UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`Case No. IPR2014-007261
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR 2014-01481 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`Case No. IPR2014-007261
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR 2014-01481 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00726, concerning U.S. Patent 6,896,773 (“the ’773 patent”), entered
`
`on September 29, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 21, 22, 26-33, and 40
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of D.V.
`
`Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge
`
`in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA PHYSICS
`
`REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (“Mozgrin”), and Interaction of Low-
`
`Temperature Plasma With Condensed Matter, Gas, and Electromagnetic
`
`Field in (III) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LOW-TEMPERATURE PLASMA (V.E.
`
`Fortov ed., 2000) (“Fortov”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 24 and 25 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Mozgrin, Fortov and
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,190,512 to Lanstman (“Lantsman”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 23 unpatentable as being
`
` 2
`
`
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Mozgrin, Fortov, and A. A.
`
`Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a Plasma
`
`Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`
`PHYS. 30–35 (1983) (“Kudryavtsev”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 42
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 29, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-007261
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01481 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 21–33 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 B2
`
`(Ex. 1101, “the ’773 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we instituted the
`
`instant trial on October 10, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 8
`
`(“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the Motion for Joinder filed by
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., TSMC North
`
`America Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”), Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”), joining Case
`
`IPR2014-01481 with the instant trial (Paper 15), and also granted a Joint
`
`Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 31).2 Zond filed a
`
`Response (Paper 27 (“PO Resp.”)), and Gillette filed a Reply (Paper 33
`
`(“Reply”)). Oral hearing3 was held on June 16, 2015, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing was entered into the record. Paper 41 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Gillette has shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 21–33 and 40 of the ’773 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`2 In this Decision, we refer to The Gillette Company (the original Petitioner)
`and Fujitsu as “Gillette,” for efficiency.
`3 The oral arguments for the instant review and Case IPR2014-00580 were
`consolidated.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates the ’773 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v. The
`
`Gillette Co., No.1:13-CV-11567-DJC (D. Mass.), and identifies other
`
`proceedings in which Zond asserted the claims of the ’773 patent. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’773 Patent
`
`The ’773 patent relates to a method and an apparatus for
`
`high-deposition sputtering. Ex. 1101, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:5–6. According to the ’773 patent,
`
`conventional magnetron sputtering systems deposit films with relatively low
`
`uniformity. Id. at 1:53–54. Although film uniformity can be increased by
`
`mechanically moving the substrate and/or magnetron, the ’773 patent
`
`indicates such systems are relatively complex and expensive to implement.
`
`Id. at 1:54–57. The’773 patent states that conventional magnetron sputtering
`
`systems also have relatively poor target utilization (how uniformly the target
`
`material erodes during sputtering) and a relatively low deposition rate (the
`
`amount of material deposited on the substrate per unit of time). Id. at 1:57–
`
`66. To address these issues, the ’773 patent discloses a plasma sputtering
`
`apparatus that creates a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma using a pulsed power supply. Id. at Abs. According to the ’773
`
`patent, “[t]he strongly-ionized plasma includes a first plurality of ions that
`
`impact the sputtering target to generate sufficient thermal energy in the
`
`sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield of the sputtering target to be
`
`non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target.” Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 21 and 40 are independent.
`
`Claims 22–33 depend directly from claim 21. Claims 21 and 40, reproduced
`
`below, are illustrative:
`
`21. A method for high deposition rate sputtering, the method
`comprising:
`
`ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to a cathode assembly that comprises a sputtering
`target; and
`
`applying a voltage pulse to the cathode assembly to generate a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma, an
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen so
`that ions in the strongly-ionized plasma 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, thereby increasing a deposition rate of the
`sputtering.
