throbber
Paper 48
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: August 14, 2015
`
`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., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES 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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-007821
`Patent 7,147,759 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 Cases IPR2014-00850, IPR2014-00986, and IPR2014-01059 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’759 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 1, 2014,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 11 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00850, IPR2014-00986, and
`
`IPR2014-01059 with the instant trial (Papers 14–16), and also granted a
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 32). Zond filed a
`
`Response (Paper 28 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 39 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 8, 2015, and a
`
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 47 (“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 GlobalFoundries has
`
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48,
`
`and 50 of the ’759 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-00800, IPR2014-00802, IPR2014-
`00805, IPR2014-01083, IPR2014-01086, and IPR2014-01087.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’759 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.), and
`
`identify other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’759 patent. Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 7; Ex. 1320.
`
`
`
`B. The ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 patent relates to a high-power pulsed magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus. Ex. 1301, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was a
`
`well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates. Id.
`
`at 1:6–13. The ’759 patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization—the
`
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner. Id. at 1:55–62. To address
`
`these problems, the ’759 patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`
`between the target and anode can increase the amount of ionized gas and,
`
`therefore, increase the target utilization. Id. at 2:60–62. However,
`
`increasing the power also “increases the probability of establishing an
`
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the process chamber.”
`
`Id. at 2:63–67.
`
`According to the ’759 patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`
`cathode and anode. Id. at 7:17–21. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`7:27–30, 7:65–66.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 depend, directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 20. Claims 20 and 32, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`
`20. A method of generating sputtering flux, the method
`comprising:
`
`a) ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a sputtering target;
`
`b) generating a magnetic field proximate to the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the magnetic field substantially trapping
`electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the
`sputtering target; and
`
`c) applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma,
`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,
`which comprises ions that sputter target material, from the
`the multi-step
`ionization process
`weakly-ionized plasma,
`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.
`
`Ex. 1301, 22:41–61 (emphases added).
`
`32. The method of claim 20 wherein the peak plasma density of
`the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm-3.
`
`Id. at 23:33–35.
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1
`
` July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 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. 1303, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`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) (Ex. 1304, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 26):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, and
`48
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`27, 32, 33, and 50
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`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, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949, at *5–8 (Fed. Cir.
`
`July 8, 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,”3 and “the standard was
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not
`
`interpreted in a vacuum but are part of, and read in light of, the
`
`specification. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is
`
`fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the specifications
`
`and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the invention.”). 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).
`
`
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`Claim 20 recites “the 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.” Ex. 1301, 22:57–61 (emphasis added). Prior to institution, the
`
`parties submitted their proposed claim constructions for the claim term
`
`“multi-step ionization process.” Pet. 17–18; Prelim. Resp. 20–21. In the
`
`Decision on Institution, we addressed each of the parties’ contentions, and
`
`adopted Zond’s proposed construction, in light of the Specification, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 8–9; Ex. 1301, 9:18–36. The
`
`parties do not challenge any aspect of our claim construction as to this term.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 13; Reply 2. Upon review of the present record, we discern no
`
`reason to change our claim construction. We, therefore, construe the claim
`
`term “multi-step ionization process” in light of the Specification as “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 20 recites “applying a voltage pulse . . . 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.” Ex. 1301, 22:50–55 (emphases added). During
`
`the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties also submitted their
`
`constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and “a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. In our Decision on
`
`Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light of the
`
`Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 6–8; see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1301, 10:3–6 (“This rapid ionization results in a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`having a large ion density being formed in an area proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly 216.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Zond, nor its
`
`expert witness, expressly challenged our claim constructions as to these
`
`terms (PO Resp. 13; Ex. 2005 ¶ 58), Zond improperly attempts to import
`
`extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing that specific ion density
`
`ranges for these claim terms are required, in connection with the ground of
`
`unpatentability based on Wang and Kudryavtsev (PO Resp. 46). It is well
`
`settled that if a feature is not necessary to give meaning to a claim term, it is
`
`“extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Zond does not direct us to where the Specification provides an explicit
`
`definition for these claim terms, nor do we discern one. See Paulsen,
`
`30 F.3d at 1480. We also do not share Zond’s view that Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`cross-examination testimony supports its newly proposed claim
`
`constructions, requiring specific ion density ranges. PO Resp. 46 (citing
`
`Ex. 2010, 44:13–58:12). We observe that the claim terms “weakly-ionized
`
`plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are relative terms, and that
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony merely points out that one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art possibly could have ascertained the claim scope
`
`with reasonable certainty when reading the claims in light of the
`
`Specification. See Ex. 2010, 44:13–58:12.
