UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759
`
`________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. v 
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 1 
`
`A.  “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ........................... 1 
`
`B.  “multi-step ionization process” .................................................................... 2 
`
`C.  “without forming an arc” .............................................................................. 2 
`
`III.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ......................................................................... 3 
`
`A.  Zond’s Arguments are Based on a Flawed Premise That Ignores the
`Basic Teachings of Kudryavtsev .................................................................. 3 
`
`B.  Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang. ........................... 4 
`
`C.  A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang and
`Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................. 6 
`
`D.  Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “an amplitude and a rise time of
`the voltage pulse being chosen to increase an excitation rate of ground
`state atoms that are present in the weakly-ionized plasma to create a
`multi-step ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma”
`recited in claim 20. ..................................................................................... 10 
`
`E.  Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches a “multi-step ionization process
`comprising exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms,
`and then ionizing the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma
`without forming an arc discharge” recited in claim 20. ............................. 15 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`F.  Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches a “applying the electric field
`comprises applying a substantially uniform electric field” recited in
`claim 22 and “selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude and a pulse
`width of the electrical pulse that causes the strongly-ionized plasma to
`be substantially uniform in an area adjacent to a surface of the
`sputtering target” recited in claim 31. ........................................................ 18 
`
`G.  Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “the ions in the strongly-ionized
`plasma impact the surface of the sputtering target in a substantially
`uniform manner” recited in claim 30. ......................................................... 22 
`
`IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 23 
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 24 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`May 4, 2015
`
`Exhibit
`1301 U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Description
`
`1302 Kortshagen Declaration
`
`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, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin”)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V. N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1)
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`1303
`
`1304
`
`1305 U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm, pp. 185-258,
`Academic Press (1989) (“Manos”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of June 14, 2004
`(“06/14/04 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of August 30,
`2004 (“08/30/04 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of February 24, 2005
`(“02/24/05 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of May 27,
`2005, (“05/27/05 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Request for Continued
`Examination of October 27, 2005 (“10/27/05 RCE”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of January 11,
`
`v
`
`1306
`
`1307
`
`1308
`
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`
`1312
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`2006 (“01/11/06 Office Action”)
`
`1313
`
`1314
`
`1315
`
`1316
`
`1317
`
`1318
`
`1319
`
`1320
`
`1321
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759,Response of May 2, 2006
`(“05/02/06 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of August 28, 2006
`(“08/28/2006 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Notice of Allowance Mailed
`October 11, 2006 (“10/11/2006 Allowance”)
`
`European Patent Application 1560943, Response of April 21, 2008
`(“04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943”)
`
`Claim Chart based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart based on Wang and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-11570-
`RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart based on Wang, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin as used in 1:13-
`cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang, Kudryavtsev and
`Mozgrin”)
`
`List of Related Litigations
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`1322 GF Rismiller Decl ISO Motion for PHV Admission of Brett C Rismiller
`
`1323 Declaration of Dr. Lawrence J. Overzet (“Overzet Decl.”)
`
`1324 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`1325 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`1326 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 8,125,155
`
`1327 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`1328 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`1329 U.S. Pat. No. 5,247,531 (“Muller-Horsche”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 in response to Zond’s
`
`Response to Petition filed on December 31, 2014 (“Response,” paper no. 28). The
`
`evidence and arguments in this reply confirm the Board’s initial determination that
`
`claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759 Patent are rendered obvious over the
`
`prior art of record and thus should be canceled.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`The Board construed the term strongly-ionized plasma to mean a plasma with a
`
`relatively high peak density of ions and the term weakly-ionized plasma to mean a
`
`plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions. Petitioners and their experts agree
`
`with this construction. Dep. Tr. of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kortshagen at 25:25-
`
`26:23 (Ex. 2010); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1323). This construction is consistent
`
`with the ’759 Patent in that it does not require any specific or quantified difference in
`
`magnitude between the peak ion densities of the weakly-ionized plasma and the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1323). Also, Zond’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Hartsough, agrees with the Board’s construction and concedes that there is “not a
`
`magic number that one can arbitrarily say across all conditions as to what’s a weakly
`
`ionized plasma or a strongly ionized plasma.” ‘184 Dep. Tr. at 60:5-8; 63:7-10 (Ex.
