IPR2014-00580, Paper No. 47
`IPR2014-00726, Paper No. 41
`August 4, 2015
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00580
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`____________
`
`Held: June 16, 2015
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
`JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2015,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (GILLETTE):
`
`
`DAVID L. CAVANAUGH, ESQ.
`
`
`YUNG-HOON (SAM) HA, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
`
`COSMIN MAIER, ESQ.
`
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (FUJITSU):
`
`
`GREGORY P. HUH, ESQ.
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQ.
`
`
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`
`
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`
`
`Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Good afternoon. At this time, we would like
`
`to have the counsel to introduce yourselves and also your colleagues,
`
`beginning with Petitioner.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: I'm Dave Cavanaugh, with me is Sam Ha
`
`and Cosmin Maier, we're from Wilmer Hale representing Gillette. Also
`
`with me is Kevin Johnson, also with Gillette, and the other Petitioner,
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Gregory Huh for Fujitsu.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Welcome. Thank you.
`
`MR. GONSALVES: My name is Dr. Gregory Gonsalves and I
`
`13
`
`will be representing the Patent Owner Zond.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. This is the oral hearing for cases
`
`15
`
`IPR2014-00580 and -00726, involving patent 6,896,773. The transcript of
`
`16
`
`this consolidated oral hearing will be entered in each of the proceedings.
`
`17
`
`Consistent with our previous order, each party has one hour to present. We
`
`18
`
`will start with the Petitioner, because the Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`19
`
`proof that the claims at issue are unpatentable.
`
`20
`
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time, thereafter Patent Owner will
`
`21
`
`respond to the Petitioners' case.
`
`22
`
`Counsel, do you have a copy of the demonstratives for the court
`
`23
`
`reporter?
`
`24
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: We do, Your Honor.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay, great, thank you.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: May we approach?
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes. Thank you.
`
`I would like to check to see if things are working in California.
`
`Judge Turner? Good afternoon.
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Good afternoon, Judge Chang, or good
`
`morning, as I would say. I think that we also have many, many visitors in
`
`the gallery. Is that correct?
`
`JUDGE CHANG: It looks that way, welcome, everyone.
`
`And Judge Stephens?
`
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Yes, I'm here.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Good afternoon.
`
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Petitioner, you may start any time.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Great, thank you. May it please the Board,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`good afternoon, I'm Dave Cavanaugh, and with me is Sam Ha and Cosmin
`
`17
`
`Maier and together we represent the Petitioner, Gillette.
`
`18
`
`Today I'll be presenting on the '773 patent, which is one of the
`
`19
`
`Zond patents that is the subject of a number of inter partes review --
`
`20
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Can I interrupt? Would you like to reserve
`
`21
`
`rebuttal time?
`
`22
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I should have
`
`23
`
`mentioned that first thing. I would like to reserve 10 minutes of rebuttal
`
`24
`
`time.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Because the '773 patent, the Zond patent, is related to the other
`
`patents that are subject to the inter partes review proceedings, we'll go over
`
`the '773 patent, mindful of the subject matter that's already been discussed.
`
`We'll describe the grounds instituted by the Board. I'll provide an overview
`
`of the prior art, as well as kind of address the issues raised by the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`And the Patent Owner has characterized some of the Petitioners'
`
`positions as fanciful, and I would like to assure the Board, they are not
`
`10
`
`fanciful, that we believe quite earnestly that our positions are sound,
`
`11
`
`well-founded in both fact and law, and I would like to describe both the
`
`12
`
`issues that the Patent Owner has raised, as well as our response to those
`
`13
`
`particular issues.
`
`14
`
`So, the '773 patent relates to a high deposition rate sputtering, and,
`
`15
`
`you know, moving from the technology that's already been described in the
`
`16
`
`other proceedings, there's a low-density ionization that occurs, there's a
`
`17
`
`voltage pulse that's applied to the -- to the low -- the kind of low-density
`
`18
`
`ions that creates high-density ions that produces a kind of characteristic
`
`19
`
`sputtering capability, and this patent relates to how to increase the yield or
`
`20
`
`describes a technique to increase the yield of sputtering.
