UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`Case No. IPR2014-006041
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR 2014-01482 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`Case No. IPR2014-006041
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR 2014-01482 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00604, concerning U.S. Patent 6,896,775 (“the ’775 patent”), entered
`
`on September 18, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 30-34 and 37 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to
`
`Wang (“Wang”), 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)
`
`(“Mozgrin”), and and U.S. Pat. 6,190,512 to Lanstman (“Lantsman”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 35 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman,
`
`and 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 (1983) (“Kudryavtsev”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 36 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wang and Mozgrin?
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 50
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 18, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-006041
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`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.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a
`
`
`1 IPR2014-01482 has been joined with IPR2014-00604.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant
`
`trial on October 15, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted a revised Motion for Joinder
`
`filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., TSMC
`
`North America Corp., (collectively, “TSMC”), Fujitsu Semiconductor
`
`Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”),
`
`joining Case IPR2014-01482 with the instant trial (Paper 12), and also
`
`granted a Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 40).
`
`Zond filed a Response (Paper 34 (“PO Resp.”)), and Gillette2 filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 42 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing3 was held on May 26, 2015, and a
`
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Gillette has shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 30–37 of the ’775 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’775 Patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11567-DJC (D. Mass.), and
`
`identify other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’775 patent. Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 6.
`
`
`
`
`2 We refer to Gillette and Fujitsu collectively as “Gillette” herein.
`3 The hearings for this review and IPR2014-00578 were consolidated.
`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
`
`Based on the instituted grounds, Gillette relies upon the following
`
`prior art references:
`
`Lantsman
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,190,512
`US 6,413,382
`
`Feb. 20, 2001
`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”).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 28):
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–34 and 37
`
`§ 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
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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).
`
`The parties identify five claim elements recited in the claims as
`
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.5 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) (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
`
`
`5 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’775
`Patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of § 112 in this Decision.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(confirming that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112,
`
`¶ 6 applies” (citing Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).
`
`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).
`
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, we set
`
`forth our claim constructions in the Decision on Institution for the means-
`
`plus-function elements identified by the parties. Dec. 8–14. Petitioner does
`
`not challenge any aspect of our claim constructions as to these claim
`
`elements, and Patent Owner does not challenge these constructions, except
`
`as noted below in our substantive discussion of the grounds of
`
`unpatentability. PO Resp. 10–17; Reply 2. Based on this entire record, we
`
`also discern no reason to modify our claim constructions at this juncture.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table
`
`below:
`
`Means-Plus-Function
`Claim Element
`“means for ionizing a
`[volume of] feed gas”
`
`“means for generating a
`magnetic field”
`
`“means for applying an
`electrical field [or pulse]”
`
`“means for exchanging”
`
`“means for applying a
`bias voltage”
`
`
`Identified Corresponding Structure
`
`a power supply electrically connected to a
`cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode
`a magnet assembly having either a
`permanent magnet or a current source
`coupled to one or more electro-magnets
`a pulsed power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`electrode
`a gas flow control system and structures for
`supplying the gas to the strongly-ionized
`plasma
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1259. We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in
`
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`C. Claims 30–37—Obviousness over Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman;
`Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev; or Wang and Mozgrin
`
`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. Gillette also asserts that claims 35 and 36 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev, or Wang and Mozgrin,
`
`respectively. Pet. 51–58. 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. Richard DeVito (Ex. 1111). Gillette also submitted a Declaration of
`
`Dr. John Bravman (Ex. 1120) to support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner
`
`Response.
`
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`
`claim element. PO Resp. 34–46. Zond also argues that insufficient reason
`
`exists to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman,
`
`and Kudryavtsev. Id. at 18–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2006).
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev,
`
`address their combination with Mozgrin, and then we address the parties’
`
`contentions in turn.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`
`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:
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the plasma. Id. According to Mr. DeVito, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`
`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:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1103, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added) illustrates the atomic
`
`energy levels during the slow and fast stages of ionization. Annotated
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Annotated Fig. 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates stages of ionization.
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Mr. DeVito explains
`
`that Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization
`
`can be the dominant ionization process. Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 121–124; Pet. 53.
`
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1103, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`Rationale to Combine References
`
`
`
`
`
`Gillette notes Mozgrin provides for a similar system to that described
`
`in Wang (Pet. 40), and Gillette also argues 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). 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.
`
`Pet. 45–46. Gillette further argues that it would have been obvious to
`
`continue to add feed gas during etching, as confirmed by Lantsman.
`
`Id. at 46.
`
`
`
`In addition, Gillette argues that it would have been obvious to
`
`combine Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman with Kudryavtsev because
`
`Kudryavtsev generally discloses the characteristic of ionization
`
`whenever a field is applied suddenly to a weakly-ionized gas.