`
`1245).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`B.
`The Board adopted the Zond’s construction that a “multi-step ionization
`
`process” is “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.” Decision,
`
`Paper No. 11, at 11.
`
`“without forming an arc”
`
`C.
`The Board noted that the specification of the ’759 Patent “discloses a
`
`process that reduces or substantially eliminates the possibility of arcing.”
`
`Decision at 23 (citing Ex. 1301 at 11:54-64, 15:49-53) (emphasis in original). Read
`
`in light of the specification, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`the claim does not require that every multi-step ionization process performed by a
`
`device be completely free of arcing. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 31 (Ex. 1323). There are
`
`multiple reasons why arcing may occur. Id.; ‘184 Dep. Tr. at 245:17-18 (Ex.
`
`1325). And Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough concedes that the claim term “without
`
`forming an arc” should be evaluated on a pulse-by-pulse basis, and as long as the
`
`prior art discloses a pulse that does not arc then the term is taught by that reference.
`
`‘184 Dep. Tr. at 244:7-13 (“the claim says, ‘a pulse’…You’re looking at a pulse,
`
`and you look at the next pulse”) (Ex. 1325); and ‘155 Dep. Tr. at 200:19-21 (“If
`
`[prior art] produces a pulse that doesn’t arc, then [prior art] meets the ‘does not
`
`arc’ part of that claim.”) (Ex. 1326).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`A. Zond’s Arguments are Based on a Flawed Premise That Ignores
`the Basic Teachings of Kudryavtsev
`
`Neither Zond nor its expert, Dr. Hartsough, addresses Kudryavtsev’s
`
`teaching that “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of ionization
`
`whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas . . .” (emphasis
`
`added). Kudryavtsev, p. 34, right col., ¶4 (Exh. 1304). In support of its teaching,
`
`Kudryavtsev clarifies that “[s]pecial experiments were conducted to verify the
`
`unimportance of such factors as the proximity of the shields and grounded objects
`
`or the shape and composition of the electrodes . . . which do not cause appreciable
`
`effects during breakdown of a cold gas.” Id. at p. 33, left col., par. 1. Despite such
`
`clear explanations, Zond improperly attempts to tie Kudryavtsev’s model to the
`
`specific dimensions and components of Kudryavtsev’s chamber. Response, p. 17 –
`
`19 (Paper No. 28). Zond’s ill-founded arguments should be rejected.
`
`Zond goes further by attempting to limit Kudryavtsev’s model to a “flash
`
`tube” that requires an arc. Response at p. 3 (Paper No. 28). Notably, Zond is
`
`unable to point to any explicit mention of a “flash tube” in Kudryavtsev, because
`
`there is none. Overzet Decl. at ¶32 (Ex. 1323). Zond fails to explain how its
`
`position comports with Kudryavtsev’s teaching that its model predicts “no well-
`
`defined plasma column,” i.e., without arcs, when parameter A (defined by equation
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`10) is less than 0 (Kudryavtsev, p. 34, left column ¶7 (Exhibit 1304)), but instead
`
`focusses on Kudryavtsev’s teachings of conditions to avoid such as a “highly non-
`
`uniform” distribution (i.e. an arc prone condition), when A is greater than zero (Id.
`
`at p. 34, left col. ¶ 6). Overzet Decl. at ¶ 32 (Ex. 1323). Again, Zond’s
`
`unsupported position contradicts and mischaracterizes the teachings of
`
`Kudryavtsev and should be dismissed.
`
`Finally, instead of teaching how to build a flash tube using an arc, as Zond
`
`asserts, Kudryavtsev suggests that ionization relaxation was of importance in areas
`
`including excimer lasers excited by pulsed electrical discharges. Overzet Decl. at ¶
`
`32 (Ex. 1323). As was well known and explained in U.S. Patent 5,247,531 to
`
`Muller-Horsche (Exh. 1329), the gas in such lasers was pre-ionized to ensure
`
`homogeneity of the plasma discharge and “to avoid arc discharges.” Overzet Decl.