`
`40. A sputtering source comprising:
`
`means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma; and
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:21–33, 24:17–25.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
`Wang
` US 6,190,512 B1
`Lantsman
`Kawamata US 5,958,155
`
`
`July 2, 2002
`Feb. 20, 2001
`Sept. 28, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1103)
`(Ex. 1108)
`(Ex. 1109)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1102) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`Interaction of Low-Temperature Plasma With Condensed Matter, Gas, and
`Electromagnetic Field in (III) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LOW-TEMPERATURE
`PLASMA (V.E. Fortov ed., 2000) (Ex. 1104) (“Fortov”).4
`
`A.A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a Plasma
`Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH. PHYS. 30–
`35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1106) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`W. Ehrenberg and D.J. Gibbons, ELECTRON BOMBARDMENT INDUCED
`CONDUCTIVITY AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 8–122 (1981) (Ex. 1125)
`(“Ehrenberg”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 39):
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`21, 22, 26–33, and 40
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`24 and 25
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin, Fortov, and Lantsman
`
`23
`
`§ 103
`
`Mozgrin, Fortov, and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`4 Fortov is a Russian-language reference (Ex. 1110). The citations to Fortov
`are to the certified English-language translation submitted by Gillette
`(Ex. 1104).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,”5 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`
`the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a
`
`definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 21 recites “applying a voltage pulse to the cathode assembly to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:26–28 (emphases added). During the pre-trial stage of this
`
`proceeding, Zond submitted its constructions for the claim terms “a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma” and “a strongly-ionized plasma.” Prelim. Resp. 19–
`
`
`5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed
`
`constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretations. Dec. 9–10; see, e.g., Ex. 1101, 13:31–33 (“strongly-ionized
`
`plasma 268 having a large ion density being formed”).
`
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Dec. 9–10.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
`
`of the Specification of the ’773 patent, the claim term “a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,” and the
`
`claim term “a strongly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high
`
`peak density of ions.”
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`
`The parties identify two claim elements recited in claim 40 as
`
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.6 Pet. 5–6;
`
`Prelim. Resp. 21–24. We agree that those claim elements are written in
`
`means-plus-function form and fall under § 112 ¶ 6, because: (1) each claim
`
`element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for” in each claim
`
`element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means for” is
`
`not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed
`
`function. See Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term “means for” in a
`
`6 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’773
`patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of § 112 in this Decision.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427–28
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term “means for” is
`
`modified by functional language and is not modified by any structure recited
`
`in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (confirming that “use of
`
`the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6, applies” (citing
`
`Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).
`
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`
`Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, we set
`
`forth our claim constructions in the Decision on Institution for the
`
`means-plus-function elements identified by the parties. Dec. 12–15. Neither
`
`party challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these claim
`
`elements. See PO Resp. 14–15; Reply 1–2. Based on this entire record, we
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also discern no reason to modify our claim constructions at this juncture.
`
`For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim
`Elements
`
`Corresponding Structures
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas to
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`“means for increasing the density
`of the weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`A power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode assembly and
`an anode. See, Ex. 1101, 6:21–7:16,
`7:52–60, 10:8–42, 11:22–26, 20:10–
`25, Figs. 4–6; Dec. 12–13.
`
`A cathode assembly, an anode, and a
`pulsed power supply electrically
`coupled to the cathode assembly and
`anode. See, Ex. 1101, 6:22–52,
`10:31–41, Figs. 4–6; Dec. 13–15.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1262. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Gillette asserts that claims 21, 22, 26–33, and 40 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Fortov. Pet. 23–36. In its Petition, Gillette explains how the combination of
`
`the prior art technical disclosures collectively meets each claim limitation
`
`and articulates a rationale to combining the teachings. Id. Gillette also
`
`submitted a Declaration of Mr. Richard DeVito (Ex. 1105) to support its
`
`Petition, and a Declaration of Dr. John C. Bravman (Ex. 1127) to support its
`
`Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov does not
`
`disclose every claim element. PO Resp. 37–44, 50–52. Zond also argues
`
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov. Id. at 26–29. To support its contentions, Zond proffers
`
`a Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Mozgrin and Fortov, and then we
`
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Mozgrin
`
`Mozgrin discloses experimental research conducted on high-current
`
`low-pressure quasi-stationary discharge in a magnetic field. Ex. 1102, 400,
`
`Title. In Mozgrin, pulse or quasi-stationary regimes are discussed in light of
`
`the need for greater discharge power and plasma density. Id. Mozgrin
`
`discloses a planar magnetron plasma system having cathode 1, anode 2
`
`adjacent and parallel to cathode 1, and magnetic system 3, as shown in
`
`Figure 1(a) (reproduced below). Id. at 400–01. Mozgrin also discloses a
`
`power supply unit that includes a pulsed discharge supply unit and a system
`
`for pre-ionization. Id. at 401–02, Fig. 2. For pre-ionization, an initial
`
`plasma density is generated when the square voltage pulse is applied to the
`
`gas. Id.
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin illustrates an oscillogram of voltage of the
`
`quasi-stationary discharge. Id. at 402. In Figure 3(b), Part 1 represents the
`
`voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage); Part 2 displays the
`
`square voltage pulse application to the gap (Part 2a), where the plasma
`
`density grows and reaches its quasi-stationary value (Part 2b); and Part 3
`
`displays the discharge current growing and attaining its quasi-stationary
`
`value. Id. More specifically, the power supply generates a square voltage
`
`with rise times of 5–60 µs and durations of as much as 1.5 ms. Id. at 401.
`
`Mozgrin further discloses the current-voltage characteristic of the
`
`quasi-stationary plasma discharge that has four different stable forms or
`
`regimes: (1) pre-ionization stage (id. at 401–02); (2) high-current magnetron
`
`discharge regime, in which the plasma density exceeds 2 x 1013 cm-3,
`
`appropriate for sputtering (id. at 402–04, 409); (3) high-current diffuse
`
`discharge regime, in which the plasma density produces large-volume
`
`uniform dense plasmas η1 ≈ 1.5 x 1015 cm-3, appropriate for etching (id.); and
`
`(4) arc discharge regime (id. at 402–04). Id. at 402–409, Figs. 3–7.
`
`Fortov
`
`Fortov is a Russian-language encyclopedia of plasma physics.
`
`Ex. 1104, 1. The cited portion of Fortov is directed to interaction of plasma
`
`with condensed matter and, more particularly, to sputtering. Id. at 3–4.
`
`Fortov discloses the non-linear relationship between the target temperature
`
`and the sputtering yield Y above temperature T0. Id. at 16. According to
`
`Fortov, Y is the coefficient of sputtering, “defined as the relation of the
`
`number of sputtered atoms of a target to the number of bombarding ions
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`(atoms),” which “depends on the type of ions (its atomic number Zi and
`
`mass Mi).” Id. at 6.
`
`Figure VI.1.315 of Fortov is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure VI.1.315 of Fortov describes the sputtering coefficient of
`
`copper (cuprum) being bombarded by ions of Ar+ with the energy of 400 eV,
`
`from the temperature: 1 –– electrolytic copper, 2 –– rolled copper,
`
`3 –– single crystal copper (cuprum monocrystal), facet (101). Id. at 9.
`
`According to Fortov, at a temperature less than T1, coefficient Y is not
`
`actually dependent on the temperature, and at T ≈ T1, Y starts to grow
`
`rapidly, concurrently with growth of temperature. Id. Fortov further
`
`explains temperature T1 is sometimes defined according to the empirical
`
`relation T1 = .7 Tm where Tm is the melting temperature, though in some
`
`cases, e.g., for tin (stannum) T1 > Tm and T1 = U/40k (k is Boltzmann
`
`constant; U is the energy of sublimation correlated to one atom). Id. at 7, 9.
`
`Temperature T1 depends on the type, energy, and density of ion flow.
`
`Id. at 9.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`Ionizing a feed gas
`
`
`
`
`
`Zond disputes that “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma near a cathode assembly” is taught by the combination of Mozgrin
`
`and Fortov. Resp. 38–40, 43–44.