`
`21
`
`And, so, we'll talk about each of those features as they are
`
`22
`
`represented in the claims. So, the '773 patent relates to a sputtering --
`
`23
`
`pardon me -- relates to the sputtering source, some of the characteristics and
`
`24
`
`components are well familiar to the Board. There's a cathode assembly, an
`
`25
`
`anode, in green and red, respectively, right now I'm on slide 4. There's a
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`feed gas that's provided on 256 which there's a little pipe on the top of the
`
`illustrations, and moving, there is a kind of a low-density ion created
`
`between the cathode and electrode.
`
`As a pulse power supply is applied -- as a pulse power supply is
`
`applied, a weakly-ionized plasma is generated, and that's represented in the
`
`middle figure of slide 4, and as a voltage pulse is applied, the cathode and
`
`anode generate a strongly-ionized plasma in between the cathode and
`
`anode.
`
`The '773 describes a particular technique to -- or a way of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`increasing the sputtering yield and identifies it as a non-linear increase in
`
`11
`
`the sputtering yield. The '773 patent, and now I'm on slide 5, provides an
`
`12
`
`equation which characterizes the yield as related to a target temperature.
`
`13
`
`And the '773 patent also identifies 0.7 of the melting point temperature as
`
`14
`
`being characteristic of a desirable point at which there would be a
`
`15
`
`non-linear increase in the sputtering yield. And that's represented in Figure
`
`16
`
`8 of the '773 patent.
`
`17
`
`And to be clear here, the '773 patent doesn't identify that they are
`
`18
`
`the first people to come up with this particular kind of equation. In fact,
`
`19
`
`these equations are available -- this equation is available in an
`
`20
`
`encyclopedia, as we will see in a moment.
`
`21
`
`Looking from the technology that's described in the '773 patent to
`
`22
`
`the claims, I'm on slide 6 now, the representative claims 1 and 34 are
`
`23
`
`presented. We see many of the same elements that we've seen in other
`
`24
`
`claims, the cathode assembly, an anode, an ionization source, and a power
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`supply that provides a voltage pulse and characteristics of the non-linear
`
`kind of relationship between the yield and the temperature in the target.
`
`And, so, the difference between claims 1 and 34, as we can see in
`
`the bottom of claim 34, is that there is a gas controller that controls the flow
`
`of gas into the chamber.
`
`So, many months ago, the Board made a decision on institution,
`
`and indicated that there was a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims would be invalidated on the particular grounds that I've represented
`
`here on slide 7. There were a couple of different other grounds that were
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`presented that the Board declared as redundant to the granted grounds.
`
`11
`
`Moving from the decision on institution with the granted grounds,
`
`12
`
`the Board identified certain terms for construction, and I've put those on
`
`13
`
`slide 8, weakly-ionized plasma and strongly-ionized plasma. I think it's
`
`14
`
`important to note that neither party has identified kind of an issue with the
`
`15
`
`construction that the Board has applied in the proceeding.
`
`16
`
`So, the Petitioner in its response has used the Board's
`
`17
`
`constructions as they have been applied in the decision on institution, or
`
`18
`
`articulated in the decision on institution.
`
`19
`
`So, the prior art that the Board identified in the grounds in the
`
`20
`
`decision on institution is Mozgrin as the primary reference, and now I'm on
`
`21
`
`slide 9, and there are many of the same features of the chamber, the
`
`22
`
`characteristic, cathode, anode, along with a couple of different -- and a
`
`23
`
`voltage pulse is applied to the cathode and anode to create a weakly-ionized
`
`24
`
`plasma, and then there's a strongly-ionized plasma that is created.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`One of the things I'll note in slide 9 is that Mozgrin actually has
`
`two embodiments, Figures 1a and Figures 1b, and in the Patent Owner, in
`
`their response, focuses solely on Figure 1b, and we think it's important to
`
`note that while we have responses to what the Patent Owner says in regard
`
`to Figure 1b, we also want to make sure that the Board notes that the
`
`petition also has Figure 1a in it, which has a very similar structure as to
`
`what is described and disclosed in the '773 patent.
