`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 34789.106
`Filed on behalf of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
`By: David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`Richard C. Kim, Reg. No. 40,046
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR______________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 22-33, 37, 46, 48 AND 50
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters .............................................................................................. 1
`
`C. Counsel .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`D. Service Information ....................................................................................... 2
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 2
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 3
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ...................................................... 3
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge.................................................................................... 4
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology........................................................................ 4
`
`A. Plasma ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`Ions and excited atoms ................................................................................... 5
`
`V. Overview of the ‘759 Patent ................................................................................ 7
`
`A. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent .......................................... 7
`
`B. Prosecution History ........................................................................................ 7
`
`1. The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin reference ........... 7
`
`2. Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in allowance ......... 8
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References .................................................. 9
`
`A. Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................................... 9
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ..................................................................................... 9
`
`1. Summary ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs ..................................................................11
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev .............................................................................13
`
`D. Overview of Wang .......................................................................................13
`
`VII.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .............................15
`
`“multi-step ionization process” .....................................................................17
`
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition ........................................................................18
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ............................................................18
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20 ................................................................................19
`
`2. Dependent claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48 and 50 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ........................................................29
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 22-26, 28-31, 37, 46 and 48 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev ................................................................38
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20 ................................................................................39
`
`2. Dependent claims 22-26, 28-31, 37, 46 and 48 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev ............................................................46
`
`C. Ground III: Claims 27, 32, 33 and 50 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin .....................................................................53
`
`IX. Conclusion .......................................................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“Petitioner”) is the
`
`real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1301)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.)1; and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.)
`
`(Ex. 1320). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in
`
`several patents related2 to the ’759 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘759 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v. Zond, Inc., which was
`
`filed March 6, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00446. Petitioner will seek
`
`joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`
`and 42.122(b).
`
`
`1 The Petitioner is a co-defendant with Fujitsu in this lawsuit.
`
`2 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David L. McCombs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Telephone: 214-651-5533
`
`
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 22-333, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 4
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in
`
`a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5,
`
`pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1303)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`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” (Ex. 1304)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`
`3 Claims 22-23, which depend from claim 20, recite “applying the electric field.”
`
`Claims 24-29 also depend from claim 23. Claim 20 does not recite “an electric
`
`field.” Nevertheless, as shown below, the references relied upon teach “applying
`
`an electric field….”
`
`4 The ’759 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`3
`
`
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1305)), which is prior art under 102(a)
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and (e).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759
`
`Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1302))5 filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`patentable.6 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1302). The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged
`
`ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no
`
`
`5 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by TSMC. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1302 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00446 (Ex.
`
`INTEL-1302), discussed above.
`
`6 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48
`
`and 50 of the ‘759 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of
`
`the ‘759 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or
`
`electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1302).7
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target
`
`material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`manufacturing operation). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). Ions in the plasma
`
`strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). The ejected target material then forms a film on
`
`the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive
`
`release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 23 (Ex. 1302). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before
`
`the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Ions and excited atoms
`
`B.
`
`7 The term “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1302).
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1302). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex.
`
`1302). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom
`
`is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1302).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have
`
`equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). A
`
`collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state
`
`argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1302). A collision between a free, high energy,
`
`electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26
`
`(Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before the
`
`‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1302).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a so called
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a manner that
`
`avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ’759 Patent are directed to an ionization
`
`source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. A power supply then
`
`applies a specific, high-voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi-step ionization process”
`
`in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state before becoming ionized.
`
`The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`1.
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`reference
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that Mozgrin failed to teach the
`
`“without forming an arc discharge” limitation. However, that assertion is incorrect.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin teaches all limitations of the challenged
`
`claims – including “without forming an arc discharge.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex.
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1302). Mozgrin discusses arcs but does so in the context of providing a recipe for
`
`avoiding them. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1302).
`
`2.
`Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`allowance
`
`Before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to require “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three separate times, that other limitations
`
`such as “multi-step ionization” made the claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04
`
`Resp at 12 (Ex. 1307); 02/24/05 Resp at 15 (Ex. 1309); and 10/27/05 RCE at 14 (Ex.
`
`1311). The Examiner was not persuaded by those arguments, correctly noted that
`
`Mozgrin teaches multi-step ionization, and consistently rejected the claims over
`
`Mozgrin even after they had been amended to require “multi-step ionization.”
`
`01/11/06 Office Action at 12 (“…Mozgrin does teach a power supply that generates a
`
`pulse that allows the plasma to go through a multi-step ionization.” (emphasis
`
`added)) (Ex. 1312). See also 08/30/04 Office Action (Ex. 1308) and 05/27/05 Office
`
`Action (Ex. 1310).
`
`In an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the Patent Owner repeated its
`
`previously unsuccessful multi-step ionization argument, the only substantive
`
`difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an arc discharge,” and the
`
`argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation. 05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7 and 13-
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`16 (Ex. 1313). After that amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed the
`
`challenged claims. 8 10/11/2006 Allowance at 2-3 (Ex. 1315).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s argument, Mozgrin’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new or
`
`non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘759 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin9
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`8 After “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the claims, the only
`
`remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal disclaimer.