`
`at ¶ 32 (Ex. 1323). A model useful only to form an arc discharge would have been
`
`of little value to excimer laser designers, whose goal was to avoid arc discharges.
`
`Again, Zond’s position is contrary to the express intent of Kudryavtsev. Muller-
`
`Horsche at 1:16-36 (Ex. 1329).
`
`Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang.
`
`B.
`Zond’s arguments directed to Wang are flawed, for among other reasons,
`
`because throughout they indiscriminately transition between two different
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`embodiments of Wang – applying statements directed from one embodiment (Fig.
`
`4) to another embodiment (Fig. 6). Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 49-50 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Wang at Figs 4 and 6 (annotated) (Ex. 1305).
`
`
`
`Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter reactor
`
`in Fig. 1, and then in connection with Figs. 4 and 6, shows and discusses two
`
`different embodiments, respectively, of pulsing a target in the reactor of Fig. 1. See
`
`Wang at 3:37-50 (Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 50-51 (Ex. 1323). These two
`
`separate and distinct embodiments are illustrated in the figures reproduced above.
`
`Further, Dr. Overzet describes and provides a chart summarizing the difference
`
`between these two embodiments. Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 51-53 (Ex. 1323).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`Stages
`
`Power or
`Voltage
`
`Arcing
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`Single stage: A single stage
`Three stages: Separate ignition
`combines ignition and
`stage, weakly ionized plasma stage,
`generation of strongly ionized
`and strongly ionized plasma stage.
`plasma. Wang at Fig. 4.
`Wang at Fig. 6.
`Where chamber impedance
`“Where chamber impedance is
`changes “relatively little,” there is
`changing, the power pulse
`no preference to specify power
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`pulse over current or voltage pulse.
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang at
`See Wang at 7:49-51.
`5:52-54
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: See Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang
`and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Wang and Kudryavtsev. See Response at 23-33 (Paper No.
`
`28). All of these arguments are based on nothing more than the alleged differences
`
`between the physical systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev and focus on bodily
`
`incorporating their systems. This is not the proper standard for determining
`
`obviousness. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-
`
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple
`
`references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). And
`
`Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, concedes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`would have understood how physical differences (such as pressure, chamber
`
`geometry, gap dimensions, magnetic field) would affect a system and understood
`
`how to adjust for such differences. ‘142 Dep. Tr. at 75:24-80:2 (Ex. 1327). As
`
`further discussed below, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood and been encouraged to combine the teachings of the Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. See also Ex. 2011 at 171:14-21.
`
`Kudryavtsev is a study of the behavior of plasma, and modeling such
`
`behavior, which is general in its application. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Kudryavtsev applies its theory to an experimental embodiment. Kudryavtsev at
`
`Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (Ex. 1304); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Kudryavtsev’s theoretical framework is not intended to be limited in application to
`
`any specific type of apparatus (flash tube or otherwise) within which plasma is
`
`discharged. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1323). In fact, while Kudryavtsev may have
`
`utilized a particular experiment to verify the disclosed model and “show[] that the
`
`electron density increases explosively in time,” Kudryavtsev provides general
`
`teachings that are applicable “whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`
`ionized gas.” Kudryavtsev at Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (Ex. 1304) (emphasis
`
`added); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Like Kudryavtsev, Wang is directed a plasma reactor with a pulsed power
`
`supply. Wang at Abstract (Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1323). During
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`peak power PP, Wang suddenly applies an electric field by way of a “negative
`
`voltage pulse” to “quickly cause[] the already existing [weakly ionized] plasma
`
`to spread and increase[] the density of the plasma.” Wang at 7:29-30; 7:62
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1323). In view of Wang’s
`
`application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Kudryavtsev
`
`to understand how plasma would react to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how
`
`to achieve an explosive increase in electron density (if not already experienced)
`
`while generating strongly ionized plasma, for the benefit of improved sputtering
`
`and manufacturing processing capabilities. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Whether there are differences in the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev is
`
`inconsequential. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1323). A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art still would have known how to apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems
`
`such as Wang’s (i.e., for performing sputtering, irrespective of different pressures,
`
`different dimensions, different sizes, magnets, and/or other feature differences). Id.
