U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00194US2
`Filed on behalf of The Gillette Company
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Andrej Barbic, Ph.D., Reg. No. 61,908
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (6172) 526-6000
`Email: michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
` andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,896,773
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes 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.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4 
`A. 
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …” (claim 40) ...................................... 5 
`B. 
`“means for increasing the density of the weakly-ionized
`plasma…” (claim 40) ............................................................................ 5 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT ............................................................ 6 
`A.  Overview of Sputtering ......................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Sputtering Yield .................................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield ................................ 8 
`D. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent ............................. 13 
`E. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14 
`F. 
`Summary of the prior art ..................................................................... 15 
`G. 
`References Are Not Cumulative ......................................................... 16 
`H.  Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102) ........................................................ 16 
`I. 
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1103) ............................................................ 17 
`J. 
`Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1104) ........................................................... 19 
`K.  Overview of Kawamata ....................................................................... 20 
`VI.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 22 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 21-22, 26-33 and 40 would have been
`obvious in view of Mozgrin and Fortov .............................................. 23 
`Ground II: Claims 21-22, 26-33 and 40 would have been
`obvious in view of Wang and Fortov .................................................. 36 
`i
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground III: Claims 24 and 25 would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Fortov and Lantsman .............................................. 47 
`D.  Ground IV: Claims 24 and 25 would have been obvious in
`view of Wang, Fortov and Lantsman .................................................. 50 
`Ground V: Claim 23 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ...................................................... 55 
`Ground VI: Claim 23 would have been obvious in view of
`Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ........................................... 59 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Gillette Company (“Petitioner”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond, Inc. v. The Gillette Co. and the Procter and Gamble Co., Civil Action
`
`No. 1:13-CV. 11567-DJC (D. Mass. 2013), would affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in the proceeding. Additionally, the Patent Owner is suing Petitioner
`
`and/or other parties under one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,147,759; 6,896,775;
`
`6,853,142; 7,604,716; 8,125,155; 7,811,421; 6,805,779; 7,808,184; and 6,806,652,
`
`all of which have generally similar subject matter. IPR 2014-00580, with a filing
`
`date of 4/4/2014 is pending on claims 1-20 and 34-39 of the same patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Andrej Barbic, Ph.D. (Registration No. 61,908)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Telephone: 617-256-6000
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 21-33 and 40 (“challenged claims”) of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability:1
`
`(1) D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in
`
`a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5,
`
`1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1102)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (2) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1103)), which is prior art at least under §§ 102(a) and
`
`(e); (3) Certified Translation of Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature Plasma
`
`Physics, Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov, V.E., Ed., Nauka/Interperiodica,
`
`Moscow (2000); pp. 117-126 (“Fortov” (Ex. 1104)); the Russian language version
`
`
`1 As the ’773 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA,) the pre-
`
`AIA statutory framework for prior art is used herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`is Ex. 1110, which is prior art under § 102(b); (4) 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. 1106)), which is
`
`prior art under § 102(b); (5) U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1107)), which is
`
`prior art under § 102(b); (6) U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1108)),
`
`which is prior art at least under §§ 102(a) and 102(e); (7) U.S. Pat. No. 5,958,155
`
`(“Kawamata” (Ex. 1109)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (9) U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex. 1111)), which is prior art under §§ 102(a) and 102(e);
`
`(10) File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,896,773, Office Action mailed February 18,
`
`2004 (“02/18/04 Office Action” (Ex. 1113)); and (11) Certified Translation of
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1115)); the Russian language version is
`
`Ex. 1116, which is prior art under § 102(b); a copy of the catalogue entry for the
`
`Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1015.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 21-33 and 40 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of the ‘773 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on the
`
`grounds identified herein. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Richard
`
`DeVito ( “DeVito” (Ex. 1105)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that
`
`each challenged claim is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`broadest reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim language. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any
`
`claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a
`
`broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). 2 Should the Patent Owner contend that the claims have a
`
`construction different from their broadest reasonable construction in order to avoid
`
`the prior art, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`2 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …” (claim 40)
`
`A.
`Claim 40 recites: “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.” The claimed function is: “generating a weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`The ‘773 Patent discloses the following corresponding structure: 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 DeVito
`
`¶¶ 112, 151 (Ex. 1105).
`
`B.