`
`Moreover, Zond’s newly proposed constructions that require specific
`
`ion density ranges would render at least the limitation recited in dependent
`
`claim 33 superfluous. Ex. 1301, 23:35–38 (“The method of claim 20
`
`wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater
`
`than about 1012 cm-3.”). It is well settled that “claims are interpreted with an
`
`eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon Inc. v. Straumann
`
`Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Stumbo v. Eastman
`
`Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
`
`constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). Concomitantly,
`
`“[i]t is improper for courts to read into an independent claim a limitation
`
`explicitly set forth in another claim.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.
`
`of Cal., 713 F.2d 698, 699 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Zond’s newly proposed
`
`constructions that require specific ion density ranges. Rather, 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, which adopted Zond’s
`
`originally proposed constructions. Dec. 6–8. Therefore, for purposes of this
`
`Final Written Decision, we construe, in light of the Specification, 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.”
`
`“without forming an arc discharge”
`
`Claim 20 recites, among other things, the following limitation:
`
`the 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.
`
`Ex. 1301, 22:57–61 (emphasis added).
`
`As we explained previously in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 21–
`
`22), neither the Specification nor the original disclosure of the ’759 patent
`
`recites the claim term “without forming an arc discharge.” Rather, they
`
`merely disclose a process that reduces or substantially eliminates the
`
`possibility of arcing.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’759 patent discloses:
`
`The partially ionized gas is also referred to as a weakly-ionized
`plasma or a pre-ionized plasma. As described herein, the
`formation of weakly-ionized plasma substantially eliminates
`the possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-
`power pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma. The
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substantially
`this breakdown condition
`suppression of
`eliminates the occurrence of undesirable arcing in the chamber
`202.
`
`Id. at 11:54–64 (emphases added).
`
`As previously discussed, the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized
`plasma reduces or substantially eliminates the possibility of
`establishing a breakdown condition in the chamber 202 when
`high-power pulses are applied to the plasma.
`
`Id. at 15:49–53 (emphasis added).
`
`In its Response, Zond argues that the claim term “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” should not be construed as “reduces or substantially
`
`eliminates the possibility of arcing.” PO Resp. 48–49. Zond alleges that
`
`such a construction would not be consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the word “without,” essentially urging that the claim term be
`
`construed as absolutely no arcing. Id. Zond also alleges that the disputed
`
`term cannot mean a mere reduction in the number of arc discharges. Id.
`
`Although Zond proffers examples of a young boy ordering ice cream
`
`without sprinkles and a customer ordering a hamburger without cheese (id.),
`
`Zond does not explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in the plasma
`
`art would have interpreted the claim term “without forming an arc
`
`discharge,” in light of the Specification, to require the ionization of excited
`
`atoms be performed completely free of arcing. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d
`
`1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s claim construction
`
`“cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.”); see
`
`also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that the
`
`Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one that those
`
`skilled in the art would reach.”). Nor does Zond direct our attention to
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`credible evidence that would support its attorney’s arguments regarding the
`
`disputed claim term at issue. See PO Resp. 48–49.
`
`One with ordinary skill in the plasma art would have recognized that,
`
`unlike ice cream sprinkles or cheese that can be avoided altogether simply
`
`by not adding them, electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering
`
`apparatus occurs naturally under certain processing conditions.