`
`I think it's also, because feed gasses -- pardon me, because feed
`
`gasses are going to be an issue, I know we'll talk about in a moment, you
`
`10
`
`know, Mozgrin describes the use of feed gas, argon, which is also described
`
`11
`
`in the '773 patent, and so the structure that Mozgrin is describing, and the
`
`12
`
`process or the use of that structure that Mozgrin is describing, is kind of
`
`13
`
`well-identified and closely associated with what's described and, frankly,
`
`14
`
`claimed in the '773 patent.
`
`15
`
`Moving to -- from the structure to the voltage pulse, which is
`
`16
`
`going to create the strongly-ionized plasma, and now I'm on slide 10, we
`
`17
`
`see in the figure -- in the top right of slide 10, the voltage pulse that
`
`18
`
`Mozgrin applies, as we see it, there's an elevated voltage for a period of
`
`19
`
`time, and then as the strongly-ionized plasma is created, the voltage
`
`20
`
`decreases. Mozgrin also describes and illustrates in Figure 2, and it's shown
`
`21
`
`in slide 10, the power supply that is used to create both the high --
`
`22
`
`highly-ionized plasma, as well as the kind of the weakly-ionized plasma,
`
`23
`
`and I think it's important to note that this power supply and the electrode
`
`24
`
`and cathode are illustrated in red and green in the center of Figure 2, are all
`
`25
`
`kind of part of the power supply that supplies the Mozgrin device with the
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`power sufficient to create the weakly-ionized plasma and the
`
`strongly-ionized -- to create the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`So, with the structure of Mozgrin, and being able to create
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, the non-linear relationship then becomes the
`
`question, like where does that non-linear relationship between the
`
`sputtering yield and the temperature come from? Where is that? And, you
`
`know, Fortov is what the Petitioners have used in the petition, Fortov is a
`
`cite from an encyclopedia, regarding kind of these kinds of techniques for
`
`increasing -- for sputtering and for deposition techniques.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`This equation is also in the Fortov article, yeah, and now I'm on
`
`11
`
`slide 11, which the particular recognition that 0.7 of the melting
`
`12
`
`temperature, and when I say 0.7 of the melting temperature, it's just like 0.7
`
`13
`
`times the melting temperature Tm and that is the target temperature that
`
`14
`
`Fortov recognizes as being what is going to create this non-linear
`
`15
`
`relationship.
`
`16
`
`And also, in slide 11, we present the charts that Fortov provides
`
`17
`
`and clearly showing a non-linear relationship between the temperature and
`
`18
`
`the yield.
`
`19
`
`So, on slide 12, and I won't spend too much time on this, we
`
`20
`
`provide an association between the '773 patent, device illustrated, and the
`
`21
`
`device in Mozgrin, but again, as I mentioned, the Petitioner -- I'm sorry, the
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner identifies, you know, a different figure to challenge in their
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner response and doesn't really address any of the similarities and
`
`24
`
`issues related to Figure 1a. And again, we see the comparison of the
`
`25
`
`disclosure in the '773 patent on slide 13, relating to the non-linearity of the
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`sputtering yield to the temperature of the target. We see -- I'll start from the
`
`bottom. We see the same equation. We see the same recognition of 0.7 of
`
`the melting temperature, and again, we see a non-linear relationship
`
`between the two spelled out in graphs.
`
`So, with that as background of the prior art, we're going to be
`
`focusing on the issues that the Patent Owner has raised in this their response
`
`to the petition, and it boils down to three for the independent claims. The
`
`first one, whether Mozgrin teaches a feed gas, now I'm on slide 14, and
`
`the -- you know, the feed gas is something that we have addressed in other
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`petitions, and the Board has addressed in other decisions on institution, and
`
`11
`
`I'll raise that and address that in a moment.
`
`12
`
`The second issue is whether the feed gas is proximate to the anode
`
`13
`
`and the cathode assembly. And the Patent Owner's expert essentially
`
`14
`
`admitted that the construction or that the components as structured would
`
`15
`
`be proximate.
