`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`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., and TOSHIBA CORPORATION
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 7,808,184
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00799 and 00803
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN C. BRAVMAN PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00799
`Gillette v. Zond
`Gillette 1031
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-20 ................................................. 9 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .................. 10 
`B. 
`“a voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`controlled rise time” ............................................................................ 12 
`1.  The Board’s Construction ................................................................... 12 
`2.  Patent Owner’s Proposed Narrower Construction .............................. 18 
`3.  ’184 Patent Hardware Does Not Evidence a Feedback Control System
`
`19 
`IV.  RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-20 ............................................................. 22 
`A.  General Discussion .............................................................................. 22 
`1.  Power, Voltage, and Current: Figure 8 of the ‘184 Patent is Taught by
`Wang’s Power Supplies ............................................................................ 22 
`2.  The Two Embodiments of Wang ........................................................ 25 
`3.  Kudryavtsev’s Strongly Ionized Plasma is Generated Without
`Forming an Arc ......................................................................................... 29 
`4.  Combining the Teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev ........................ 30 
`Independent Claims 1 and 11 .............................................................. 33 
`1.  Avoid Arcing ....................................................................................... 33 
`2.  Control of voltage amplitude or rise time when rapidly forming a
`strongly ionized plasma ............................................................................ 34 
`Dependent Claims 5 and 15 ................................................................ 36 
`C. 
`D.  Dependent Claims 7 and 17 ................................................................ 41 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`I, John C. Bravman, declare as follows:
`
` My name is John C. Bravman.
`1.
`
`
`
` My academic training was at Stanford University, where I received 2.
`
`my Bachelor of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering in 1979, and
`
`a Master of Science degree in 1981, also in Materials Science and Engineering. I
`
`completed my Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1984, with a dissertation that
`
`focused on the nature of silicon – silicon dioxide interfaces as found in integrated
`
`circuit devices.
`
`
`3.
`
`From 1979 to 1984, while a graduate student at Stanford, I was
`
`employed part-time by Fairchild Semiconductor in their Palo Alto Advanced
`
`Research Laboratory. I worked in the Materials Characterization group. In 1985,
`
`upon completion of my doctorate, I joined the faculty at Stanford as Assistant
`
`Professor of Materials Science and Engineering. I was promoted to Associate
`
`Professor with tenure in 1991, and achieved the rank of Professor in 1995. In 1997
`
`I was named to the Bing Professorship.
`
`
`4.
`
`At Stanford I was Chairman of the Department of Materials Science
`
`and Engineering from 1996 to 1999, and Director of the Center for Materials
`
`Research from 1998 to 1999. I served as Senior Associate Dean of the School of
`
`Engineering from 1992 to 2001 and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
`
`from 1999 to 2010. On July 1, 2010, I retired from Stanford University and
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`assumed the Presidency of Bucknell University, where I also became a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering.
`
`
`5.
`
`I have worked for more than 25 years in the areas of thin film
`
`materials processing and analysis. Much of my work has involved materials for
`
`use in microelectronic interconnects and packaging, and in superconducting
`
`structures and systems. I have also led multiple development efforts of specialized
`
`equipment and methods for determining the microstructural and mechanical
`
`properties of materials and structures.
`
`
`6.
`
`I have taught a wide variety of courses at the undergraduate and
`
`graduate level in materials science and engineering, emphasizing both basic
`
`science and applied technology, including coursework in the areas of integrated
`
`circuit materials and processing. More than two thousand students have taken my
`
`classes, and I have trained 24 doctoral students, most of whom now work in the
`
`microelectronics industry.
`
`
`7.
`
`In the course of my research, my research group made extensive use
`
`of plasma deposition equipment for creating films of both simple (e.g. elemental)
`
`and complex (e.g. multi-element compound) materials, in both homogeneous and
`
`multilayered geometries.
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of many professional societies, including the Materials
`
`Research Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`American Physical Society. I served as President of the Materials Research Society
`
`in 1994.
`
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (including a list of all publications
`
`authored in the previous 10 years) is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 (the “’184 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, 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. 1004)).
`
` 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. 1003)).
`
` Eronini Umez-Eronini “System Dynamics and Control,” 1999 (“Eronini”
`
`(Ex. 2021)).
`
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the above publications and any other publication cited
`
`in this declaration.
`
` Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`12.
