DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00269 US2
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
` Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00686
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, AND 43
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`Mandatory Notices ...................................................................................... - 1 - 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ....................................................................... - 1 - 
`B. 
`Related Matters ................................................................................. - 1 - 
`C. 
`Counsel ............................................................................................. - 1 - 
`D. 
`Service Information .......................................................................... - 1 - 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................ - 2 - 
`II. 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 - 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................... - 2 - 
`B. 
`Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................... - 3 - 
`IV.  Brief Description of Technology ................................................................ - 4 - 
`A. 
`Plasma............................................................................................... - 4 - 
`B. 
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ...................................... - 5 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘779 Patent ....................................................................... - 6 - 
`A. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent .......................... - 6 - 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ........................................................................ - 10 - 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................ - 13 - 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................... - 13 - 
`B. 
`Overview of Mozgrin ..................................................................... - 13 - 
`C. 
`Overview of Kudryavtsev .............................................................. - 14 - 
`D.  Overview of Iwamura ..................................................................... - 15 - 
`E. 
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck .............................................. - 16 - 
`VII.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... - 17 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................... - 18 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23 and 43 would have been
`obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev
`and Pinsley ..................................................................................... - 18 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 43 ........................................................... - 18 - 
`
`i
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`2. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................. - 33 - 
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 35 - 
`3. 
`Dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22 and 23 .............................. - 38 - 
`4. 
`Ground II: Claim 43 is anticipated by Iwamura ........................... - 41 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 43 ........................................................... - 41 - 
`Ground III: Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22 and 23 would have been
`obvious in view of the combination of Iwamura and Angelbeck .. - 52 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................. - 52 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 55 - 
`3. 
`Dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22 and 23 .............................. - 58 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................ - 60 - 
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312…………………………………………………...Cover Page
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22……………………………………………………………2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100…………………………………………………………17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104……………………………………...….Cover page, 2, 18
`
`CASE LAW
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..17
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1101)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.).
`
`Petitioner has filed Petition No. IPR2014-00598 for claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-
`
`27, and 29; and is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related1 to the ‘779 Patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Yung-Hoon Ha (Registration No. 56,368)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references, and others listed in the Table of Exhibits, are
`
`pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability explained below, and are each prior art
`
`under 102(b): 2
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`1.
`
`2 The ’779 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1103)).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1104)).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1105)).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1106)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1107)).
`
`Of these, only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23 and 43
`
`(hereinafter “challenged claims”) of the ‘779 Patent as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103. 3 This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1102)) filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`
`3 The terms “challenged claims” as used herein refers to Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23,
`
`and 43 of the ‘779 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining claims of the
`
`‘779 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1102). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. Id. (Ex. 1102). The “density” of a
`
`plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1102).4
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). For example, sputtering is
`
`an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material
`
`onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1102). Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1102). The
`
`
`4 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN1 (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1102). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1102). If all of
`
`an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be
`
`in the “ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1102). A metastable atom is a type of excited atom that is
`
`relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state through
`
`dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Id. (Ex.
`
`1102). See also ‘779 Patent at 7:22-25 (“The term ‘metastable atoms’ is defined
`
`herein to mean excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`
`theoretically forbidden. Metastable atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared
`
`with other excited atoms.”) (Ex. 1101). “All noble gases have metastable states.”
`
`‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1101). When generating excited atoms, multiple levels of
`
`excited states are formed. Of these, some of the lowest states are metastable, and
`
`would typically be more common than the higher states. Id. (Ex. 1102), where Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provides additional support with reference to Ex. 1111 and Ex. 1112.
`
`Excited and metastable atoms are electrically neutral – they have equal
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. A collision with a low energy free electron (e-)
`
`can convert a ground state atom to an excited or metastable atom. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). For example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equation
`
`to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon
`
`atom, Ar. See ‘779 Patent at 8:7 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. A collision between a free, high energy electron and a ground state,
`
`excited, or metastable atom can create an ion. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1102).
