UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 6,896,773
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00580 and 00726
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN C. BRAVMAN PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Gillette v. Zond
`GILLETTE 1127
`
`

`
`
`
`C. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-40 ............................................... 10 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .................. 11 
`B. 
`“means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma”
`(claim 40) ............................................................................................ 13 
`“means for increasing the density of the weakly-ionized plasma…”
`(claim 40) ............................................................................................ 15 
`IV.  RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-40 ............................................................. 16 
`D. 
`Independent Claims 1, 21, 34 and 40 .................................................. 16 
`1.  Feed gas ............................................................................................... 16 
`2.  “an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a
`feed gas proximate to the anode and the cathode assembly” and “ionizing
`a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode
`assembly” .................................................................................................. 18 
`3.  Combining Mozgrin with Fortov to choose an amplitude and a rise
`time of the voltage pulse to generate sufficient thermal energy in the
`sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a
`temperature of the sputtering target would have been obvious to one
`skilled in the art ........................................................................................ 21 
`4.  One skilled in the art would have been able to combine the cited
`references with reasonable expectation of success .................................. 26 
`Dependent Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 23-25, 28, 29, 35, 36 (and
`independent claim 34) would have been obvious ............................... 29 
`1.  Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 29 
`2.  Dependent Claim 13 ............................................................................ 30 
`3.  Dependent Claim 18 ............................................................................ 33 
`4.  Dependent Claims 5 and 36 ................................................................ 34 
`5.  Dependent Claims 3, 4, 24, 25 and 35 (and independent claim 34) ... 37 
`1
`
`E. 
`
`I. 
`
`
`
`

`
`6.  Dependent claim 28 ............................................................................. 39 
`7.  Dependent claims 11 and 14 ............................................................... 40 
`Dependent claims 11 and 14 ............................................................. ..4O
`8.  Dependent claim 23 ............................................................................. 42 
`Dependent claim 23 ........................................................................... ..42
`9.  Dependent claim 29 ............................................................................. 43 
`Dependent claim 29 ........................................................................... ..43
`
`.‘°.°°.\‘.°‘ Dependent claim 28 ........................................................................... ..39
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I, John C. Bravman, declare as follows:
`
` My name is John C. Bravman.
`1.
`
`
`
` My academic training was at Stanford University, where I received 2.
`
`my Bachelor of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering in 1979, and
`
`a Master of Science degree in 1981, also in Materials Science and Engineering. I
`
`completed my Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1984, with a dissertation that
`
`focused on the nature of silicon – silicon dioxide interfaces as found in integrated
`
`circuit devices.
`
`
`3.
`
`From 1979 to 1984, while a graduate student at Stanford, I was
`
`employed part-time by Fairchild Semiconductor in their Palo Alto Advanced
`
`Research Laboratory. I worked in the Materials Characterization group. In 1985,
`
`upon completion of my doctorate, I joined the faculty at Stanford as Assistant
`
`Professor of Materials Science and Engineering. I was promoted to Associate
`
`Professor with tenure in 1991, and achieved the rank of Professor in 1995. In 1997
`
`I was named to the Bing Professorship.
`
`
`4.
`
`At Stanford I was Chairman of the Department of Materials Science
`
`and Engineering from 1996 to 1999, and Director of the Center for Materials
`
`Research from 1998 to 1999. I served as Senior Associate Dean of the School of
`
`Engineering from 1992 to 2001 and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
`
`from 1999 to 2010. On July 1, 2010, I retired from Stanford University and
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`assumed the Presidency of Bucknell University, where I also became a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering.
`
`
`5.
`
`I have worked for more than 25 years in the areas of thin film
`
`materials processing and analysis. Much of my work has involved materials for
`
`use in microelectronic interconnects and packaging, and in superconducting
`
`structures and systems. I have also led multiple development efforts of specialized
`
`equipment and methods for determining the microstructural and mechanical
`
`properties of materials and structures.
`
`
`6.
`
`I have taught a wide variety of courses at the undergraduate and
`
`graduate level in materials science and engineering, emphasizing both basic
`
`science and applied technology, including coursework in the areas of integrated
`
`circuit materials and processing. More than two thousand students have taken my
`
`classes, and I have trained 24 doctoral students, most of whom now work in the
`
`microelectronics industry.
`
`
`7.