`
`IPR2014-00799 and 00803, including the Petitions and the accompanying
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Declarations of Mr. Rich DeVito. As discussed below, I agree with Mr. DeVito’s
`
`conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have reviewed the Board’s
`
`Decisions on Institution, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. In addition, I have reviewed some
`
`deposition transcripts of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`
`13.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ‘184 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’184 Patent
`
`would have found the ’184 Patent invalid.
`
`
`14.
`
`I have been retained by the Petitioner as an expert in the field of
`
`plasma technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and
`
`am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450 per hour for my time.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`
`15.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’184 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’184 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`17.
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I
`
`have applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms as they
`
`would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`
`18.
`
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`19.
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, based on the ‘184 Patent and the prior art references
`
`considered here, the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the ’184
`
`Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical engineering, or chemical engineering, with
`
`two or more years practicing plasma generation methods and using plasma-based
`
`processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded these requirements for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’184 Patent.
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-20
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the declarations of Mr.
`
`DeVito provided in the above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’184 Patent
`
`and I agree with the findings of Mr. DeVito at (1) IPR No. 2014-00799, Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 113-154, captioned Ground V; and (2) IPR No. 2014-00803, Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 107-
`
`143, captioned Ground III.
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the plasma generation
`26.
`
`methods described in claims 1 through 20 of the ’184 Patent are disclosed by the
`
`prior art, and are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for
`27.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that 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 Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`course is for Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to
`
`its contentions in this proceeding. I understand that the Patent Owner has not
`
`sought to amend the claims in the above-captioned proceedings.
`
`A.
` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest
`28.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`IPR2014-00799, Petition at p. 15 (Paper No. 1); IPR2014-00803, Petition at p. 15
`
`(Paper No. 2).
`
` The Board stated “we construe the claim term ‘weakly-ionized
`29.
`
`plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,’ and the claim
`
`term ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`
`ions.’” IPR2014-00799, Decision on Institution at p.11 (Paper No. 10); and
`
`IPR2014-00803, Decision on Institution at p. 11 (Paper No. 9).
`
` For the purposes of this declaration, I’ve applied the Board’s
`30.
`
`construction, and my determination that the claims of the ’184 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies to the construction adopted by the Board. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not understand this claim term to require any
`
`specific magnitude in the peak density of ions.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
` For example, the ’184 Patent specification states: “Weakly-ionized
`31.
`
`plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are less than about 1012
`
`– 1013 cm-3 and strongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma
`
`densities that are greater than about 1012 – 1013 cm-3.” Ex. 1001 [‘184 Patent] at
`
`7:14-18. The below Schematic 1 illustrates that these ranges overlap, as described
`
`by the specification of the ’184 Patent.
`
`
`
`Schematic 1: Schematic illustrating the ranges of plasma density that satisfy a
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and a “strongly-ionized plasma” according to the ‘184
`patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ‘184 Patent specification
`32.
`
`that weakly-ionized plasma and strongly-ionized plasma can have numerically
`
`overlapping ranges of plasma density, “‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`a relatively low peak density of ions,’ and ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma
`
`with a relatively high peak density of ions.’” IPR2014-00799, Decision on
`
`Institution at p.11 (Paper No. 10); and IPR2014-00803, Decision on Institution at
`
`p. 11 (Paper No. 9).
`
` Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`33.
`
`“high-density plasma” to be the same as “strongly-ionized plasma.” These terms
`
`are used synonymously in the ‘184 Patent, as evidenced at 7:11-14. Ex. 1001
`
`[‘184 Patent] at 7:11-14 (“… and then eventually generates a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma or high-density plasma in the high-current regime according to the present
`
`invention.”).
`
` Similarly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`34.
`
`term “low-density plasma” or “pre-ionized plasma” to be the same as “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.” These terms are used synonymously in the ‘184 Patent, as
`
`evidenced at 7:44-46 (“The weakly-ionized or pre-ionized condition corresponds to
`
`an initial plasma having a relatively low (typically less than 1012−1013 cm−3)
`
`plasma density..”) and 6:57-59 (“These conditions correspond to a weakly-ionized
`
`or low-density plasma that is typical of most plasma processing systems…”). Ex.
`
`1001 [‘184 Patent] at 7:44-46 and 6:57-59.
`
`B.
`
`“a voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and
`a controlled rise time”
`1.
`
`The Board’s Construction
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the Board construed “generating a voltage pulse …
`
`having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time” as
`
`“generating a voltage pulse whose amplitude and/or rise time are directed or
`
`restrained.” IPR2014-00799, Decision on Institution at p. 12; IPR2014-00803,
`
`Decision on Institution at p. 12. I agree with this construction. My determination
`
`that the claims of the ’184 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies
`
`under this construction.