`
`For example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equations to describe production
`
`of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom,
`
`Ar*. See ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and 8:9 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`process with an excited/metastable atom/molecule source that generates excited
`
`atoms, or metastable atoms or molecules, and then provides the excited/metastable
`
`atoms or molecules to a plasma chamber where the plasma is formed, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a “multi-step ionization” process. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29
`
`(Ex. 1102). For convenience, this section will just use the term “excited atom
`
`source.” In any event, there appears to be no substantial difference between
`
`excited and metastable sources. Id. (Ex. 1102). The ‘779 Patent does not indicate
`
`any particular difference in the operation of an excited atom source when it is a
`
`metastable atom source. Id. (Ex. 1102). The specification repeatedly refers to “an
`
`excited atom source such as a metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at
`
`2:13-14, 17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1101), and says that “[i]n some embodiments, the
`
`metastable atom source 204 generates some excited atoms that are in excited states
`
`other than a metastable state.” Id. at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1101)
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent
`
`shows a plasma chamber consisting of a magnetron
`
`sputtering system, without an excited atom source.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1102). It generates
`
`plasma through a process that the patent refers to as a
`
`direct ionization process. ‘779 Patent at 3:36-47
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`(“The ionization process in known plasma sputtering apparatus is generally
`
`referred to as direct ionization…. The collision between the neutral argon atom
`
`and the ionizing electron results in an argon ion (Ar+) and two electrons.”) (Ex.
`
`1101).
`
`As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly 114 for
`
`holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a
`
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. Id. at
`
`2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1101). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1102).
`
`The alleged invention generally relates to coupling an excited or metastable
`
`atom source to some plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The metastable
`
`atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such as the
`
`chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a
`
`commercially available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma
`
`generators can be modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process according to the present invention.”) (Ex. 1101). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1102).
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators “according to
`
`the present invention” that are coupled with separate metastable atom sources
`
`(annotated in color below). ‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1101).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3 shows
`
`metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34
`
`(Ex. 1102). The metastable atom sources 204 and 304 “generate[] a volume of
`
`metastable atoms 218 from [a] volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779
`
`Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1101). Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the
`
`source where they are generated to the region between the cathode 114/306 and
`
`substrate support 136/352, where plasma 202/302 is formed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`34 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:60-62 (Ex. 1101). Another
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., id. at 11:4-14
`
`(“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable atoms
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`218. The power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a pulsed
`
`power supply, a RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power supply. …
`
`The power supply 316 generates an electric field 322 between the cathode 306 and
`
`the anode 308 that raises the energy of the volume of metastable atoms 218 so that
`
`at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms 218 are ionized, thereby
`
`generating the plasma 302.”) (Ex. 1101). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted to the
`
`inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2). See, e.g.,
`
`‘779 Patent at 4:31-34 and 9:51-62 (Ex. 1101). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36
`
`(Ex. 1102).
`
`Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the specification, the
`
`“excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the excited atoms in
`
`a source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that later raise the
`
`energy of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with “multi-step
`
`ionization,” a term the ‘779 Patent defines as an ionization process whereby ions
`
`are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”5 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1101).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`5 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779
`
`Patent rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art that
`
`showed a first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second
`
`chamber for increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a
`
`plasma using multi-step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1108).
`
`The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the independent
`
`claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes “a magnet
`
`that generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex. 1109). The
`
`claims were then allowed.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does not indicate that an
`
`excited atom source with magnets has any special significance over other energy
`
`sources for generating excited/metastable. For example, the ‘779 Patent states:
`
`In other embodiments, the ground state atoms 208 are energized to a
`metastable state by using an energy source, such as a DC plasma
`source, a radio frequency (RF) plasma source, an ultraviolet (UV)
`radiation source, an X-ray radiation source, an electron beam radiation
`source, an ion beam radiation source, an inductively coupled plasma
`(ICP) source, a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source, a
`microwave plasma source, an electron cyclotron resonance (ECR)
`plasma source, a helicon plasma source, or a magnetron plasma
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`discharge source. ‘779 Patent at 19:1-10 (Ex. 1101)
`
`In other words, although the magnet embodiment was claimed, the
`
`specification indicates that there were approximately twelve (12) different ways to
`
`generate excited atoms, and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9,
`
`and 11—without the magnets that were required for the claims to be allowed. The
`
`“magnet” of the source chamber recited in the claims refers particularly to the
`
`embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7 and10, and specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a
`
`and 506b in FIG. 6; magnets 566a-d and 570a-d in FIG. 7; and magnets 712 and
`
`714 in FIG. 10. ‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6 and 7; 14:46-15:4516:12-20 (Ex. 1101).