`
`Pet. 30–33, 53 (citing Ex. 1103, 34). The applied pulses of Wang,
`
`discussed above, would act to generate suddenly an electric field, and
`
`one of ordinary skill reading Wang would have been motivated to
`
`consider Kudryavtsev to further appreciate the effects of applying
`
`Wang’s pulse. Id. Mr. DeVito provides similar conclusions,
`
`testifying that “Kudryavtsev . . . explains the contribution of excited
`
`atoms to the overall ionization process,” and that this would have been
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious to have been applied to the system in Wang. Ex. 1111
`
`¶¶ 120, 156.
`
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether Gillette has articulated
`
`a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that Gillette fails
`
`to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`
`the systems of Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman to achieve the
`
`claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or predictable
`
`results. PO Resp. 18–34.
`
`In particular, Zond contends that Gillette does not take into
`
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`
`systems of Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman—e.g., pressure,
`
`chamber geometry, gap dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 29–34
`
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1102, Abstract, 400–401; Ex. 1104, Abstract, 2:49–51,
`
`4:11–37, 5:42–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1108, 3:60–61, 5: 18–22, 26–27, 43–48, 52–
`
`54, 8:41–42; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 12, 15, 57–60, 66, 70–71, 78). Additionally, even
`
`if a combination was somehow made, Zond argues that it would differ
`
`significantly from the system disclosed in the ’775 Patent. Id.
`
`In its Reply, Gillette responds that Zond’s arguments focus on bodily
`
`incorporating one system into the other. Reply 8–11. Gillette also responds
`
`that Mozgrin demonstrates that the teachings of Kudryavtsev can be
`
`successfully applied in different systems with different geometries and
`
`conditions. Id. at 10–11. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we
`
`are persuaded by Gillette’s contentions.
`
`Specifically, we are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Mozgrin’s
`
`and Wang’s sputtering apparatuses would have been viewed as significantly
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Obviousness
`
`does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation that
`
`the beneficial result will be achieved. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
`
`1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`As Dr. Bravman testifies, it was known that increasing the sputter
`
`etching rate was desirable and that all of the references are directed to that
`
`same common goal. Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 68, 71, 79. Additionally, Kudryavtsev’s
`
`model on plasma behavior is not intended to be limited to a particular type
`
`of plasma apparatus. Id. ¶ 72. Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses a study of the
`
`ionization relaxation in plasma when the external electric field suddenly
`
`increases. Id. Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses that “the electron density
`
`increases explosively in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest
`
`excited states.” Ex. 1103, Abs. (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also
`
`describes the experimental results that confirm the model. Id. at 32–34.
`
`Moreover, Kudryavtsev expressly explains that “the effects studied in this
`
`work are characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to
`
`a weakly ionized gas.” Id. at 34 (emphasis added).
`
`Dr. Bravman also testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would have looked to Kudryavtsev to understand how plasma would react
`
`to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how to achieve an explosive increase
`
`in electron density” when generating a strongly-ionized plasma for
`
`improving sputtering and manufacturing processing. Ex. 1120 ¶ 73.
`
`Dr. Bravman further explains that such an artisan would have known how to
`
`apply Kudryavtsev’s model to Wang’s system by making any necessary
`
`changes to accommodate the differences through routine experimentation.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. ¶¶ 73–74. Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev and discloses that in
`
`“[d]esigning the unit, we took into account the dependences which had been
`
`obtained in [Kudryavtsev] of ionization relaxation on pre-ionization
`
`parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.” Ex. 1102, 401.
`
`Dr. Bravman also explains that this illustrates that one with ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention was capable of applying the teachings of
`
`Kudryavtsev to magnetron sputtering systems, such as Wang’s. Ex. 1120 ¶
`
`75. On this record, we credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony (id. ¶¶ 68–77)
`
`because his explanations are consistent with the prior art of record.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Gillette has
`
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have combined Wang, Mozgrin, Lantsman, and
`
`Kudryavtsev as indicated in the Petition.
`
`
`
`The Steps of Claim 30 Do Not Require a Specific Order
`
`Claim 30 recites steps of “ionizing a . . . feed gas to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma,” and “generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.” Zond argues that the Petition is deficient because it fails to
`
`demonstrate the method steps of claim 30 in their required, recited order,
`
`because the magnetic field in Wang is always on and not generated later,
`
`after the formation of the weakly-ionized plasma. PO Resp. 34–37.
`
`Gillette responds that Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, acknowledges
`
`that claim 15, which recites similar steps in the same order, covers
`
`embodiments where the magnetic field is applied prior to feed gas being
`
`ionized to form the weakly-ionized plasma. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1101,
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00604
`Patent 6,896,775 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figs. 12A, 13A; Ex. 1119, 87:6–18). Gillette also cites to its own expert,
`
`Dr. Bravman, to support its interpretation of claim 30. Reply 3 (citing
`
`Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 97–100). We agree with Gillette’s arguments.
`
`During Oral Hearing, counsel for Zond acknowledged
`
`Dr. Hartsough’s testimony and did not dispute that the steps of claim 15, and
`
`thus, claim 30, do not require a specific order, but continued to emphasize
`
`that if Gillette believed a specific order was required, and did not make th
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