`
`“means for increasing the density of the weakly-ionized
`plasma…” (claim 40)
`
`Claim 40 recites: “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.” The claimed
`
`function is: “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.” The ‘773 Patent discloses the following
`
`corresponding structure: 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-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.
`
`DeVito ¶¶ 126, 156 (Ex. 1105).
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT
`A. Overview of Sputtering
`Sputtering is a technique for depositing a thin film of a material onto a
`
`surface called a substrate. This technology is widely used in thin film deposition
`
`processes, including in semiconductor wafer processing and razor blade
`
`manufacturing. DeVito ¶ 22 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Sputtering is performed in a plasma chamber under low pressure, e.g.,
`
`between 1-100 mTorr, and typically with an inert feed gas, such as argon. The
`
`material to be deposited is typically provided in the form of a solid disk, or a plate,
`
`and is referred to as a target. A plasma of ground state argon atoms, excited argon
`
`atoms, positive argon ions, and electrons is created by applying an electric field to
`
`electrodes near the feed gas. The target develops a negative potential, Vb, related
`
`to the applied field. Positive argon ions in the plasma are attracted to the target and
`
`are accelerated at a potential Vb. These ions strike the target and cause target
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`atoms to be dislodged through momentum exchange. These atoms can themselves
`
`become ionized under certain plasma conditions. The dislodged target atoms are
`
`then deposited on the substrate surface, often in part by providing a bias signal on
`
`the substrate to attract the ionized sputtered and ionized argon atoms. A magnet
`
`system or “magnetron” is often used to control the location of the plasma relative
`
`to the target by trapping electrons close to the target. DeVito ¶ 23 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Further detail about plasma sputtering, including sputtering with high power
`
`pulses for providing an electric field is provided at DeVito ¶¶ 24, 26-63 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Sputtering Yield
`
`B.
`Sputtering yield refers to the number of target atoms ejected from the target
`
`per incident ion, such as an Ar+ ion. An increase in sputtering yield is generally
`
`considered desirable because it increases the deposition rate of the sputtering target
`
`onto the substrate. This was well known in the art before the ‘773 Patent was filed.
`
`See also Background of ‘773 Patent at 2:3-4 (“increasing the sputtering yield will
`
`increase the deposition rate”) (Ex. 1101). DeVito ¶ 64 (Ex. 1105).
`
`It was also known that sputtering causes the temperature of the target surface
`
`to increase. And it was also known that the sputtering yield is a function of a
`
`number of parameters, including target temperature, angle of the sputtering ions
`
`relative to the target, and the energy of the sputtering ions. DeVito ¶ 65 (Ex.
`
`1105).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield
`The prior art taught that if certain conditions are met, the sputtering yield
`
`can be related to the target temperature in a non-linear way. Usually, this non-
`
`linear dependence occurs when the sputtering target is heated to a certain
`
`temperature, which temperature depends on the chemical composition of the
`
`sputtering target. DeVito ¶ 66 (Ex. 1105).
`
`The relationship of the sputtering yield to the temperature of the sputtering
`
`target was known before the ‘773 Patent. In fact, the ‘773 Patent essentially
`
`copied a substantial part of its disclosure about the relationship between
`
`temperature and sputtering yield from Fortov (Ex. 1104), as is apparent from the
`
`comparison of their disclosures. DeVito ¶ 67 (Ex. 1105).
`
`‘773 Patent (Ex. 1101)
`
`Fortov (Ex. 1104)
`
`The temperature T0 is approximately
`
`Sometimes temperature T1 is defined per
`
`equal to 0.7 Tm, where Tm is the
`
`the empirical relation T1 = 0.7 Тm, where
`
`melting point of the target material. In
`
`Tm is melting temperature… The other
`
`another embodiment, the temperature
`
`empirical relation is T1 = U/40k (k is
`
`T0 is approximately equal to U/40 k,
`
`Boltzmann constant).
`
`where U is the binding energy for a
`
`(p. 119, left col.)