`
`In the course of my research, my research group made extensive use
`
`of plasma deposition equipment for creating films of both simple (e.g. elemental)
`
`and complex (e.g. multi-element compound) materials, in both homogeneous and
`
`multilayered geometries.
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of many professional societies, including the Materials
`
`Research Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`American Physical Society. I served as President of the Materials Research Society
`
`in 1994.
`
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (including a list of all publications
`
`authored in the previous 10 years) is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 (the “’773 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)).
`
` V.E. Fortov, “Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature Plasma: Introductory
`
`Volume III,” pp. 1-23, 2000 (“Fortov” (Ex. 1004)).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata” (Ex. 1009)).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1008)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1006)).
`
` D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics
`
`Reports, PH.D. Thesis in Physics and Mathematics, Moscow, 1994
`
`(“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1015)).
`
` Y.P. Raizer “Gas Discharge Physics,” 1997 (“Raizer” (Ex. 1012)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` W. Ehrenberg and D.J. Gibbons “Electron Bombardment Induced
`
`Conductivity and its applications,” 1981 (“Ehrenberg” (Ex. 1026)).
`
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the above publications and any other publication cited
`
`in this declaration.
`
` Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`12.
`
`IPR2014-00580 and 00726, including the Petitions and the accompanying
`
`Declarations of Mr. Rich DeVito. As discussed below, I agree with Mr. DeVito’s
`
`conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have reviewed the Board’s
`
`Decisions on Institution, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. In addition, I have reviewed some
`
`deposition transcripts of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`
`13.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ‘773 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’773 Patent
`
`would have found the ’773 Patent invalid.
`
`
`14.
`
`I have been retained by the Petitioner as an expert in the field of
`
`plasma technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and
`
`am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450 per hour for my time.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’773 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’773 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`17.
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I
`
`have applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms as they
`
`would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`
`18.
`
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, based on the ‘773 Patent and the prior art references
`
`considered here, the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the ’773
`
`Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical engineering, or chemical engineering, with
`
`two or more years practicing plasma generation methods and using plasma-based
`
`processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded these requirements for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’773 Patent.
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-40
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the declarations of Mr.
`
`DeVito provided in the above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’773 Patent
`
`and I agree with the findings of Mr. DeVito at (1) IPR No. 2014-00580, Ex. 1005,
`
`¶¶ 108-142, 180-191, 206-212, and 217-220, captioned Grounds I, II, V, VII and
`
`IX; and (2) IPR No. 2014-00726, Ex. 1105, ¶¶ 108-144, 178-187, and 200-207,
`
`captioned Grounds I, III and V.
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the sputtering source
`26.
`
`and the method described in claims 1 through 40 of the ’773 Patent are disclosed
`
`by the prior art, and are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for
`27.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that 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. Moreover, should Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`course is for Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to
`
`its contentions in this proceeding. I understand that the Patent Owner has not
`
`sought to amend the claims in the above-captioned proceedings.
`
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
` The Board stated “we construe the claim term ‘strongly-ionized
`28.
`
`plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.’” IPR2014-
`
`00580, Decision on Institution at p.12 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-00726, Decision
`
`on Institution at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 8).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`29.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’773 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board. One of
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not understand this claim term to require any
`
`specific magnitude in the peak density of ions.
`
` For example, the ’773 Patent states “the peak plasma density of the
`30.
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm-3.” Ex. 1001 [‘773 Patent] at
`
`claim 26. The ‘773 Patent also states “the peak plasma density of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3.” Ex. 1001 [‘773 Patent] at claim
`
`30. The below Fig. 1 illustrates that these ranges overlap, as described by the
`
`specification of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`Schematic 1: Schematic illustrating the ranges of plasma density that satisfy a
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and a “strongly-ionized plasma” according to the ‘773
`patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ‘773 Patent specification,
`31.
`
`“’weakly-ionized plasma’ [i]s ‘plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,’
`
`and the claim term ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ [i]s ‘a plasma with a relatively high
`
`peak density of ions.’” IPR2014-00580, Decision on Institution at pp. 11-12
`
`(Paper No. 11); IPR2014-00726, Decision on Institution at p. 9-10 (Paper No. 8).
`
` Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`32.
`
`“high-density plasma” to be the same as “strongly-ionized plasma.” These terms
`
`are used synonymously in the ‘773 Patent, as evidenced at 11:40-41. Ex. 1001
`
`[‘773 Patent] at 11:40-41 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is also referred to as a
`
`high-density plasma.”).