`
`
`36.
`
`It is my opinion that the claimed “generating at the output a voltage
`
`pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`encompasses generating a voltage pulse whose amplitude and/or rise time are
`
`directed or restrained to a target power level.
`
` The Board recognized that the ’184 Patent shows that there is a
`37.
`
`difference between the desired pulse and the actually generated pulse with
`
`reference to Fig. 3. IPR2014-00799, Decision on Institution at pp. 22-23;
`
`IPR2014-00803, Decision on Institution at pp. 22-23. Annotated Fig. 3 below
`
`shows the target voltage pulse in red and the actual voltage pulse in green.
`
`Consistent with the Board’s observations, the actually generated voltage pulse
`
`deviates significantly from the desired target voltage pulse.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 3 of the ‘184 patent (Ex. 1001): Target voltage pulse is shown
`in dotted red line and the actually generated voltage pulse is shown in green.
`
` This same conclusion is also supported by every other figure of the
`38.
`
`’184 Patent that shows the target and actual voltage pulses. For example, Fig. 5c
`
`of the ’184 Patent (annotated and shown below), which Patent Owner alleges
`
`shows an embodiment of “direct[ion] or restrain[t] [of] voltage,” IPR2014-00799,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at p. 22 (Paper No. 34), also shows a difference between
`
`a desired voltage pulse (annotated in red) and an actual voltage pulse (annotated
`
`in green). The ’184 Patent states with respect to Fig. 5A-5C: “The desired pulse
`
`shapes requested from the pulsed power supply 102 are superimposed in dotted
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`lines 304, 304’, and 304” onto each of the respective multi-stage voltage pulses
`
`302, 302’, and 302”.” Ex. 1001 [’184 Patent] at 11:57-61.
`
`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 5C of the ‘184 patent (Ex. 1001): Target voltage pulse is
`shown in dotted red line and the actually generated voltage pulse is shown in
`green.
`
`
` Similarly, as shown in annotated Fig. 8 of the ’184 Patent, which the
`39.
`
`Patent Owner alleges to “demonstrate[] the compelling advantages of combining
`
`voltage amplitude control with voltage rise time control,” IPR2014-00799, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at p. 14 (Paper No. 34), the actual voltage pulse again deviates
`
`significantly from the desired target voltage pulse.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 8 of the ‘184 patent (Ex. 1001): Target voltage pulse is shown
`in dotted red line and the actually generated voltage pulse is shown in green.
`
`
` Thus, based on the specification of the ‘184 Patent, control as
`40.
`
`construed using the broadest reasonable interpretation includes direction and
`
`restraint of a voltage pulse’s amplitude and rise time that do or do not exactly
`
`follow the target voltage amplitude and/or rise time.
`
` The ‘184 Patent explains why a high-density plasma was formed in
`41.
`
`Fig. 8, but not in Fig. 3. It is not because the actual voltage amplitude and rise
`
`time were directed or restrained to a target voltage amplitude and rise time.
`
`Rather, the ‘184 patent teaches that the amplitude and rise time of the voltage pulse
`
`is indirectly controlled by setting a different parameter – the power mode. As the
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`‘184 patent explains, the Fig. 8’s power supply “operates in a high-power mode
`
`throughout the duration of the voltage pulse 452,” Ex. 1001 [‘184 Patent] at 18:22-
`
`24, whereas the power supply in Fig. 3 “operat[es] in a low-power voltage mode.”
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘184 Patent] at 5:60-62. Simply put, in Fig. 8, the power supply
`
`suppl[ies] a sufficient amount of uninterrupted power to drive the plasma from the
`
`transient non-steady state to a strongly-ionized state corresponding to the current-
`
`voltage characteristic 154 of FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`Annotated Figures 3 and 8 of the ‘184 patent (Ex. 1001): Target voltage pulse is
`shown in dotted red line and the actually generated voltage pulse is shown in
`green.
`
`
` Accordingly, it is my opinion that the claimed “generating at the
`42.
`
`output a voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time” encompasses generating a voltage pulse whose amplitude
`
`and/or rise time are directed or restrained to a target power level, such as
`
`performed in Wang. Wang’s application of peak power pulses PP to generate the
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`high-density plasma corresponds to the high-power mode operation discussed in
`
`the ‘184 Patent.