`
`08/28/2006 Response at 2-3 (Ex. 1314).
`
`9 As noted in the prosecution history section, the Patent Office used Mozgrin to
`
`reject claims that eventually issued in the’759 Patent.
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1
`
`in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime
`
`2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1302). Application
`
`of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for
`
`sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense
`
`cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1303).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex.
`
`1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1302). Increasing the current applied to the “high-
`
`current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The
`
`high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can enhance the
`
`efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3 (“…part
`
`4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1302). Further increasing the applied current
`
`causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily applied, and
`
`current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma will remain in
`
`the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s discussion of
`
`arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation of
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be avoided.
`
`See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron systems of
`
`various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit to arcs can be
`
`obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1303). One of ordinary skill
`
`would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided during an industrial
`
`application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1302). For example,
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm (“Manos”), a well-known
`
`textbook on plasma processing, which was published in 1989, over a decade before
`
`the ‘759 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a problem…” Manos at 231
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1306).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e.g., Mozgrin
`
`at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents caused the
`
`discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The parameters of the
`
`shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the condition of its transit to
`
`arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given set of the discharge
`
`parameters.”); and 406, right col, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-ionization was not necessary;
`
`however, in this case, the probability of discharge transferring to the arc mode
`
`increased.”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302).
`
`12
`
`
`
`Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc regime is
`
`useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to avoid arcs. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`46 (Ex. 1302).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1304). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes.
`
`The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are converted
`
`directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain
`
`conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g.,
`
`Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of
`
`Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and
`
`right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the dependences which had been
`
`obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1303).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’759 Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang10
`
`
`10 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24), a
`
`cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig. 7),
`
`and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-8:12 (Ex.
`
`1305). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the power Wang
`
`applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the DC power
`
`supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is generated by the
`
`pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1305); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`49 (Ex. 1302). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the plasma after ignition and
`
`application of the higher power level, PP, raises the density of the plasma. Wang at
`
`7:17-31 (“The background power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum power
`
`necessary to support a plasma... [T]he application of the high peak power, PP, quickly
`
`causes the already existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”)
`
`(Ex. 1305). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1302). Wang applies the teachings of
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1302).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.11 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The following
`
`discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those terms. Any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to
`
`seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.”
`
`
`11 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex.
`
`1302). With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘759 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and then goes on
`
`to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 304.
`
`‘759 Patent at 10:22-29; 10:66-11:4 (Ex. 1301). The ‘759 Patent also provides
`
`exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘759
`
`Patent at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`less than about 1012 cm3”); claim 33 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm3”) (Ex. 1301).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when faced
`
`with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent application,
`
`argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not just in view of the
`
`description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the claims indicates a
`
`plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ and
`
`there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943 (Ex. 1316).
`
`16
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`A multi-step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps: (a)
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and (b)
`
`convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ‘759 Patent and its file history
`
`clearly describe this aspect of a “multi-step ionization process”: “[T]he term ‘multi-
`
`step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an ionization process
`
`that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition from the ground state
`
`to at least one intermediate excited state before being fully ionized.” See 05/02/06
`
`Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1313) (emphasis added). See also ‘759 patent at 9:37-51 (Ex. 1301).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Also, during prosecution the Patent Owner argued that multi-step ionization
`
`processes must produce a statistically significant amount of ions by this two-step
`
`process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1309) (“However, the Applicant submits that the
`
`ions in the [prior art] pre-ionized plasma are generated by direction ionization and any
`
`ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization process will be statistically
`
`insignificant.”). See also, e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13, 14, 16, 17 (Ex. 1309); and
`
`10/27/05 Resp. at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1311) (emphasis added). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1302).
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The proposed construction for “multi-step ionization process” is “an ionization
`
`process in which a statistically significant portion of the ions are produced by exciting
`
`ground state atoms or molecules and then ionizing the excited atoms or molecules.
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1302), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Claim charts, which were served on the Patent Owner on February 11, 2014 in
`
`connection with District Court litigation 1:13-cv-11570-RGS, showing that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid based on the references relied upon in this Petition, is
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibits 1317 – 1319. Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those charts
`
`and agrees with them. See Kortshagen Decl. ¶¶ 59, 60, 120, and 170 (Ex. 1302).
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`A claim chart showing that claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48 and 50 are obvious in view
`
`of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1317
`
`(Ex. 1317).
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 2012
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 20 reads, “A method of generating sputtering flux.”
`
`“Flux” refers to material that is sputtered from the target. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex.
`
`1302). Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2
`
`was characterized by intense cathode sputtering…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1303).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble of claim 20. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`Limitation (a) of claim 20 reads, “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a sputtering target.”
`
`The ‘759 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘759 Patent at 6:30-32 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is also
`
`referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1301). Mozgrin’s power supply (shown in
`
`Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin at 402, right
`
`col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.… Part I in the
`
`voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization
`
`
`12 Petitioner establishes inval