`
` Similarly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`33.
`
`term “pre-ionized plasma” to be the same as “weakly-ionized plasma.” These
`
`terms are used synonymously in the ‘773 Patent, as evidenced at 7:61-63 (“The
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma. In one
`
`embodiment, the peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about
`
`106−1012 cm−3) plasma density..”). Ex. 1001 [‘773 Patent] at 7:61-63.
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`34.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’773 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`B.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma” (claim 40)
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that this
`35.
`
`element is a means-plus-function element that must be construed to recite a
`
`function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-00726, Decision on Institution at pp. 12-13 (Paper No. 8).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`36.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma” has a claimed function of “generating a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma.” The Board provided a construction of the claimed function as “ionizing a
`
`feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00726, Decision on
`
`Institution at p. 12 (Paper No. 8).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`37.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`
`function is a power supply, generating the voltage and power values shown in Fig.
`
`6, that is electrically coupled to an anode and a cathode, wherein the anode and
`
`cathode are arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 4 or 5 and as
`
`described in the text of the ‘773 Patent at 6:21-7:16; 7:52-60; 10:8-42; 11:22-26;
`
`and 20:10-25. IPR2014-00726, Petition at p. 5.
`
` The Board provided a construction of the corresponding structure as
`38.
`
`“a power supply electrically connected to a cathode assembly and an anode.”
`
`IPR2014-00726, Decision on Institution at p. 13 (Paper No. 8).
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`39.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’773 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`C.
`
`“means for increasing the density of the weakly-ionized
`plasma…” (claim 40)
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these
`40.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-726, Decision on Institution at pp. 13-15 (Paper No. 8).
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`41.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for increasing the density of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma having a density of
`
`ions that generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a
`
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target”
`
`has a claimed function of “increasing the density of the weakly-ionized plasma to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma having a density of ions that generate sufficient
`
`thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly
`
`related to a temperature of the sputtering target.” Both the Patent Owner and the
`
`Board agreed. IPR2014-00726, Preliminary Response at p. 22 (Paper No. 7) and
`
`IPR2014-00726, Decision on Institution at p. 13 (Paper No. 8).
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`42.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`
`function is a pulsed DC power supply, generating the voltage and power values
`
`shown in Fig. 6 and described in the text of the ‘773 Patent at 14:53-16:9,
`
`electrically coupled to an anode and cathode, wherein the anode and cathode are
`
`arranged as shown in FIGS. 4-5 and as described in the text of the ‘773 Patent at
`
`12:9-17, 5:60-6:32; 6:39-7:60; 8:8-8:37, 9:8-9:33, 9:47-10:53; 10:61-11:3; 11:14-
`
`11:36; 11:32-12:47; 12:58-12:61; 13:31-44; 13:65-144:7; and 14:47-52. IPR2014-
`
`00726, Petition at pp. 5-6. The Board provided a construction of the corresponding
`
`structure to be “a cathode assembly, an anode, and a pulsed power supply
`
`electrically coupled to the cathode assembly and anode.” IPR2014-00726,
`
`Decision on Institution at p. 15 (Paper No. 8).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have applied the Board’s
`43.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’773 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-40
`D.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 21, 34 and 40
`1.
`I agree with the conclusions reached by Mr. DeVito that Mozgrin
`
`Feed gas
`
`
`44.
`
`teaches generating a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. Ex. 1005 [DeVito
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration] at ¶¶ 110-112; Ex. 1105 [DeVito Declaration] at ¶¶ 109-115; see also
`
`IPR2014-00580, Petition at pp. 14-15 (Paper No. 2) and IPR2014-00726, Petition
`
`at pp. 23-25 (Paper No. 3).
`
` One skilled in the art would understand Mozgrin to teach a feed gas.
`45.
`
`
`46.
`
`I disagree with the Patent Owner’s position that “Mozgrin teaches a
`
`static gas and not a feed gas,” because Mozgrin does not teach a “constant flow of
`
`gas.” IPR2014-580 Patent Owner Response at pp. 39 and 3.