`
`Gillette takes the position that Mozgrin in combination with Fortov
`
`discloses “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`proximate to a cathode assembly that comprises a sputtering target,” as
`
`recited in claim 21, “exposing the feed gas to one of a static electric field, an
`
`AC electric field, a quasi-static electric field, a pulsed electric field, [etc.],”
`
`as recited in claim 28, and a “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 40. Pet. 23–31, 33–34.
`
`According to Gillette, Mozgrin discloses using a power supply to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma with density less than 1012 ions/cm3 from the feed
`
`gas. Id. at 23–25 (citing Ex. 1102, 400–02, Figs. 1–6).
`
`Figure 1 of Mozgrin is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1(a) of Mozgrin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1(b) of Mozgrin
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Mozgrin illustrates two types of systems: (1) a planar
`
`magnetron system, as shown in Figure 1(a); and (2) a shaped-electrode
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`magnetron system, as shown in Figure 1(b). Ex. 1102, 401. Each system
`
`comprises cathode 1, anode 2, and magnetic system 3. Id. Gillette points
`
`out that Mozgrin’s magnetron systems generate a plasma from a feed gas,
`
`such as argon and nitrogen, between and proximate to the anode and
`
`cathode, as shown in Mozgrin’s Figure 1. Pet. 24; Ex. 1102, 400–02 (“The
`
`[plasma] discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the cathode.”).
`
`As shown in Figure 1(a) of Mozgrin, electric field E is formed between the
`
`anode and cathode. Ex. 1102, 401.
`
`Zond counters that Mozgrin does not disclose “ionizing a feed gas to
`
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma near a cathode assembly.” PO Resp. 38–
`
`40, 43–44 (emphasis added). Zond argues that Mozgrin teaches a static gas
`
`and not a feed gas, as required by claims 21, 28, and 40. Id. As support,
`
`Dr. Hartsough testifies that Mozgrin does not teach a feed gas because
`
`Mozgrin discloses that the discharge gap was filled up with either neutral or
`
`pre-ionized gas using four needle valves prior to generating plasma.
`
`Ex. 2005 ¶ 133.
`
`Upon review of the record before us, we are not persuaded by Zond’s
`
`arguments and expert testimony. Rather, we determine that Gillette’s
`
`contentions are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`At the outset, Zond’s argument and expert testimony are not
`
`commensurate with the scope of the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
`
`1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating that limitations not appearing in the claims
`
`cannot be relied upon for patentability). Essentially, Zond and its expert are
`
`construing the claim term “feed gas” to require a constant flow of gas. We
`
`note that each of independent claims 21 and 40 recites “a feed gas,” and not
`
`“a flowing feed gas,” as alleged by Zond. See Ex. 1101, 22:23–25, 24:18–
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19. The claim term “a feed gas” does not require a constant flow of gas,
`
`because the term does not imply necessarily the flow of gas. Construing the
`
`claim term “a feed gas” as a constant flow of gas, as argued by Zond, would
`
`import a limitation improperly from the Specification into the claims. See
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
`
`In any event, even if the claims at issue here were to require such a
`
`limitation, we observe that the combination of Mozgrin and Fortov would
`
`render the claimed subject matter recited in the limitation obvious. As
`
`Gillette points out, Mozgrin discloses generating “high-current [plasma]
`
`discharge in wide ranges of discharge current (from 5 A to 1.8 kA) and
`
`operating pressure (from 10-3 to 10 torr) using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6,
`
`He, and H2).” Pet. 24; Ex. 1102, 402. Mr. DeVito testifies during his
`
`cross-examination that Mozgrin suggests using a constant flow of gas in
`
`order to maintain a constant pressure during the plasma process and to yield
`
`high deposition rates. Ex. 2010, 84:13–85:1.