`
`(Ex. 1323). Differences in such systems are routine and a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would work with such differences on a regular basis, and would consider
`
`it routine to make any necessary changes to accommodate for any and all such
`
`variables. Id. (Ex. 1323). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that Kudryavtsev teaches that his model is applicable over a range of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`pressures based on Kudryavtsev’s Figure 3. Kudryavtsev at Fig. 3; Eqn. 12; p. 34,
`
`left col., ¶¶ 1-2 (Ex. 1304); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, testified that making such changes to a
`
`sputtering system was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`the ’759 patent. ’759 Dep. Tr. at 75:24-80:2 (Ex. 1324). In fact, Mozgrin is
`
`evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art not only would, but actually did look
`
`to and apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems similar to Wang’s. Mozgrin
`
`at p. 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols (Ex. 1303).
`
`Finally, in an effort to circumvent the Board’s explicit statement that
`
`obviousness does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements, Patent
`
`Owner Zond points to the Epistar proceeding as requiring objective evidence
`
`showing that Wang’s sputtering system would succeed if modified by the teachings
`
`of Kudryavtsev. Response at 35 (Paper No. 28); Institution Decision at 16 (Paper
`
`No. 11). The Epistar proceeding was predicated on a direct substitution of a
`
`gallium nitride buffer layer for the aluminum nitride buffer layer used in the
`
`Manabe system’s process. Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
`
`IPR2013-00298, Petition, Paper No. 4 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2013). The
`
`Epistar proceeding is inapplicable to the instant proceeding as Petitioners do not
`
`advocate substituting any characteristics of Kudryavtsev’s apparatus into Wang’s
`
`sputtering system; on the contrary, Petitioners maintain that a person of ordinary
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`skill in the art would be motivated to use Wang’s disclosed sputtering system in
`
`order to achieve Kudryavtsev’s explosive ionization increase (if it were not already
`
`occurring). Overzet Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1323). As the Board correctly recognized in
`
`its Institution Decision, Petitioners seek to combine Kudryavtsev’s teaching of
`
`multi-step ionization modeling with the Wang system, not actual substitution of
`
`Kudryavtsev’s apparatus.
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “an amplitude and a rise
`time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase an excitation rate of
`ground state atoms that are present in the weakly-ionized plasma to
`create a multi-step ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized
`plasma” recited in claim 20.
`
`Zond argues that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev fails to teach this limitation
`
`for two primary reasons. First, Zond argues that “[i]nstead of controlling a voltage
`
`pulse in the particular way required by the claims, Wang controls the power pulse.”
`
`Response at 38-41. Second, Zond argues that neither Wang nor Kudryavtsev teach
`
`choosing an amplitude and rise time of the pulse to increase the “rate at which [the
`
`excitation of ground state atoms] occurs.” Response at 41-46. These arguments
`
`mischaracterize the prior art and are incorrect. Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 44, 57, 64 (Ex.
`
`1323).
`
`Wang teaches that a magnitude (amplitude) of the voltage pulse at the
`
`power supply is selected and delivered to the reactor chamber during the peak
`
`power pulse PP. Wang at 7:19-22; 7:28-30; 9:30-40 (claim 11), Fig. 7 (Ex. 1305);
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶ 65 (Ex. 1323). Wang also teaches using a high-pass filter allowing
`
`a specific peak pulse width and rise time. Wang at 7:65-8:1, Fig. 7 (see HPF 104)
`
`(Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 65 (Ex. 1323). Dr. Hartsough concedes that a high-
`
`pass filter “could enable fast rise times.” ‘184 Dep. Tr. at 181:9-17 (Ex. 1325).
`
`Also, and like the ’759 Patent, Wang notes that the particular shape of the pulse
`
`depends on the design of the power supply. Wang at 5:25-27 (The “exact shape
`
`depends on the design of the pulsed DC power supply 80, and significant rise
`
`times . . . are expected.”) (Ex. 1305); ‘759 Patent at 11:16-19 (“The particular …
`
`shape …of the high-power pulses depend[s] on …the design of the pulsed
`
`power supply.”) (Ex. 1301).