`
`
`47.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner cites to Mozgrin Thesis to
`
`establish that Mozgrin uses needle valves, which the Patent Owner understands is
`
`evidence that there is no continuous flow of gas in Mozgrin. IPR2014-00580
`
`Patent Owner Response at pp. 39 and 56. I disagree.
`
` However, it is well-known that needle valves provide a continuous
`48.
`
`flow of gas. As one example, I provide a book published in 1981 by Ehrenberg,
`
`which teaches that “while still pumping, argon gas is allowed to enter the bell-jar
`
`through a needle valve… This continuous flow method tends to sweep away any
`
`impurities…” Ex. 1026 [Ehrenberg] at p. 81. As demonstrated, it is well known
`
`that use of needle valves allows a controlled, continuous flow of gas into an
`
`evacuated chamber.
`
` Accordingly, I disagree with the Patent Owner’s position that Mozgrin
`49.
`
`does not teach a feed gas because it uses a static gas.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`“an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`from a feed gas proximate to the anode and the cathode
`assembly” and “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to a cathode assembly”
`
`
`50.
`
`I agree with the conclusions reached by Mr. DeVito that Mozgrin
`
`teaches the limitation “an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`from a feed gas proximate to the anode and the cathode assembly” and “ionizing a
`
`feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode assembly.”
`
`Ex. 1005 [DeVito Declaration] at ¶¶ 110-112; Ex. 1105 [DeVito Declaration] at ¶¶
`
`109-115; see also IPR2014-00580, Petition at pp. 14-15 (Paper No. 2) and
`
`IPR2014-00726, Petition at pp. 23-25 (Paper No. 3).
`
`
`51.
`
`I disagree with the Patent Owner that “Mozgrin does not teach a
`
`weakly ionized plasma proximate to both the anode and the cathode assembly.”
`
`IPR2014-00580 Patent Owner Response at pp. 35-36; emphasis added.
`
`
`52.
`
`I understand the Patent Owner argues that because Mozgrin measures
`
`the plasma density at the symmetry center of the shaped-electrode, Mozgrin
`
`cannot teach “proximate.” I understand the Patent Owner argues that the
`
`symmetry center of the shaped-electrode is the point that is “as far away from both
`
`the cathode (1) and anode (2) as it possibly can be while still being between the
`
`cathode and the anode.” IPR2014-00580 Patent Owner Response at pp. 36-38.
`
`
`53.
`
`I disagree. The symmetry center of the shaped-electrode is the
`
`location that is equidistant to both the anode and the cathode. For example, as
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`shown below, the symmetry center is shown where the two dotted red lines cross
`
`and each line shows that the anode and cathode are equidistant from the symmetry
`
`center.
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1(b) of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In addition Mozgrin’s anode and cathode of the shaped-electrodes in
`
`Figure 1(b) are “separated by about 10 mm.” Ex. 1002 [Mozgrin] at p. 401, left
`
`col, ¶2. The ‘773 patent teaches that “the width of the gap 244 is between
`
`approximately 0.3 cm and 10 cm.” Ex. 1001 [‘773 Patent] at 10:23-24. This gap
`
`between the anode (red) and the cathode (green) is shown below in annotated
`
`Figure 5B of the ‘773 patent. In other words, the ‘773 Patent teaches that the gap
`
`can be anywhere from about 3 mm to about 100 mm. The upper limit of the gap is
`
`10 times larger than the gap taught by Mozgrin. As such, I consider the symmetry
`
`center to be proximate to both the anode and the cathode.
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 5B of the ‘773 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`55.
`
`I understand that Dr. Hartsough also agrees with me on this point. I
`
`understand that Dr. Hartsough admitted, during his deposition, that the entire
`
`region 245 defined by gap 244 of Figure 5B, which has a distance up to 100 mm, is
`
`proximate to both the anode and the cathode. Ex. 1025 [Hartsough 773 Patent
`
`deposition transcript] at 120:4-8 (“Q: Is any point within the region 245 proximate
`
`to both the anode and cathode? A: In region 245, that entire region is proximate to
`
`both the anode and the cathode assembly.”).
`
` Moreover, the gap 245 shown in Figure 5B of the ‘773 patent is
`56.