`
`surface atom and k is Boltzman's
`
`constant. (Col. 18:67-19:4)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`The sputtering yield at or above the
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`[I]t is possible to obtain a formula for
`
`target temperature T0 can be expressed
`
`thermal sputtering yield YT which unites
`
`as follows:
`
`a range of experimental data:
`
`
`
`
`
`where ΔTm is the maximum difference
`
`where T0 – average target temperature,
`
`of the target temperature from the
`
`ΔTm – maximum temperature increase in
`
`temperature T0, R is the initial radius of
`
`the center of thermal peak; R – initial
`
`the high temperature area on the target,
`
`size of the thermal peak; τ – typical time
`
`τ is the time period for the high
`
`period of thermal peak existence defined
`
`temperature in the high temperature
`
`by the thermal conductivity; k -
`
`area, κ is the coefficient for the
`
`temperature conductivity coefficient. It is
`
`temperature conductivity, and U
`
`clear from the formula (10.7) that Y
`
`is the binding energy. (Col. 19:5-18)
`
`increases with the increase of target
`
`temperature T0, meanwhile, the relation
`
`Y(T0) has an exponential character which
`
`explains the thermal dependence of the
`
`sputtering yield (see pic. VI.1.315).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(p.123, left col.)
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 8 illustrates a graphical
`
`Pic. VI.1.315. Sputtering coefficient of
`
`representation of sputtering yield as a
`
`cuprum [copper] being bombarded by the
`
`function of temperature of the
`
`sputtering target. (Col. 2:36-37)
`
`
`
`ions of Аr+ with the energy of 400 eV,
`
`from the temperature: 1 — electrolytic
`
`copper, 2 — rolled copper, 3 — cuprum
`
`monocrystal, facet (101)
`
`(p. 119, left col.)
`
`
`
`Fortov uses “sputtering yield” and “sputtering coefficient” interchangeably,
`
`using symbol “Υ” for both. DeVito ¶ 68 (Ex. 1105).
`
`While the applicant disclosed Fortov in an information disclosure statement,
`
`it is not readily apparent from the ‘773 Patent specification that the equations and
`
`graphs were derived from Fortov.
`
`Another example of the relationship between temperature and yield is found
`
`in Kawamata (Ex. 1109). Kawamata relates to magnetron sputtering of thin film
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`materials and discloses the desirability of increasing the sputtering rate by
`
`increasing the temperature of the target with sputtering ions. As shown in Fig. 2 of
`
`Kawamata, the deposition rate increases with increased surface temperature of the
`
`sputtering target. See, e.g., Kawamata col. 1:30-33, 3:11-20, 4:40-45. (Ex. 1109).
`
`
`
`
`
`In high power magnetron sputtering systems, target temperature needs to be
`
`controlled to prevent overheating or melting of the target. Thus, the target, which
`
`is also the cathode, needs to be fitted with some type of a cooling system. Wang
`
`(Ex. 1103), Mozgrin (Ex. 1102) and Kawamata (Ex. 1109) describe target cooling.
`
`Suitable target cooling systems include water cooling or a metal radiator that
`
`dissipates the heat from the target. DeVito ¶¶ 69-70 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Because ions impacting the sputtering target typically come from the same
`
`side of a flat sputtering target, the cooling system is typically positioned to cool the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`opposite side of the target such that it does not interfere with the sputtering ions.
`
`DeVito ¶ 71(Ex. 1105).
`
`In magnetron sputtering systems, high energy cations (e.g., Ar+) that sputter
`
`atoms from the target are produced by a high power pulse. Because a high power
`
`pulse can only have a limited duration, usually on the order of microseconds or
`
`milliseconds, the sputtering atoms will elevate the temperature of the sputtering
`
`target only at the surface of the target that faces the source of the sputtering ions.
`
`When the high power pulse ends, high energy cations will stop being produced by
`
`it and will no longer hit the sputtering target, which will result in the target cooling
`
`off on its own and further because of the cooling system. DeVito ¶ 72 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Therefore, temperature rises caused by sputtering ions will only be transient.
`
`Such systems can be operated in manner that the sputtering ions do not
`
`substantially increase the temperature of the sputtering target, as discussed below.
`
`DeVito ¶ __ (Ex. 1105).
`
`An exemplary cathode cooling system is described in Kawamata (Ex. 1109).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Kawamata shows a system in which water 8 holds the temperature
`
`of the cathode target 5 constant. Kawamata describes its cooling system by stating
`
`that “[c]ooling water 8 maintained at 20±0.5° C. [sic] was caused to flow on a
`
`lower face of the magnetron cathode 5 so that the temperature of the magnetron
`
`cathode 5 was held constant.” Kawamata at 7:20-22. Therefore, the cooling
`
`system described in Kawamata keeps the temperature of the sputtering target
`
`constant during the sputtering process. DeVito ¶¶ 74-76 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent
`
`D.