`
`European Counterpart. The applicants had also identified these magnets,
`
`located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in
`
`counterpart claims in Europe, which read in part:
`
`characterised [sic] in that the excited atom source (204) comprises a
`magnet (504, 506) that is arranged to generate a magnetic field (508)
`that traps electrons proximate to the ground state atoms.
`
`24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136 (Ex. 1110)
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows
`
`the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of
`
`a plasma discharge generated by Mozgrin. As
`
`shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four
`
`distinct regions. Id. at ¶ 45 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).6”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Id. (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for
`
`sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an
`
`6 All bold/italic emphases are added.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material
`
`from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”)
`
`(Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`1103). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1102).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1104). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1104). The second
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1104). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1104).
`
`Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his
`
`experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in
`
`[Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1102).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1107). “A first plasma generation unit for
`
`preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned upstream along the flow
`
`path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma generation unit for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas
`
`in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma generation unit
`
`preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and
`
`forms activated gas species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second
`
`plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex.
`
`1107); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable atoms,
`
`and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by a
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`further energy providing step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-50,
`
`claim 1 (Ex. 1107); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1102).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing
`
`gas laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a
`
`magnetic field which is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the
`
`electric field to overcome the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1105). The
`
`transverse magnetic field traps electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the
`
`interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result in an upstream
`
`force as indicated by the force vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons,
`
`and tends to maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”)
`
`(Ex. 1105); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic
`
`field to maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated
`
`and pass through. Id. at ¶ 54 (Ex. 1102). The Angelbeck patent (with a lead
`
`inventor who is also a co-inventor on the Pinsley patent) makes clear that gas
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`lasers of the type disclosed by Pinsley generate excited atoms as part of their
`
`operation. Angelbeck at 1:21-25 (“This invention relates to gas lasers, and
`
`particularly to a method and apparatus for increasing and controlling the light
`
`output of a gas laser by applying a transverse magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20
`
`(“A high gas pressure P is advantageous, however, for creating a high density of
`
`excited atoms in the laser.”) (Ex. 1103); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.7 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`7 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Declaration (Ex. 1102), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23 and 43 of the ‘779
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.8
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23 and 43 would have been
`obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and
`Pinsley
`
`1. Independent claim 43
`
`The preamble: “[a] plasma generator that generates a plasma
`with a multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator
`comprising”
`
`Mozgrin teaches a plasma generator that generates plasma using the power
`
`supply shown in Fig 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1102). The power supply
`
`includes a stationary discharge supply unit, to generate a pre-ionized plasma.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2
`
`(“For pre-ionization… the initial
`
`plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1102).
`
`8 Petitioner addresses the invalidity of independent claims 1 and 18 in a separate
`
`petition IPR2014-00598. Claims 1 and 18 are addressed herein to demonstrate the
`
`invalidity of claims that depend from claims 1 and 18.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`
`
`The power supply further includes a high-voltage supply unit, to deliver
`
`voltages pulses to the pre-ionized plasma. See Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4
`
`(“…applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was filled up with
`
`either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58
`
`(Ex. 1102). Mozgrin explains that in “[d]esigning the [pulsed power supply] unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in [8] of ionization
`
`relaxation on pre-ionization parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.”
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right columns (Ex. 1103). The reference [8] is
`
`Kudryavtsev.
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine Mozgrin
`
`with Kudryavtsev. See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1102). In addition to the
`
`fact that Mozgrin itself cites Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin explicitly notes that its
`
`power supply unit was designed in accord