`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 55
`
`Entered: October 2, 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., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-008001
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00844, IPR2014-00991, and IPR2014-01037 have been
`joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 8,
`
`10–13, 15–17, 22–25, 27–30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’421 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 15–17, 22–25,
`
`27–30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 46–38 (“the challenged claims”) of
`
`the ’421 patent. TSMC included a Declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1002) to support its positions. Zond (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), on October 6, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of the
`
`challenged claims to determine if claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25, 28–
`
`30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Wang,2 and if claims 15, 27, and 38 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang and Mozgrin.3
`
`Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 B1, issued July 2, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`3 D.V. Mozgrin et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted revised Motions for Joinder
`
`filed by other Petitioners listed in the Caption above, joining Cases
`
`IPR2014-00844, IPR2014-00991, and IPR2014-01037 with the instant trial
`
`(Papers 12, 13), and also granted a Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to
`
`TSMC (Paper 32).4 Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27,
`
`“PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 2015) to support its positions. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 45,
`
`“Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a Declaration of
`
`Lawrence J. Overzet, Ph.D. (Ex. 1027). An oral hearing5 was held on
`
`June 8, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 54
`
`(“Tr.”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’421 patent was asserted against
`
`Petitioner, as well as other defendants, in seven district court lawsuits
`
`pending in the District of Massachusetts. Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`C.
`
`The ’421 Patent
`
`The ’421 patent relates to a method and apparatus for high-deposition
`
`sputtering. Ex. 1001, Abstract. At the time of the invention, sputtering was
`
`
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1003).
`4 We refer to the remaining parties, listed in the Caption above, collectively,
`as “Petitioner” throughout this Decision.
`5 The oral arguments for IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-00782, IPR2014-00800,
`IPR2014-00802, IPR2014-00805, IPR2014-01083, IPR2014-01086, and
`IPR2014-01087 were consolidated.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`a well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates.
`
`Id. at 1:15–16. As discussed in the ’421 patent, prior art magnetron
`
`sputtering systems deposited films having low uniformity, poor target
`
`utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform manner), and
`
`relatively low deposition rate (low amount of material deposited on the
`
`substrate per unit time). Id. at 1:63–2:14. The ’421 patent discloses that
`
`increasing the power applied to the plasma, in an attempt to increase the
`
`target utilization and sputtering yield, can also “increase[] the probability of
`
`establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`
`process chamber.” Id. at 3:20–29.
`
`The ’421 patent further discloses that using pulsed power can reduce
`
`the probability of establishing an electrical breakdown condition, but that
`
`large power pulses still can result in undesirable electrical discharges. Id. at
`
`3:30–38. According to the ’421 patent, however, first 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 the anode.” Id. at 9:16–19. Once a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are applied between
`
`the cathode and anode to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at 9:29–31, 10:8–9. The “probability of
`
`establishing a breakdown condition is substantially eliminated because the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical
`
`conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity greatly reduces or
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`prevents the possibility of a breakdown condition, even when high power is
`
`applied to the plasma.” Id. at 9:23–28.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 17, 34, and 46–48 are
`
`independent. Claims 2, 8, 10–13, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1.
`
`Claims 22–25, 27–30, and 33 depend from claim 17. Claims 38, 39, 42,
`
`and 43 depend from claim 34. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced as
`
`follows:
`
`1. A sputtering source comprising:
`
`a) a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering target that
`is positioned adjacent to an anode; and
`
`b) a power supply that generates a voltage pulse between
`the anode and
`the cathode assembly
`that creates a
`weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing
`between the anode and the cathode assembly, an amplitude, a
`duration and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to
`increase a density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:14–24.
`
`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 In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms
`
`generally 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
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). 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.”) (citations omitted).
`
`An inventor may provide a special definition of the term in the
`
`specification, as long as this is done so “with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, however, limitations are not to be
`
`read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Each of the independent claims recites “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Ex. 1001, 22:18–20, 23:14–16, 24:17–19, 25:5–7, 25:16–26:2,
`
`26:10–12. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of each of these claim terms. Inst. Dec. 8–10; see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:24–25 (“the weakly-ionized plasma 232 has a low-level of
`
`ionization”), 12:11–12 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is also referred to
`
`as a high-density plasma.”). Neither party has challenged our claim
`
`constructions as to these terms. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2015 ¶ 20; Reply 2;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 26–28. Upon consideration of the complete record now before
`
`us, we discern no reason to change our claim constructions set forth in the
`
`Institution Decision with respect to these claim terms. See Inst. Dec. 8–10.
`
`Therefore, 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 an occurrence of arcing”
`
`Each of the independent claims recites “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`without an occurrence of arcing between the anode and the cathode
`
`assembly.” Ex. 1001, 22:18–22, 23:14–18, 24:17–20, 25:5–9, 25:16–26:4,
`
`26:10–14. We did not provide an express construction of the claim term
`
`“without an occurrence of arcing” in our Institution Decision. The
`
`Specification of the ’421 patent does not recite or explicitly define this claim
`
`term. Rather, it discloses a process that reduces or substantially eliminates
`
`the possibility of the occurrence of arcing when high-power pulses are
`
`applied to a pre-ionized plasma.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’421 patent discloses:
`
`Forming a weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`breakdown condition in the chamber 202 when high-power
`pulses are applied between the cathode assembly 216 and the
`anode 238. . . . The probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition is substantially eliminated because the weakly-
`ionized plasma has a low-level of ionization that provides
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`electrical conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity
`greatly reduces or prevents the possibility of a breakdown
`condition when high power is applied to the plasma.
`
`Id. at 9:16–28 (emphases added).
`
`As described herein, the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`262 substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a
`breakdown condition when high-power pulses are applied to the
`weakly-ionized plasma 262.
` The suppression of
`this
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of
`undesirable arcing between the anode 238 and the cathode
`assembly 216.
`
`Id. at 15:66–16:5 (emphases added).
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues both that the claims require
`
`creation of the weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing (see,
`
`e.g., PO Resp. 11, 14, 16, 18, 28; Tr. 59:22–62:7), and that “[w]hile the
`
`presence of pre-ionized plasma in figure 6 [of Wang] reduces the likelihood
`
`of arcing, Wang never says that the background power PB entirely
`
`eliminated arcing after ignition” (PO Resp. 33, citations omitted).
`
`We first address Patent Owner’s argument that the claims require no
`
`arcing during creation of the weakly-ionized plasma. Here, Patent Owner
`
`improperly attempts to import extraneous limitations into the claim by
`
`arguing repeatedly that the claims require that arcing is avoided, even on
`
`plasma ignition. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11, 14, 16, 18, 28; Tr. 59:22–62:7.
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation, however, is not consistent with the language
`
`of the claims, particularly when considered in view of the Specification.
`
`The plain claim language of the independent claims, which recite “creat[ing]
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma without an
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`occurrence of arcing,” supports a claim construction where the claim phrase
`
`“without an occurrence of arcing” modifies only the portion of the claim
`
`reciting the transition to a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma. Further, as seen in the quoted portions of the Specification set forth
`
`above, the Specification of the ’421 patent describes the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma as substantially eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition, and
`
`thus arcing, when the high-power pulses are applied across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s assertion
`
`that the setup of a breakdown condition, or arcing, also be substantially
`
`eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma itself is formed. In fact, the
`
`Specification indicates that it is the presence of the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`that provides for the ability to substantially eliminate arcing when the high-
`
`power pulses are applied. See Ex. 1001, 9:16–28, 15:66–16:5. Accordingly,
`
`we decline to construe the claims to require creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma without an occurrence 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”).
`
`We now address Patent Owner’s focus on the distinction between
`
`reducing versus eliminating. See PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner does not
`
`explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in the plasma art would have
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`interpreted the claim term “without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition,” in light of the Specification, to require the transformation of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma with a guarantee of
`
`eliminating all possibility of arcing. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d at 1288;
`
`In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1358. One with ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have recognized that electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering
`
`apparatus occurs naturally under certain processing conditions. In this
`
`regard, Dr. Overzet testifies that “[a] person of skill in the art would
`
`recognize that arcing is undesirable and it is always the goal to completely
`
`prevent arcing from occurring. However, it is not possible to construct a
`
`perfect system and there is always a possibility that a system will arc.”
`
`Ex. 1027 ¶ 51 (emphases added). We credit the testimony of Dr. Overzet as
`
`it is consistent with the Specification of the ’421 patent, which discloses
`
`only that the possibility of arcing is “substantially eliminated” or “greatly
`
`reduced.” Ex. 1001, 9:16–28, 15:66–16:5.
`
`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) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). A construction that excludes all disclosed embodiments, as urged
`
`by Patent Owner 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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`preferred embodiment they describe. On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
`
`Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that the possibility of
`
`arcing is completely eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`transformed to a strongly-ionized plasma. Rather, it explicitly states that
`
`“the formation of weakly-ionized plasma 262 substantially eliminates the
`
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power pulses are
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 262,” and “[t]he suppression of this
`
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of undesirable
`
`arcing between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.” Ex. 1001,
`
`15:66–16:5 (emphases added).
`
`Given the disclosure in the Specification, we decline to construe the
`
`claims to require the transformation of the weakly-ionized plasma to a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma occur with a guarantee of eliminating all possibility
`
`of an electrical breakdown condition or arcing, because it would be
`
`unreasonable to exclude the disclosed embodiments, all of which stop short
`
`of such a guarantee. 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 developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as
`
`“substantially eliminating the possibility of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber,” 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. Additionally, as noted above, we also
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`decline to construe the claims to require formation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma without an occurrence of arcing, and instead, consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’421 patent, determine the “without an occurrence of
`
`arcing” language modifies only the creation of the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`from the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`Each of the independent claims recites “a voltage pulse . . . that
`
`creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma.”6 Ex. 1001, 22:18–20, 23:14–16, 25:5–7,
`
`25:16–26:2, 26:10–12. We did not provide an express construction of the
`
`term “creates” in our Institution Decision.
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner proposes the phrase “creates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “ignites a gas from a state
`
`in which there is no plasma to a state in which a plasma exists, wherein the
`
`plasma is initially a weakly-ionized plasma . . . .” PO Resp. 22. In support
`
`of its proposed construction, Patent Owner identifies the following portions
`
`of the Specification in support of its construction (PO Resp. 18):
`
`
`
`6 Claim 34 recites, similarly, a “voltage pulse creating a weakly-ionized
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma.” Ex. 1001, 24:17–19.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`In operation, the pulsed power supply 102 applies a
`voltage pulse between the cathode assembly 114 and the anode
`130 that has a sufficient amplitude to ionize the argon feed gas
`in the vacuum chamber 104.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:13–15.
`
`The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a
`weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between
`the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.
`
`Id. at 8:19–21.
`
`In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234
`generates a low power pulse . . . in order to generate the
`weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Id. at 8:29–34.
`
`Patent Owner also cites to Dr. Kortshagen’s deposition, in which he
`
`testified the mechanism of the “creation of a plasma” is “typically referred to
`
`as ignition of the plasma where you go from a state where you do not have a
`
`plasma present to a state where you now have a plasma present.” PO
`
`Resp. 19; Ex. 2017, 12:13–24. Patent Owner further contends that
`
`Petitioner’s discussion of Wang in the Petition suggests Petitioner uses
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma” to refer to “ignition of a gas to cause a
`
`plasma to come into existence.” PO Resp. 19–20.
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`improperly reads an “ignite” limitation into the claims. Reply 2. Petitioner
`
`argues the Specification of the ’421 patent describes other embodiments that
`
`support a broader interpretation of “creates,” and proposes the term should
`
`be construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning or an explicit
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`construction of “forms or generates.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:42–44,
`
`16:48–51).
`
`Initially, we note Patent Owner has not identified, nor do we find, any
`
`portion of the Specification of the ’421 patent that explicitly defines the term
`
`“creates.” The ’421 patent describes choosing characteristics of a voltage
`
`pulse such that an electric field develops that creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma. Ex. 1001, 11:14–20. However, the ’421 patent also uses the term
`
`“creates” in various other contexts. For example, the ’421 patent describes
`
`strongly-ionized plasma tends to diffuse homogenously in region 264, which
`
`“creates a more homogeneous plasma volume,” and the high power pulse
`
`“creates strongly-ionized plasma.” Id. at 12:16–19, 20:22–24. The ’421
`
`patent further describes an initial voltage that “creates a plasma discharge
`
`voltage.” Id. at 8:53–56.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would interpret “creates a weakly-ionized plasma” as
`
`suggested (PO Resp. 18–22). In its Motion on Observations, Patent Owner
`
`further argues that Dr. Overzet’s deposition testimony supports its proposed
`
`construction. Paper 48, 1–5. We are not persuaded, however, that Dr.
`
`Overzet’s cited testimony supports Patent Owner’s proposal, nor is it
`
`necessary for construction of the claims; instead, we determine the meaning
`
`of the claim limitation is apparent from the intrinsic evidence alone.
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we determine that “creates” would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean “to bring into
`
`existence,” consistent with the use of the word in the Specification and the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`plain and ordinary meaning thereof. See Create Definition, Merriam-
`
`Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 271 (10th edition 2000). Furthermore,
`
`the ’421 patent does not explicitly define “creates a weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`While Patent Owner provides examples described in the Specification
`
`(PO Resp. 18), we will not import the suggested “ignition” limitation into
`
`the claim. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim
`
`language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
`
`description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
`
`a part of the claim.”).
`
`As such, we interpret the term “creates a weakly-ionized plasma” as
`
`“brings into existence a weakly-ionized plasma,” and do not limit the claim
`
`to a circumstance that the gas is ignited from a state in which there is no
`
`existing plasma, as proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`“pulse”
`
`Each of claims 1, 17, and 46–48 recites “a power supply that
`
`generates a voltage pulse.”7 Ex. 1001, 22:17, 23:13, 25:4, 25:15, 26:9.
`
`Patent Owner asserts the term “pulse” should be given its ordinary meaning,
`
`but does not proffer any “formal construction.” PO Resp. 17. Petitioner
`
`proposes we construe “pulse” as “a property (e.g., voltage, current, or
`
`power) that is applied over a period of time.” Reply 6.
`
`
`
`7 Claim 34 recites, similarly, “generating a voltage pulse.” Ex. 1001, 24:15.
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`The parties’ dispute with respect to this term focuses on the
`
`application of the cited art to the claims, rather than on a particular meaning
`
`of the term itself. For this reason, we do not provide an express construction
`
`for this term. Instead, we address the parties’ arguments regarding the usage
`
`of the term “pulse” in more detail below, in the context of applying the cited
`
`art to the claims.
`
`B.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently
`
`describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v.
`
`Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal
`
`Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). 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.
`
`Anticipation by Wang
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, 16, 17, 22–25,
`
`38–30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, and 46–48 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`as anticipated by Wang. Pet. 33–50. Petitioner explains how each claim
`
`limitation is disclosed in Wang. Id. Petitioner also relies on the
`
`Declarations of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002) and Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1027) to
`
`support its Petition and Reply, respectively. Patent Owner responds that
`
`Wang does not disclose every claim element, relying on the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 2015) to support its Response. PO Resp. 23–50.
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang, and then we address the
`
`parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1004, Abstract. 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 cross-sectional view
`
`of a magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Ex. 1004, 3:57–
`
`4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus creates high-density plasma in
`
`region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`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. 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.
`
`Ex. 1004, 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum
`
`power 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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`background power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of
`
`peak power PP. Ex. 1002 ¶ 100; see Pet. 35–36. In Wang, background
`
`power PB may be generated by DC power supply 100 and peak power PP
`
`may be generated by pulsed power supply 80. Ex. 1004, 7:56–64, Fig. 7;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 40.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 17, 34, and 46–48
`
`As indicated above, Petitioner explains how each limitation of the
`
`independent claims is disclosed in Wang. Pet. 33–44. For example,
`
`regarding claim 1, Petitioner contends that anode 24 and the cathode
`
`assembly, including sputtering target 14, of Wang disclose the claimed
`
`cathode assembly adjacent an anode. Id. at 33–34; Ex. 1004, 3:33–4:1;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 96. Petitioner further contends that the combination of DC
`
`power supply 100 and pulsed DC power supply 80, the outputs of each of
`
`being coupled to cathode target 14, discloses the claimed power supply that
`
`generates a voltage pulse. Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1004, 3:66–4:1, 7:58–62, Figs. 1,
`
`6, 7; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 97–99. According to Petitioner, DC power supply 100 of
`
`Wang supplies background power PB that generates a low density plasma,
`
`thus disclosing creating a weakly-ionized plasma, and pulsed DC power
`
`supply 80 of Wang supplies peak power PP that generates a high density
`
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma, thus disclosing creating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1004, 7:17–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 100–
`
`101. Petitioner contends that Wang also discloses forming the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma without arcing. Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1004, 7:3–6, 7:13–28, 7:47–
`
`49, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 102–103. Petitioner further contends that Wang
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00800
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`discloses the voltage pulse having an amplitude, duration, and/or rise time to
`
`result in an increased density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Pet. 37–39; Ex. 1004, 5:23–26, 7:19–30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 104–105. In its
`
`discussion of claims 17, 34, and 46–48, Petitioner primarily refers back to its
`
`discussion of corresponding l