`The ‘773 Patent describes a sputtering technique in which a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma. The ions in the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma impact the sputtering target to generate sufficient thermal energy in
`
`the sputtering target and are said to cause the sputtering yield to be related to a
`
`temperature of the sputtering target in a non-linear way.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘773 Patent indicates that the sputtering yield is related to a temperature
`
`of a sputtering target in a non-linear way when: (1) the bombarding ion energy is
`
`greater than “several hundred eV” (4:42-45); (2) the temperature of the target is
`
`greater than 0.7 x the melting temperature (Tm) of the target (18:67-19:1); or (3)
`
`the deposition rate of the sputtered material is related to the temperature of the
`
`target in a non-linear way (4:59-60) (Ex. 1101). DeVito ¶ 82 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Without providing any experimental evidence or guidance about how to
`
`achieve the claimed effects, the ‘773 Patent states that the non-linearity of the
`
`sputtering yield is achieved when the weakly-ionized plasma is being pulsed with a
`
`pulse described in Fig. 6 and at 15:45-50 over very broad ranges of parameters.
`
`Such pulse, which can last between 1µs and 10s (7 orders of magnitude), produces
`
`voltage in the range of 50V-30kV (about 3 orders of magnitude), current in the
`
`range of 10A-5kA (about 3 orders of magnitude), and power in the very broad
`
`range of 1kW to 10MW (4 orders of magnitude) (col. 15:45-50) (Ex. 1101).
`
`DeVito ¶ 83.
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further obvious operational details such
`
`as characteristics of the voltage pulse, plasma, ionization source, the sputtering
`
`source, natural properties of the system and observations about such a system.
`
`DeVito ¶ 84.
`
`E.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`In an Amendment dated 10/19/2004 (Ex. 1113), the Patent Owner argued to
`
`try to overcome a rejection based on a primary reference not at issue here, in
`
`combination with Fortov stating: “Fortov describes the relationship between the
`
`sputtering yield and the temperature of the target, but does not describe how to
`
`achieve the non-linear relationship between the sputtering yield and the target
`
`temperature.” Id. at 11.
`
`However, before the ‘773 Patent was filed, it was generally known in the art
`
`that high power would provide a high density plasma, and thus a high level of heat
`
`to the target, thus showing how to achieve high target temperature. As shown
`
`below, Mozgrin and Wang both operate at high power, as does the ‘773 Patent
`
`itself. Thus it was known that more power causes more heat, that heat causes an
`
`increase in temperature, and that an increase in temperature to a sufficient level,
`
`results in non-linear yield as disclosed by Fortov.
`
`Summary of the prior art
`
`F.
`As explained in detail below, there is nothing new or non-obvious in Zond’s
`
`claims. As Mozgrin and Wang show, using high power pulses to go from a weakly
`
`to strongly ionized plasma was known, and techniques for increasing sputtering
`
`yield by increasing target temperature were well understood before the ‘773 Patent
`
`was filed.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`G. References Are Not Cumulative
`Wang and Mozgrin have in common that they disclose the concept behind
`
`the patent – providing a pulse to transition from a weakly to a strongly ionized
`
`plasma. But they should not be considered cumulative because their focus and
`
`type of disclosure are different. Each Mozgrin reference is an academic paper, so
`
`they do not necessarily show certain details of a working sputtering system, even
`
`though such details would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill.
`
`Wang is a patent assigned to a major supplier of sputtering equipment, and
`
`therefore is less focused on physics, as compared to Mozgrin.
`
`H. Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102)
`Mozgrin teaches forming a high density plasma during a voltage pulse
`
`without forming an arc. FIG. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-
`
`voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102)
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions: (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)”) (Ex. 1102); (2) “high
`
`current magnetron discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4; application of a high
`
`voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2; (3) “high
`
`current diffuse discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5; increasing the current
`
`applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to
`
`transition to region 3; and (4) “arc discharge,” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3;
`
`further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3
`
`to the “arc discharge” region 4 (Ex. 1102). DeVito ¶¶ 87-91 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1102);
`
`region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5; DeVito ¶¶ 89-90 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1103)
`
`I.
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a movable magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown
`
`in FIG. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang, Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1103).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang (Ex. 1103)
`
`FIG. 6 shows a graph of the power Wang applies to the plasma. A lower
`
`power level, PB, is generated by a DC power supply 100 (shown in FIG. 7), and a
`
`higher power level, PP, is generated by the pulsed power supply 80. Wang 7:56-
`
`64. The lower power level, PB, “is chosen to exceed the minimum power
`
`necessary to support a plasma” after ignition, and application of the higher power
`
`level, PP, “increases the density of the plasma.” Wang 7:17-31; 8:2-5 (Ex. 1103).
`
`DeVito ¶¶ 92-97 (Ex. 1105).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 6 of Wang (Ex. 1103)
`J. Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1104)
`Fortov is a Russian language encyclopedia of plasma physics that was
`
`published in 2000. Fortov teaches the non-linear relationship between the target
`
`temperature and the sputtering yield Y above temperature T0. Fortov at 123, left
`
`col. (Ex. 1104). DeVito ¶¶ 67-68 (Ex. 1105) (including a chart showing how the
`
`‘773 Patent virtually copied the Fortov reference).
`
`Fortov observes that above certain temperature, the sputtering yield Y starts
`
`to grow rapidly. (“At temperature being less than T1 coefficient Y is not actually
`
`dependent on the temperature, and at Т ≈ T1 starts to grow rapidly concurrently
`
`with the growth of temperature (Pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 119, left col (Ex. 1104).
`
`Fortov also depicts this effect graphically in Pic. VI.1.315:
`
`
`
`“Pic. VI.1.315. Sputtering coefficient of cuprum [copper] being bombarded by the
`
`ions of Аr+ with the energy of 400 eV, from the temperature: 1 — electrolytic
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`copper, 2 — rolled copper, 3 — cuprum monocrystal, facet (101).” Fortov at 119,
`
`left col. (Ex. 1104). DeVito ¶ 99 (Ex. 1105).
`
`The ‘773 Patent adopted sections and equations from Fortov without
`
`attributing those disclosures to Fortov, and then the ‘773 Patent claims this effect
`
`in a particular type of system, even though there is nothing in the ‘773 Patent to
`
`indicate that the effect described in Fortov would work in some different way in
`
`the system of the ‘773 Patent, as opposed to other prior art systems.
`
`K. Overview of Kawamata
`Kawamata, a U.S. patent that issued in 1999, relates to magnetron sputtering
`
`of thin film materials and discloses the desirability of increasing the sputtering rate
`
`by increasing the temperature of the target with sputtering ions. See, e.g.,
`
`Kawamata col. 1:30-33, 3:11-20, 4:40-45. (Ex. 1109). DeVito ¶ 102 (Ex. 1105).
`
`Kawamata discloses generating plasma over the film source material such
`
`that the surface of the film source material has its temperature raised by the
`
`plasma. Kawamata at 3:18-20 . Kawamata’s FIG. 2 [reproduced below] shows
`
`what changes of the surface temperature the target and the rate of film formation
`
`on the substrate are caused by changes of the input power. Kawamata at 7:51-53
`
`(Ex. 1109). DeVito ¶ 103 (Ex. 1105).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 2 of Kawamata, the deposition rate increases with
`
`increasing surface temperature of the sputtering target. DeVito ¶ 104.
`
`Kawamata uses a cooling system for the magnetron cathode to keep the
`
`temperature of the target constant. Kawamata, Abstract (Ex. 1109). The cathode
`
`cooling system of Kawamata is described in its Fig. 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`FIG. 1 of Kawamata (Ex. 1109)
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 1 of Kawamata, water 8 cools the cathode target 5. The
`
`cooling water is provided for the purpose of keeping its temperature constant.
`
`Kawamata describes its cooling system by stating that “[c]ooling water 8
`
`maintained at 20±0.5° C. [sic] was caused to flow on a lower face of the magnetron
`
`cathode 5 so that the temperature of the magnetron cathode 5 was held constant.”
`
`Kawamata at 7:20-22 (Ex. 1109). DeVito ¶¶ 105-106 (Ex. 1105).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the DeVito Declaration (Ex. 1105), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the challenged claims of the ‘773 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 21-33, 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground I: Claims 21-22, 26-33 and 40 would have been obvious
`in view of Mozgrin and Fortov
`1.
`
`Independent claims 21 and 40
`
`Independent claims 21 and 40 are similar, except that claim 21 is a method
`
`and cla