`
` For these reasons, I agree with the Board that Wang’s pulses read on
`43.
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “control” of voltage amplitude or rise time
`
`in light of the teachings of the ’184 Patent specification. IPR2014-00799, Decision
`
`on Institution at pp. 21-24.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Narrower Construction
`
`2.
`I understand that Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Hartsough propose
`
`
`44.
`
`to narrow the construction adopted by the Board to include requiring that voltage
`
`amplitude or rise time be “controlled variables that are directed or restrained to a
`
`target voltage level and/or a rise time level.” IPR2014-00799, Patent Owner
`
`Response at p. 22. The proposed narrow construction is provided below, where the
`
`underlined portion includes the further restrictions requested by the Patent Owner.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Newly Proposed Construction
`
`“Generating at the output a voltage
`pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled
`rise time that increases an ionization
`rate of sputtered ion material atoms so
`that a rapid increase in electron
`density and a formation of a strongly
`ionized plasma occurs without
`forming an arc…”
`
`Generating at the output a voltage pulse
`whose amplitude and/or rise time are
`controlled variables that are directed or
`restrained to a target voltage level and/or
`a rise time level to increase an ionization
`rate of sputtered ion material atoms so that
`a rapid increase in electron density and a
`formation of a strongly ionized plasma
`occurs without forming an arc.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed the ’184 Patent claims and specification and do not
`
`agree with the Patent Owner’s newly proposed construction. In fact, allowing such
`
`a construction would effectively read out all of the embodiments from the claims,
`
`including their most “compelling” embodiment. IPR2014-00799, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response at p. 14 (Paper No. 34). As discussed above, each embodiment shown in
`
`Figs. 3-8 of the ‘184 Patent demonstrate that both the actual voltage amplitude and
`
`the rise time deviate significantly from the target voltage amplitude and rise time.
`
`3.
`
`’184 Patent Hardware Does Not Evidence a Feedback Control
`System
`
`
`
` Further, Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough argue that the “controlled 46.
`
`variables” be a variable which is “directly control[led]” by a control system,
`
`particularly in the context of a “feedback control system.” See Ex. 2015
`
`[Hartsough Decl.] at pp. 15-18.
`
`
`47.
`
`I have reviewed the ’184 Patent claims and specification and I
`
`understand that the Patent Owner proposes to import such a feedback control
`
`system from outside references and not from the disclosure of the ’184 Patent
`
`specification.
`
` One skilled in the art would not interpret the claims of the ’184 Patent
`48.
`
`to include a feedback control system. I also do not understand the ’184 Patent to
`
`explicitly or implicitly describe a feedback control system for voltage amplitude or
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`rise time. As discussed, the ’184 Patent does not disclose either the hardware or
`
`the system response of a feedback control system.
`
` Specifically, I disagree with Dr. Hartsough that the power supply
`49.
`
`mentioned in the ’184 Patent is an example of a feedback control system, such as
`
`the feedback control system disclosed by the Eronini reference. Hartsough Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 39-41. Eronini “identif[ies] components … of the system that function as the
`
`various elements in the feedback control structure – controller, actuator, control
`
`object, and sensor … If all (emphasis added) this can be done, then the system
`
`under study is a feedback control system.” Ex. 2021 [Eronini] at pp. 12-13. These
`
`components of a feedback control system are not explicitly or implicitly described
`
`as part of a power supply used to perform the claimed method of the ’155 Patent.
`
` The “PRIOR ART” Fig. 10 of the ’184 Patent is “a schematic diagram
`50.
`
`of a pulsed power supply that can generate multi-step voltage pulses according to
`
`the present invention.” Ex. 1001 [’184 Patent] at 2:22-24. Fig. 10 does not
`
`illustrate a feedback control system. In Fig. 10, there is no output feedback sensor
`
`and no feedback loop to provide the sensed output to an error calculator to
`
`compare the sensed value to the target value and provide an error to a controller to
`
`adjust for the error using an actuator.
`
` Reproduced below is Fig. 10 of ’184 Patent, which I have annotated to
`51.
`
`show the missing elements that would be present in a closed loop control system as
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`dashed lines. The annotations are supported by the control system described in the
`
`Eronini reference, Ex. 2021, Fig. 1.6 of which is also reproduced below. The
`
`missing elements demonstrate that the pulsed power supply used to generate multi-
`
`step voltage pulses of the ’184 Patent is not described as a closed loop control
`
`system.