`
`substantially similar to the gap shown in Mozgrin’s planar electrode configuration,
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Figure 1(a). Ex. 1002 [Mozgrin] at Figure 1a. As shown
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`below in annotated Figure 1(a) of Mozgrin, Mozgrin’s planar configuration has a
`
`gap between the anode (red) and the cathode (green), where the “[plasma]
`
`discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the cathode.” Ex. 1002
`
`[Mozgrin] at p. 401, left col, ¶ 1. This planar electrode configuration forms a
`
`region that is substantially similar to the region 245 of Figure 5B of the ‘773
`
`patent, as shown in the annotated figures.
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1(a) of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`3.
`
`Combining Mozgrin with Fortov to choose an amplitude and a
`rise time of the voltage pulse to generate sufficient thermal
`energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be
`non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target
`would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`
`57.
`
`I agree with the conclusions reached by Mr. DeVito that the prior art
`
`teaches the limitation “an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being
`
`chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma enough to
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering
`
`yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target.” Ex. 1005
`
`[DeVito Declaration] at ¶¶ 113-122; Ex. 1105 [DeVito Declaration] at ¶¶ 116-126;
`
`see also IPR2014-00580, Petition at pp. 15-19 (Paper No. 2) and IPR2014-00726,
`
`Petition at pp. 26-31 (Paper No. 3).
`
`
`58.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner argues that because Mozgrin and
`
`Fortov individually do not teach the entire claim limitation of choosing an
`
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse for the specific purpose of
`
`generating “sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering
`
`yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target,” one
`
`skilled in the art would not have combined the two references without using the
`
`‘773 as a blueprint for that combination. IPR2014-00580 Patent Owner Response
`
`at pp. 40-42; IPR2014-00726 Patent Owner Response at pp. 40-43.
`
`
`59.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner, in making this argument, only
`
`focuses on regime 3 of Mozgrin to argue that “there was no cathode sputtering in
`
`these regimes.” IPR2014-580 Patent Owner Response at p. 25. However, Figures
`
`4 and 7 of Mozgrin teach both sputtering and etching in regimes 2 and 3,
`
`respectively. The curves shown in Figures 4 and 7 of Mozgrin are generated from
`
`different voltage pulses shown in Fig. 3b. Ex. 1002 [Mozgrin] at p. 409, left col,
`
`¶¶ 4-5. As Mozgrin states, “[e]ach point of the discharge characteristic [of Figs. 4
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`and 7] represent a pair of voltage and current oscillograms [of Fig. 3].” Ex. 1002
`
`[Mozgrin] at p. 402, right col., ¶2. This is schematically illustrated below for one
`
`of the points in Figure 4 of Mozgrin.
`
`Schematic 2: Schematic illustrating the generation of Figure 4 of Mozgrin from
`the oscillograms of Figure 3 of Mozgrin.
`
`
` As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillograms shown in
`60.
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to a point either in regimes 2
`
`or 3 of Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7. That is, if the oscillograms shown in Fig. 3 of
`
`Mozgrin represent currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in regime 3
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7, one of ordinary skill would understand that
`
`oscillograms corresponding to regime 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 would have a
`
`different shape, e.g., the voltage may not drop as low as shown in Fig. 3b and the
`
`23
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`current may be lower than what is currently shown in Fig. 3a. Accordingly, Fig. 3
`
`of Mozgrin show a voltage pulse generated by the power supply for either
`
`sputtering or etching regimes.
`
`
`61.
`
`In fact, each and every individual component of this particular claim
`
`limitation are taught by Mozgrin and Fortov. Mozgrin delivers a voltage pulse to a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma and that voltage has an amplitude and a rise time. I
`
`understand that Dr. Hartsough agrees with me on this point. Ex. 1025 [773 Patent
`
`Hartsough deposition transcript] at 77:20 – 78:8 (“Q: And Mozgrin delivers a
`
`voltage pulse to that weakly-ionized plasma; correct? … A: Yes. Q: That voltage
`
`pulse has different parameters associated with it; correct? … A: It has --. Q: Has an
`
`amplitude? A: It has an amplitude. Q: Has a rise time? A: Has a rise time.”).
`
` The applied voltage pulse would lead to a rapid increase from the
`62.
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma in the sputtering regime of
`
`Mozgrin. I understand Dr. Hartsough agrees with me on this point as well. Ex.
`
`1025 [773 Patent Hartsough deposition transcript] at 78:11-16 (Q: Now, this
`
`voltage pulse in Mozgrin will cause a rapid increase in the density of the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma; correct? … A: It says that t