`
`16
`
`And then, finally, the longer limitation, the amplitude and the rise
`
`17
`
`time of the voltage pulse yielding a non-linear relationship between the
`
`18
`
`sputtering yield and the temperature of the sputtering target is also
`
`19
`
`addressed and we'll talk about each of those.
`
`20
`
`This is where the challenged claim limitations are in each of the
`
`21
`
`representative independent claims. Again, we see the feed gas, we see
`
`22
`
`proximate, and the longer limitation. The other limitations of the claim are
`
`23
`
`largely undisputed by the Patent Owner, as being in the prior art. The
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner does make some allegations that the prior art can't be
`
`25
`
`combined, and I will address those also in the presentation.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, for the prior art disclosing the feed gas, the Patent Owner is
`
`alleging that Mozgrin doesn't teach a feed gas. It clearly teaches a feed gas,
`
`because it uses the same gas, and now I'm on slide 17, that is described in
`
`the '773 patent, and I'll note for the Board in the quote on the top that argon
`
`is used as one of the feed gases. So, there is a feed gas in Mozgrin. And
`
`then also, there's a nice chart in Mozgrin talking about the target material,
`
`which is copper, and we'll get to that in a moment, as well as the various
`
`types of feed gas that are represented. Clearly, Mozgrin is providing a --
`
`kind of a structured set of feed gas with target material and understanding
`
`10
`
`kind of the various components as someone skilled in the art would seek to
`
`11
`
`understand.
`
`12
`
`The Patent Owner -- now I'm on slide 18, the Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`alleges that the feed gas that's recited in the claim is -- has to be
`
`14
`
`simultaneously introduced to the chamber while the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`15
`
`is being formed. The Board has previously addressed that particular issue,
`
`16
`
`because in essence what the Patent Owner is saying is, feed gas is more like
`
`17
`
`a verb, it needs to be feeding into or I'm not going to use an -ing, but
`
`18
`
`feeding into the chamber while it is kind of -- while the low-density --
`
`19
`
`low-density ionization is occurring.
`
`20
`
`And the Board has specifically rejected that, and we just put a
`
`21
`
`representative quote from the relevant IPR decision on institution, you
`
`22
`
`know, it doesn't necessarily imply the flow of gas. So, I think it's important
`
`23
`
`to recognize that the Board has also addressed this issue in a different IPR
`
`24
`
`and we would agree with the Board that it doesn't necessarily imply the
`
` 11
`
`25
`
`flow of gas.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`But even if it did require the flow of a gas, Mozgrin also has a
`
`flow of a gas. So, whether it's static or flowing, Mozgrin provides that
`
`teaching.
`
`On slide 19, we identify the -- a deposition excerpt from
`
`Mr. DeVito, when he was deposed, the Patent Owner asked him about
`
`where in Mozgrin is he talking about the use of a constant flow of gas.
`
`And, so, this is his answer, I think he teaches it because ... he's applying
`
`these pulses over many periods. He's getting these very high deposition
`
`rates. And you know, just the body of the work suggests to me that this is a
`
`10
`
`constant flow of gas going on. He mentions about the pressure. So... in
`
`11
`
`order for the pressure to stay maintained, you'd have to keep applying the
`
`12
`
`flow of gas and pumping it out.
`
`13
`
`So, for Mr. DeVito, the Petitioners' declarant, this is disclosure
`
`14
`
`sufficient to say that there is a flow of gas. There's another aspect that the
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner identifies to suggest -- in their view to suggest that there is
`
`16
`
`not a constant flow of gas or a flow of gas into the chamber, and that that is
`
`17
`
`the use of a needle valve. The Patent Owner, and now I'm on slide 20, the
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner refers to a needle valve that's in the Mozgrin thesis, and
`
`19
`
`he's -- and the Patent Owner alleges that because it is a needle valve, it
`
`20
`
`implies -- it suggests that there is a static gas. And as the Petitioner has
`
`21
`
`articulated in our response, or in our reply, the needle valve can be used
`
`22
`
`with a continuous flow of gas. And that's on slide 20, the Ehrenberg
`
`23
`
`reference, and Dr. Bravman has testified to that particular feature. And
`
`24
`
`Dr. Bravman is the Petitioners' Reply Declarant. But even if the feed gas
`
`25
`
`was flowing or static in Mozgrin, the Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Hartsough,
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`agrees that the control of the flow of the feed gas was well known before
`
`the '773 patent was filed. And, so, I think the testimony is important to
`
`recognize because it is on point, and this is on slide 21, the question,
`
`"Controlling the flow of a feed gas to a magnetron chamber was well
`
`known before the alleged '773 invention; correct?
`
`"Answer: Yes.
`
`"Question: Using a flow controller --
`
`"Answer: Yeah.
`
`"Question: -- to supply a continuous feed gas to a magnetron
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`chamber was known before the alleged '773 invention; right?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`"Answer: Yes."
`
`So, the Patent Owner's expert is agreeing that the flowing of a
`
`13
`
`feed gas into the chamber and controlling that flow into the chamber was
`
`14
`
`available to those skilled in the art when the '773 patent was filed.
`
`15
`
`So, if the Board has any questions about feed gas, I can answer
`
`16
`
`them now, or I can move on to the next issue that the Patent Owner has
`
`17
`
`raised.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Even if the feed gas controller is well known,
`
`19
`
`why would someone combine that with Mozgrin? Let's say Mozgrin
`
`20
`
`doesn't teach it. What is the purpose of that?
`
`21
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Sure. Judge Chang, we reference that later
`
`22
`
`on in the presentation.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: To answer your question briefly right now,
`
`25
`
`the Patent Owner really doesn't challenge the combination of the flow
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`controller with the magnetron system. What they're challenging with
`
`Lantsman and Mozgrin is the fact that there is a different kind of power
`
`supply, and what -- and we'll describe it later on in the presentation, but the
`
`power supply, the Patent Owner's own expert agrees that one would be able
`
`to change the power supplies or recognize the applicability of various
`
`references with different power supplies, but it's important to recognize that
`
`the Patent Owner really isn't challenging the combination or the application
`
`of a flow controller with a -- with Mozgrin.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Well, since the burden is on the Petitioner, so
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`even let's say the Patent Owner doesn't challenge certain features, does the
`
`11
`
`Board still have to independently find that feature to be --
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: Understood, and we understand --
`
`JUDGE CHANG: -- obvious.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: The burden is always on the Petitioner to
`
`15
`
`make the allegation -- to kind of prove up the combinability of references.
`
`16
`
`What we've done with the reference, you know, I think -- and it's a
`
`17
`
`three-step process. I think Mozgrin, they've said is a static controller, a
`
`18
`
`static characteristic of the valve -- of the feed gas, and what we have
`
`19
`
`identified sufficiently is that it is a flow of the feed gas, and for the
`
`20
`
`combination of a control of a flow of the feed gas, it's -- you know, as like
`
`21
`
`the valve of the needle valve of Mozgrin, which is described in the Mozgrin
`
`22
`
`thesis, and, you know, the Patent Owner recognizes the similarities there,
`
`23
`
`that is like suggesting that there is some control of the valve.
`
`24
`
`And I can address your question perhaps more completely later on
`
` 14
`
`25
`
`in the presentation.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Sure.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: And I will make a note to make sure I
`
`address it.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: And I think before I do move on from feed
`
`gas, I think it's important to recognize that what the claim is reciting is in
`
`claim 1 is that there is a feed gas and that claim 32 -- or 34, which is
`
`reciting the controlling the feed gas is subject to a different combination,
`
`and we will talk about that as we talk about the combining of the references.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`
`MR. CAVANAUGH: So, the next issue that the Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`raises is a feed gas proximate to the anode and the cathode assembly, and,
`
`13
`
`you know, this, based on the Patent Owner's expert's testimony, I think is
`
`14
`
`fairly easily addressed, you know, to now I'm on slide 23, looking at the
`
`15
`
`Figure 5A, which is on the right-hand side of slide 23, and the orientation of
`
`16
`
`the cathode and anode has a separation of 10 centimeters, which is 100
`
`17
`
`millimeters, and the -- we asked the Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Hartsough,
`
`18
`
`like what is -- like what is proximate in that -- are these cathode and anode,
`
`19
`
`in this diagram, proximate? And he said, in region 245, which is
`
`20
`
`represented in the illustration, as this distance right here on the left-hand
`
`21
`
`side of the cathode, and anode, so this region 245, that entire region is
`
`22
`
`proximate to both the anode and the cathode assembly.
`
`23
`
`And, so, what this means is that the Patent Owner's expert is
`
`24
`
`saying that if you are here, at the lower part of the anode, you're still
`
`25
`
`proximate to the cathode, and vice versa, if you're at the very top part,
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`you're going to be close to the anode, and that distance is 10 centimeters, 10
`
`centimeters or 100 millimeters.
`
`Well, in comparison, Mozgrin, even on the diagram that the
`
`Patent Owner uses in their response, has a distance between the cathode and
`
`anode of 10 millimeters. So, this is 10 times less distance between the
`
`cathode and anode. We know that there's gas in there, Mozgrin is showing
`
`that there's a feed gas that goes in between the cathode and anode, and that
`
`distance between the upper anode and the lower cathode is 10 millimeters.
`
`Now, the Patent Owner alleges that because these are hollow, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`kind of the distance, the true distance is going to be much greater, but as we
`
`11
`
`know, kind of the business end of the cathode and anode are going to be
`
`12
`
`where it's close to one another, and certainly the magnets above and below
`
`13
`
`the rim is going to focus the -- or collect the ionized plasma there. So,
`
`14
`
`that's, you know, from a standpoint of sheer geometry, you know, whatever
`
`15
`
`the Patent Owner says about proximate as supported in their specification
`
`16
`
`is, you know, is 10 times more than what Mozgrin is showing.
`
`17
`
`And there's another aspect of this, if we look at the Mozgrin
`
`18
`
`Figure 1, and this is on slide 24, you know, the Mozgrin, while it doesn't
`
`19
`
`give diagram -- like kind of a diagram with particular characterization of
`
`20
`
`the size of all the features, it does say in the disclosure that the cathode is
`
`21
`
`120 millimeters and the anode is 160 millimeters in diameter, and
`
`22
`
`Dr. Bravman was asked about that in his deposition, and he recognized that
`
`23
`
`while there are no numbers associated with the diagram, it does -- given the
`
`24
`
`size of the rings, and the representation that the anode and cathode are
`
`25
`
`much closer together, that he, in his view, sees them as proximate.
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And, so, this is slide 25, and I won't go through the entire quote,
`
`but like I just said in words, that what Dr. Bravman has testified to, you
`
`know, in 1(a), there's a gap to be less than the diameter, which was 160
`
`millimeters, or 1.6 centimeters, and that gap is less than a diameter by a
`
`significant degree. And then he says, which comports with a worker of
`
`skill's understanding of generally how these things operate. But again, he
`
`recognizes that it does not call out a numerical value. But again, the Patent
`
`Owner could have tried to construe what proximate meant; they didn't.
`
`They could have said that proximate, according to the specification, if it
`
`10
`
`was defined, means a certain thing; the Patent Owner chose not to. And,
`
`11
`
`you know, the association between what's disclosed in the '773 and what's
`
`12
`
`disclosed in Mozgrin is a useful comparison to understand how Mozgrin
`
`13
`
`describes what -- the proximity of the cathode and anode.
`
`14
`
`So, the final dispute relating to the independent claims is the
`
`15
`
`amplitude and rise time of the voltage pulse that yields a non-linear
`
`16
`
`relationship between the sputtering yield and the temperature of the
`
`17
`
`sputtering target. And this limitation has a couple of different components,
`
`18
`
`and we'll address each one, but suffice to say that the Mozgrin disclosure
`
`19
`
`and the Mozgrin kind of technique can use the Fortov recipe to create that
`
`20
`
`kind of high yield, and so that is -- as the Petitioners articulated in their
`
`21
`
`Petition and in their Reply is what someone skilled in the art would do.
`
`22
`
`So, the first aspect of it is the amplitude and rise time, and
`
`23
`
`applying a voltage pulse to generate the strongly-ionized plasma. And we
`
`24
`
`asked the Patent Owner's expert, you know, does -- and this is on slide 27,
`
`25
`
`and the testimony here is important to understand how the Patent Owner's
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`expert is agreeing with us that Mozgrin is providing this voltage pulse to
`
`yield a first weakly then strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`So, "Question: Mozgrin delivers a voltage pulse to that
`
`weakly-ionized plasma; correct?
`
`"Answer: Yes... it has an amplitude... has a rise time...
`
`"Question: Now, this voltage pulse in Mozgrin will cause a rapid
`
`increase in the density of the weakly-ionized plasma; correct?
`
`"Answer: It says that the plasma density grows.
`
`"Question: And looking at Mozgrin, it would be a rapid increase
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from the weakly-ionized plasma; right?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`"Answer: Yes.
`
`"Question: So this is a strongly-ionized plasma generated in the
`
`13
`
`sputtering regime of Mozgrin; correct?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`"Answer: It's in the regime 2, where -- where sputtering occurs."
`
`So, there are a couple of different aspects of this. One, the expert
`
`16
`
`is agreeing that there's a strongly-ionized plasma. Also, the expert is
`
`17
`
`agreeing that there is a sputtering in regime 2 to get to that amount.
`
`18
`
`The combinability or the comparison, you know, both Mozgrin
`
`19
`
`and Fortov are using a feed gas, they're using copper as a target, and so, you
`
`20
`
`know, we asked the expert, you know, to confirm, that Fortov is using
`
`21
`
`copper, he agreed that it was. Mozgrin teaches or uses copper, correct? He
`
`22
`
`agreed that it was. And then, you know, the expectation for someone
`
`23
`
`skilled in the art, we asked the expert, "So for a copper target, being
`
`24
`
`described here, we can expect the non-linear relationship to begin
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`somewhere around 0.7 of the melting temperature, the melting point of
`
`copper?" And the Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Hartsough, agreed.
`
`And this testimony is reflected on slide 28. And, you know, to the
`
`question of whether or not someone would combine the two to increase
`
`sputtering yield, Dr. Hartsough agrees that someone would be motivated to
`
`increase the sputtering yield, and that testimony is reflected here on slide
`
`29.
`
`"So, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`increase the sputtering yield in a sputtering application, correct?
`
`"Yes."
`
`So, even the Patent Owner's expert agrees that someone would be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`motivated to increase sputtering yield, as described in Fortov, and
`
`13
`
`applicable to Mozgrin. Both Mozgrin and Fortov teach sputtering and, you
`
`14
`
`know, the Patent Owner in somewhat of a bit of a misdirection, says that
`
`15
`
`Mozgrin has no sputtering in region 3. So, one would not have combined
`
`16
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov. Well, Mozgrin teaches sputtering in regime 2, which
`
`17
`
`is on the lower part of slide 30, and not on region 3.
`
`18
`
`So, yes, it's correct that Mozgrin has no sputtering in region 3, but
`
`19
`
`that's not what the Petitioner is talking about, it's not what is readily
`
`20
`
`apparent to someone skilled in the art. What Mozgrin is teaching at regime
`
`21
`
`2 is sputtering, and we asked Dr. Hartsough to confirm that region 2 is
`
`22
`
`where the sputtering occurs, and he did confirm that.
`
`23
`
`So, both teach sputtering, even though the Patent Owner has
`
`24
`
`alleged that because region 3, there is no sputtering, that somehow one
`
`25
`
`wouldn't combine Mozgrin and Fortov.
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, there are other combination of references, and I'm going to
`
`kind of move quickly through these, because I think the Board is already
`
`familiar with most of them. Mozgrin and Kudryavstev, the Patent Owner
`
`says that