims 30 and 37. Id. at 48.
`
`Zond continues that Wang does not teach the claimed exchange of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Id. With respect to Lantsman, Zond argues that
`
`Lantsman does not disclose biasing the substrate to cause etching, and that
`
`Lantsman does not teach the claimed exchange with the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma. Id. at 49. Lastly, Zond argues that Gillette’s discussion of
`
`combining Wang and Lantsman assumes any gas flow will exchange a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma with a volume of feed gas, regardless of how faint
`
`the gas flux in the region of the strongly-ionized plasma and regardless of
`
`the duration of the pulse. Id. at 50.
`
`Those arguments are not persuasive on the present record. “It is well-
`
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
`
`multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
`
`elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
`
`Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion
`
`for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined physically,
`
`but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of
`
`the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one with ordinary skill in the art is
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over
`
`the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
`
`Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S.
`
`at 420-21 (A person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`
`On this record, Zond has not demonstrated adequately that the
`
`disclosed apparatuses would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, or
`
`why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in combining the teachings. Given the evidence
`
`before us, we determine that the Petition and supporting evidence
`
`demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical disclosures of Wang,
`
`Mozgrin, and Lantsman is merely a predicable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`
`Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
`
`references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
`
`references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The fact that
`
`Wang does not disclose the claimed exchange with the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is not critical because Lantsman discusses maintaining the flow of
`
`gas in the disclosed apparatus during processing. Ex. 1104, 5:30–61. Since
`
`the plasma is maintained, there must be sufficient flow and to a portion
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`where the highly-ionized plasma resides. Similarly, since Mozgrin discloses
`
`etching, and Gillette has shown correspondence between Mozgrin and
`
`Wang, it is not necessary to show that Wang discloses the application of a
`
`bias voltage sufficient for etching. In addition, as discussed above, the
`
`combination would have been made by a person of ordinary creativity, n
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