`
`Annotated Fig. 10 of the ‘184 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`Eronini, Fig. 1.6, p. 12 (Ex. 2021)
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`52.
`
`I also have examined the other exemplary power supplies (all labeled
`
`“PRIOR ART”) offered in the specification of the ’184 Patent (Figs. 11, 12, and
`
`13). I conclude that these power supplies similarly fail to include the necessary
`
`feedback control system elements. Therefore, the ’184 Patent does not implicitly
`
`or explicitly disclose the hardware of a feedback control system.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-20
`A. General Discussion
`1.
`Power, Voltage, and Current: Figure 8 of the ‘184 Patent is
`Taught by Wang’s Power Supplies
`
`
`
` The ‘184 patent and the prior art references refer to power supplies, as 53.
`
`well as the concepts of power (P), voltage (V), and current (I). Generally, a pulsed
`
`power supply outputs a voltage pulse. The current responds to the applied voltage
`
`pulse, depending on the impedance of the load, leading to an increase in the current
`
`and a concomitant lowering of the voltage. The power follows the current and
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`rises along with the current, as schematically illustrated below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Schematic 2: Schematic illustrating how the behavior of current and power upon
`application of a voltage pulse.
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In short, and as illustrated above, to generate a power pulse, a voltage
`
`pulse with a specific amplitude and rise time is first provided by the power supply.
`
`After a period of time, the current and power will pulse with related profiles.
`
` This behavior is also taught in Wang. Wang teaches that a typical
`55.
`
`“pulsed power supply will output relative high voltage and almost no current in the
`
`ignition phase and a lower voltage and substantial current in the maintenance
`
`phase.” Ex. 1005 [Wang] at 5:32-35.
`
`
`56.
`
`I understand that Dr. Hartsough agreed during his cross-examination
`
`that Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent illustrates such a typical power supply described by
`
`Wang. Ex. 1028 [Hartsough 775 deposition transcript] at 149:22-150:20 (“Q: So
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`we can agree that Wang is explaining how a typical pulsed power supply operates;
`
`right? A: Yes. … Q: And that’s exactly what Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent is
`
`showing; right? … A: Yes.”). I have reproduced Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent below
`
`with colored annotations.
`
` Moreover, aside from the fact that Figure 5 of the 775 patent is a
`57.
`
`depiction of an idealized state and Figure 8 of the ‘184 patent shows oscillations
`
`that arise from actual measured data, it is my opinion that Figure 5 of the ’775
`
`patent behaves in nearly identical manner as Figure 8 of the ‘184 patent, which I
`
`have also reproduced below with colored annotations.
`
`
`58.
`
`In both cases, when the voltage pulse is initially applied (red region),
`
`voltage (green) is initially higher with low current (purple). Then, when the
`
`strongly-plasma is generated (blue region), the voltage (green) becomes lower with
`
`the corresponding rise in current (purple).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`Annotated Figure 8 of the ‘184 patent (Ex.
`1001): Voltage is shown in green, current is
`shown in purple, and power is shown orange.
`
`Annotated Figure 5 of the
`‘775 patent (Ex. 1032):
`Voltage is shown in green,
`current is shown in purple,
`and power is shown orange.
`This figure also illustrates
`how the typical power supply
`described by Wang operates.
`
`
`The Two Embodiments of Wang
`
`2.
`I note that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s assertions regarding
`
`
`59.
`
`Wang are flawed because their analysis generally jumps back and forth between
`
`two different embodiments, improperly applying some of Wang’s statements
`
`directed to one embodiment to the other embodiment.
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter
`60.
`
`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 Ex. 1005 [Wang] at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are
`
`shown by the figures reproduced above.
`
` While both of these embodiments show power pulses PP that can be
`61.
`
`used to form a strongly-ionized plasma, they are quite different in the manner in
`
`which they form the plasma. Specifically, the embodiment in Fig. 4 shows a graph
`
`of the power pulsing from 0 (off) to a peak power PP, while the embodiment in Fig.
`
`6 shows the power pulsing from a background power level PB to the peak power
`
`level PP. Wang’s lower power level of “0” in Fig. 4 terminates the plasma (and
`
`thus, the current) and requires that the plasma be re-ignited for each pulse. Ex.
`
`1005 [Wang] at 5:28-29 (“in this embodiment, each pulse 82 needs to ignite the
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`
`
`plasma.”). When plasma is terminated, the corresponding impedance becomes
`
`very high. Thus, in Fig. 4 a condition of near zero current occurs just before the
`
`ignit