`
`Zond’s allegation and expert testimony that using four needle valves
`
`is an indication that Mozgrin’s feed gas is “a static gas” also is of no
`
`moment. PO Resp. 39; Ex. 2005 ¶ 133. Dr. Bravman testifies that it was
`
`well-known in the art at the time of the invention that needle valves provide
`
`a continuous flow of gas. Ex. 1127 ¶ 48. As an example to support his
`
`testimony, Dr. Bravman cites to Ehrenberg, a book published in 1981, which
`
`states that “while still pumping, argon gas is allowed to enter the bell-jar
`
`[chamber] through a needle valve. . . . This continuous flow method tends to
`
`sweep away any impurities” (Ex. 1125, 81). Ex. 1127 ¶ 48.
`
`We credit the testimony of Mr. DeVito (Ex. 2010, 84:13–85:2) and
`
`Dr. Bravman (Ex. 1127 ¶ 48), as their explanations are consistent with the
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art of record. Given the evidence before us, we are persuaded that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized
`
`that Mozgrin’s system supplies a constant flow of feed gas into the chamber
`
`during the plasma processing, and, therefore, Mozgrin’s feed gas need not be
`
`a “static gas,” as alleged by Zond.
`
`Mozgrin also discloses that the plasma discharge volume is generated
`
`between the electrodes (the anode and cathode assembly), and that the gap
`
`between the electrodes is about 10 mm—falling squarely within the range of
`
`3–100 mm, disclosed in the ’773 patent (Ex. 1101, 10:23–24). Ex. 1102,
`
`401. Moreover, Mozgrin explicitly states that the plasma discharge is
`
`adjacent to the cathode. Id. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have recognized that Mozgrin’s plasma is generated proximate to both the
`
`anode and the cathode assembly.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Gillette has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov discloses “ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode assembly that comprises a
`
`sputtering target,” as recited in claim 21, “exposing the feed gas to one of a
`
`static electric field, an AC electric field, a quasi-static electric field, a pulsed
`
`electric field, [etc.],” as recited in claim 28, and a “means for ionizing a feed
`
`gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 40.
`
`Voltage pulse
`
`Claim 21 recites:
`
`applying a voltage pulse to the cathode assembly to generate a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly ionized plasma, an
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen so
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that ions in the strongly-ionized plasma 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, thereby increasing a deposition rate of the
`sputtering
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:26–33 (emphases added). Claim 40 recites a similar
`
`element. Id. at 24:20–26.
`
`In its Response, Zond argues that the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Fortov does not teach or suggest the aforementioned “voltage pulse”
`
`limitation, as required by claims 21 and 40. PO Resp. 40–43. In particular,
`
`Zond alleges that Mozgrin does not disclose “any attempt to achieve a
`
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`
`target.” Id. at 41; Ex. 2005 ¶ 137. Zond also contends that Fortov does not
`
`disclose “how to generate sufficient target thermal energy to cause the
`
`sputtering yield to be non-linear with target temperature.” PO Resp. 42;
`
`Ex. 2005 ¶ 139.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. Nonobviousness cannot
`
`be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the
`
`ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
`
`references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test
`
`for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
`
`would have suggested the patentees’ invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`As Gillette points out (Pet. 26–27, 36), Mozgrin discloses applying a
`
`voltage pulse that has a rise time 5–60 µs and duration of 1.5 ms, in between
`
`the anode and cathode, to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma. Ex. 1102, 402 (“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram [as shown
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in Figure 3(b)] represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”), 401 (“This initial density [of 109–1011 cm-3 range] was
`
`sufficient for plasma density to grow when the square voltage pulse was
`
`applied to the gap.”), 409 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering . . . plasma density (exceeding
`
`2 x 1013 cm-3).”), Figs, 1, 3). Gillette directs our attention to the Declaration
`
`of Mr. DeVito, who testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art reading
`
`Mozgrin “would have understood that controlling discharge parameters,
`
`such as the current or the characteristics of the pulse (e.g., duration,
`
`amplitude and rise time), could have been performed to cause the plasma to
`
`remain in the region 2 that is useful for sputtering.” Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1105
`
`¶ 121 (citing Ex. 1102, 403–04, Figs. 5a, 7). Fur
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