`
`Dr. Lawrence J. Overzet testifies that “I expect that arcing will not be wholly
`
`eliminated in sputtering systems and arc-arrestor circuitry in the power
`
`supplies will continue to be required,” and that “[t]here are multiple reasons
`
`why arcing may occur, and while the multi-step ionization process disclosed
`
`in the ’759 patent may reduce or substantially eliminate the possibility of
`
`arcing, arcing may still occur during certain instances.” Ex. 1323 ¶¶ 31, 70–
`
`71. We credit the testimony of Dr. Overzet as it is consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’759 patent. Ex. 1301, 11:54–64, 15:49–53.
`
`It is well settled that “[a] claim construction that excludes the
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
`
`persuasive evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`
`Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A construction that
`
`excludes all disclosed embodiments, as urged by Zond here, is especially
`
`disfavored. MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323,
`
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In short, claim construction requires claim terms to
`
`be read so that they encompass the very preferred embodiment they
`
`describe, i.e. formation of a weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma in a multi-
`
`step ionization process. See On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-
`
`Elmer, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that no arcing occurs
`
`when the excited atoms are ionized within the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Rather, it explicitly states that “the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`
`substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a breakdown condition
`
`when high-power pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma,” and “the
`
`suppression of this breakdown condition substantially eliminates the
`
`occurrence of undesirable arcing in the chamber.” Ex. 1301, 11:58–63
`
`(emphases added). Given the disclosure in the Specification, we decline to
`
`adopt Zond’s proposed construction—absolutely no arcing—because it
`
`would be unreasonable to exclude the disclosed embodiments. See Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that
`
`the Specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.”). Instead, we construe the claim term “without forming an arc
`
`discharge” as “substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing,” consistent
`
`with an interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach when
`
`reading the claim term in the context of the Specification.
`
`
`
`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;
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(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
`
`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 1259. 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. Claims 22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, and 48—Obviousness over the
`Combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 22–26, 28–31, 37, 46, and 48 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 38–53. In support of the asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability, GlobalFoundries explains how the combination of the prior
`
`art technical disclosures collectively meets each claim limitation and
`
`articulates a rationale to combining the teachings. Id. at 9–13, 38–59.
`
`GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen
`
`(Ex. 1302) to support its Petition, and a Declaration of Dr. Overzet
`
`(Ex. 1323) to support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zond responds that the combination of prior art does not disclose
`
`every claim element. PO Resp. 36–60. Zond also argues that there is
`
`insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Id. at 14–35. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`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 Wang and Kudryavtsev, and then we
`
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1305, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a magnetron
`
`sputtering system:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10
`
`includes anode 24, cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power
`
`supply 80, as well as pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20.
`
`Id. at 3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating
`
`high density plasma in region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the
`
`sputtered particles into positively charged metal ions and also increases the
`
`sputtering rate. Id. at 4:13–34. Magnet assembly 40 creates a magnetic field
`
`near target 14, which traps electrons from the plasma to increase the electron
`
`density. Id. at 4:23–27. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of
`
`the sputtered particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly
`
`and effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`
`(e.g., 1 kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 125–26, 134–35.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process, exciting
`
`the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms. Ex. 1304, Abs., Figs. 1, 6. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev,
`
`reproduced below (with annotations added by GlobalFoundries (Pet. 26)),
`
`illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages of
`
`ionization:
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows “the rapid increase in ionization once
`
`multi-step ionization becomes the dominant process.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 78.
`
`Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1304, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`Increasing excitation rate
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon Wang to disclose all of the method steps
`
`recited in claims 20, 22–33, 37, 46, 48, and 50—namely, a method of
`
`generating sputtering flux that includes: (1) ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma; (2) generating a magnetic field; and (3) applying a
`
`voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization
`
`process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma without forming an arc
`
`discharge. Pet. 38–59. Indeed, Wang discloses these claim features.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1305, Abs., Fig. 1. For instance, Wang discloses a variable DC
`
`power supply that is connected to the sputtering target, supplying a constant
`
`negative voltage to the target, ionizing a feed gas, such as argon, to generate
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at 4:5–6, 7:17–31, Figs. 6–7.