`
`Further, Kudryavtsev teaches that when a voltage pulse is applied to a
`
`weakly ionized gas, the slow and fast stage ionization processes of his Fig. 1 result.
`
`Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶¶ 6-7 (Ex. 1304). During the slow stage,
`
`Kudryavtsev explains that the number of ground state atoms excited to the first
`
`excited state “increases rapidly” for a relatively slow change in electron density.
`
`Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶ 6 (Exhibit 1304); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 64 (Ex.
`
`1323). As the number of excited atoms increases, the electron density begins to
`
`increase as well until it reaches its maximum value equal to the rate of excitation of
`
`the ground state atoms. Id. Since the electron density rises at an ever increasing
`
`rate once steady state conditions have been reached during the fast stage, ionization
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`builds up explosively to create a strongly ionized plasma. Id at p. 31, right col., ¶ 6
`
`(Ex. 1304). This is the process recited in claim 20 as “applying a voltage pulse to
`
`the weakly ionized plasm, an amplitude and rise time of the voltage pulse being
`
`chosen to increase an excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the
`
`weakly ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process . . “
`
`Zond further argues that “Kudryavtsev discloses that the density of excited
`
`atoms (n2) remains nearly stationary or constant.” Response, p. 28 (Paper No. 28).
`
`Zond’s argument, which ignores both the language of claim 20 and the teachings
`
`of Kudryavtsev, is simply wrong.
`
`First, claim 20 calls for an increase in excitation rate of ground state atoms
`
`due to the high power voltage pulse. As discussed above, Kudryavtsev’s voltage
`
`pulse causes the number of atoms in the first excited states to increase rapidly
`
`during the first stage of ionization. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶¶ 6-7 (Exhibit
`
`1304); Overzet Decl. at ¶64 (Ex. 1323). This sudden, rapid increase in the number
`
`of excited atoms at the onset of Kudryavtsev’s voltage pulse clearly meets the
`
`requirement for an increase in rate. Zond simply ignores this response to
`
`Kudryavtsev’s pulse.
`
`Second, Zond’s argument is based on Kudryavtsev’s explanation of the
`
`second stage of ionization, after the rapid increase in excited ground state atoms
`
`takes place. The second stage occurs after and as a result of the rapid increase in
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`excited atoms in the first stage. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶¶ 6-7 (Ex. 1304);
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1323). In the second stage, equilibrium is reached
`
`between the increase in electron density and the excitation rate of ground state
`
`atoms. Id. (Ex. 1304). The number of excited atoms reaches a maximum and
`
`stabilizes, and there is an explosive increase in ionization. Id. at p. 31, right col., ¶
`
`6 - p. 32, left col., ¶ 1 (Ex. 1304). The fact that the excited atom density remains
`
`relatively constant in the second stage is irrelevant since both the first stage and the
`
`second stage occur during the high power pulse, which what the claim requires.
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶ 43, 44, 64 (Ex. 1323). Zond’s selective reading of Kudryavtsev
`
`cannot support its argument.
`
`All of the experts agree that Wang teaches a weakly and a strongly ionized
`
`plasma. ‘155 Dep. at 140:7-25 (Ex. 1326); Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 60-62 (Ex. 1323);
`
`Transcript of deposition of Dr. Kortshagen, Petitioners’ expert, for ‘142 patent at
`
`151:25-152:6 (Ex. 2011). In Wang, “a very high plasma density is produced during
`
`the pulse.” Wang at Abstract (Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 62 (Ex. 1323). Wang
`
`further notes that “the application of the high peak power PP instead quickly
`
`causes the already existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the
`
`plasma.” Wang at 7:28-30; 5:7-8 (Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 68 (Ex. 1323).
`
`This process increases the “excitation rate of ground state atoms,” as recited in the
`
`claim. Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 65-67 (Ex. 1323). Based on these teachings, a person of
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that Wang chooses the voltage
`
`pulse amplitude, width, and rise time to increase the excitation rate of the ground
`
`state atoms in the weakly ionized plasma and increase the ionization rate of its
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Id. at ¶ 68 (Ex. 1323). Either Wang’s system operates in
`
`the manner described by Kudryavtsev (which is most likely) whereby the
`
`excitation rate of ground state atoms is increased followed by a rapid increase in
`
`electron density and an explosive increase in ionization, or it would have been
`
`obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the parameters of Wang to take
`
`advantage of the explosive ionization increase described by Kudryavtsev. Id. at ¶
`
`65 (Ex. 1323).
`
`Zond also attempts to mischaracterize Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony to support
`
`their erroneous position that pulse width or length causes the explosive increase,
`
`and not the voltage amplitude or rise time. Response at 45 (Paper No. 28). It is
`
`undisputed that the voltage pulse in Kudryavtsev includes an amplitude and a rise
`
`time, and that the “excitation rate of ground state atoms” does increase as a result
`
`of the amplitude and rise time. Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 44, 45 and 64 (Ex. 1323). This
`
`limitation requires nothing more. Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches a “multi-step ionization
`process comprising exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized
`plasma without forming an arc discharge” recited in claim 20.
`
`Zond argues that “although Wang mentions reducing arcing, it never
`
`indicates that it does not have any arcing while the ground state atoms are excited
`
`to excited atoms and while the excited atoms are ionized, as required by claim
`
`20…” Response at 23 (Paper No. 28). This argument is based on an incorrect
`
`reading of the claim limitation as the Board correctly construed the limitation
`
`“without forming an arc discharge” as requiring reduction or substantial
`
`elimination of arcing because it is impossible to completely eliminate arcing and
`
`the ’759 specification discusses the reduction of arcing, not complete elimination.
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶ 71 (Ex. 1323).
`
`As a threshold matter, it is noted that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches
`
`the multi-step ionization process. Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`
`“you’ve got generation of excited atoms first and then generation of ions from
`
`those excited atoms depicted in [Kudryavtsev’s] figure” and that this “requires to
`
`distinct collisions.” ‘759 Dep. Tr. at 48:5-14 (Ex. 1324).
`
`Regarding arcing, Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough concedes that “Wang at
`
`least significantly reduced arcing.” ‘155 Dep. Tr. at 178:5-8 (Ex. 1326); ‘184 Dep.
`
`Tr. at 250:4-5 (Ex. 1325). Also, Dr. Hartsough concedes that the claim requires
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`looking at a single pulse at a time. ‘184 Dep. Tr. at 244:7-13 (Ex. 1325). Further,
`
`Dr. Hartsough concedes that Wang will not arc in every instance. ‘184 Dep. Tr. at
`
`253:15-24 (Ex. 1325). Further still, Dr. Hartsough concedes that in instances
`
`where Wang does not arc it meets the claim. ‘155 Dep. Tr. at 200:19-21 (“If Wang
`
`produces a pulse that doesn’t arc, then Wang meets the ‘does not arc’ part of
`
`that claim. They match.”) (Ex. 1326). Therefore, based on Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`testimony, Wang meets the claim limitation “without forming an arc” since at least
`
`during one pulse it will not arc.
`
`Wang, recognized that in the waveform of Fig. 4, during the
`
`ignition/generation of strongly ionized plasma from an off state with a single high
`
`power pulse, PP, the “effective chamber impedance dramatically changes” and
`
`there is “a tendency… [of] initial arcing.” Wang at 5:31, 7:3-8 (Ex. 1305); Overzet
`
`Decl. ¶ 72 (Ex. 1323). Consequently, Wang advises that “it is advantageous to use
`
`a target power waveform illustrated in Fig. 6 in which the target is maintained at a
`
`background power level.” Wang at 7:1-15(Ex. 1305); Overzet Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex.
`
`1323).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00782
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`The target power waveform illustrated in Wang’s Fig. 6, above, is
`
`advantageous because “the chamber impedance changes relatively little between
`
`the two power levels PB, PP.” thereby avoiding arcing during the transition