`
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on: (1) whether the prior art
`
`combination renders obvious the effect or result limitations—the purportedly
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`improved plasma characteristics resulted from applying a voltage pulse to a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma; and (2) whether GlobalFoundries has articulated a
`
`reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the prior art teachings. For example, claim 20 recites
`
`“applying a voltage pulse . . . to increase an excitation rate of ground state
`
`atoms.” Ex. 1301, 22:50–53 (emphasis added). GlobalFoundries relies
`
`upon Wang to disclose a pulsed power supply that generates a series of
`
`voltage pulses, applying peak power pulses to a weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Pet. 41–46 (citing Ex. 1305, 7:19–39, Figs. 6, 7). Although Wang discloses
`
`applying a voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized plasma to increase the density
`
`of the plasma quickly without arcing (Ex. 1305, 7:1–8:13, Figs. 6, 7), Wang
`
`does not describe expressly increasing excitation rate of the ground state
`
`atoms.
`
`Nevertheless, GlobalFoundries asserts that Wang’s disclosed power
`
`levels of the power pulses fall within the ranges disclosed in the ’759 patent,
`
`and therefore, “Wang is as likely as the ’759 patent to increase the excitation
`
`rate of ground state atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma and to cause
`
`multi-step ionization.” Pet. 43–45 (citing Ex. 1305, 7:19–25); Ex. 1301,
`
`Fig. 5. Dr. Overzet testifies (Ex. 1323 ¶ 83) and Zond’s expert,
`
`Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 1324, 99:14–23), that “the ionization rate of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is higher than that in the weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Dr. Overzet further testifies that when generating a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`from a weakly-ionized plasma, the ionization rate will increase. Ex. 1323
`
`¶ 83.
`
`GlobalFoundries further alleges that, even if Wang does not disclose
`
`an increase in ionization rate, it would have been obvious, in light of
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev’s teaching of an “explosive increase” in plasma density, to
`
`adjust Wang’s operating parameters to trigger a fast stage of ionization.
`
`Pet. 44–45. According to GlobalFoundries, triggering such a fast stage of
`
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would increase plasma density, thereby
`
`increasing the sputtering rate, and reducing the time required to reach a
`
`given plasma density. Id.
`
`Zond counters that GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the systems of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev to achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of
`
`success or predictable results. PO Resp. 14–35. In particular, Zond
`
`contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into consideration the
`
`substantial, fundamental structural differences between the systems of Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap dimensions, and
`
`magnetic fields. Id. at 23–33 (citing e.g., Ex. 1304, 32; Ex. 2005 ¶ 102;
`
`Ex. 1305, 4:35–37, Fig. 1). Zond also argues that GlobalFoundries fails to
`
`provide experimental data or other objective evidence to show that Wang’s
`
`system as modified would produce the claimed result. Id. at 34–35
`
`(citing Epistar v. Trs. of Boston Univ., Case IPR2013-00298 (PTAB Nov.
`
`15, 2013) (Paper 18)).
`
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments focus
`
`on bodily incorporating one system into the other. Reply 3–10.
`
`GlobalFoundries alleges that Zond improperly attempts to tie Kudryavtsev’s
`
`model on plasma characteristics to the particular dimensions and
`
`components of the apparatus used in the experiments that support
`
`Kudryavtsev’s model. Id. at 3, 6–7. According to GlobalFoundries, one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art would have understood how the structural
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00782
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differences would affect a magnetically enhanced sputtering system, and
`
`how to adjust for these differences to obtain the desired result. Id. at 6–7.
`
`GlobalFoundries also contends that Epistar, cited by Zond, which involved a
`
`direct substitution of a gallium layer for an aluminum layer, is inapplicable
`
`to the particular facts in the instant proceeding, because the prior art
`
`combination here does not involve substitution of one apparatus feature for
`
`another. Id. at 9–10.
`
`Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are persuaded by
`
`GlobalFoundries’s contentions. GlobalFoundries merely relies upon
`
`Kudryavtsev’s teaching that an increase in the excitation rate is achieved by
`
`applying a voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 43–45.
`
`We also agree with GlobalFoundries that Zond’s reliance on its
`
`interpretation of Epistar, a non-precedential Board decision, is misplaced.
`
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, phy

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket