`
`Entered: October 1, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,808,184 B2 (“the ’184 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of TSMC’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail
`
`in challenging claims 6–10 and 16–20 (“the challenged claims”) as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`
`hereby authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 6–10 and
`
`16–20 of the ’184 patent based on the specific grounds discussed below.
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`TSMC indicates that the ’184 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Intel Corp., No.1:13-cv-11570-RGS (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. TSMC also
`
`identifies other cases where Zond asserted the claims of the ’184 patent. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`B. Related Inter Partes Reviews
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Revised Petition to institute an inter
`
`partes review in IPR2014-00456, challenging the same claims based on the
`
`same grounds of unpatentability as those in the instant proceeding.
`
`Compare IPR2014-00456, Paper 4 (“’456 Pet.”), 3–58, with Pet. 4–59;
`
`Pet. 1 (stating challenged claims of the ’184 patent “are presently the subject
`
`of a substantially identical petition for inter partes review” in Intel Corp. v.
`
`Zond, IPR2014-00456 (PTAB)). On September 3, 2014, we instituted an
`
`inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 of the ’184 patent in IPR2014-
`
`00456 (Paper 12, “’456 Dec.”), based on the grounds that claims 6, 7, 9, 10,
`
`16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev, and that claims 8 and 18 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. Id. at
`
`30–31. The trial, however, was terminated in light of the Written Settlement
`
`Agreement, made in connection with the termination of the proceeding in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b), between Intel
`
`and Zond. IPR2014-00456, Papers 14, 15; IPR2014-00455, Ex. 1025.
`
`TSMC has filed a Motion for Joinder, seeking to join the instant proceeding
`
`with Intel Corp. v. Zond, LLC., Case IPR2014-00456 (PTAB). Paper 6
`
`(“Mot.”). In view of the termination of the Intel Proceeding, however,
`
`TSMC’s Motion for Joinder is dismissed as moot in a separate decision.
`
`The following Petitions for inter partes review also challenge the
`
`same claims based on the same grounds of unpatentability as those in
`
`IPR2014-00456 and in the instant proceeding: Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v.
`
`Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00858, Paper 1; The Gillette Co. v Zond, LLC,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00996, Paper 3; and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Zond,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01061, Paper 2.
`
`C. The ’184 patent
`
`The ’184 patent relates to methods for generating strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas in a plasma generator. Ex. 1101, Abs. When creating a plasma in a
`
`chamber, a direct current (“DC”) electrical discharge, which is generated
`
`between two electrodes with a feed gas, generates electrons in the feed gas
`
`that ionize atoms to create the plasma. Id. at 1:16–20. For an application,
`
`such as magnetron plasma sputtering, a relatively high level of energy must
`
`be supplied, which may result in overheating the electrodes or the work
`
`piece. Id. at 1:21–26. Such overheating may be addressed by complex
`
`cooling mechanisms, but such cooling can cause temperature gradients in the
`
`chamber causing a non-uniform plasma process. Id. at 1:26–30. These
`
`temperature gradients may be reduced by pulsing the DC power, but high-
`
`power pulses may result in arcing at plasma ignition and termination. Id. at
`
`1:31–36. Arcing is problematic because it can cause the release of
`
`undesirable particles in the chamber thereby contaminating the work piece.
`
`Id. at 1:36–37, 4:8–11.
`
`According to the ’184 patent, a pulsed power supply may include
`
`circuitry that minimizes or eliminates the probability of arcing in the
`
`chamber by limiting the plasma discharge current to a certain level and
`
`dropping the generated voltage for a certain period of time if the limit is
`
`exceeded. Id. at 4:6–15. Figure 2, reproduced below, shows measured data
`
`of discharge voltage as a function of discharge current for admitted prior-art,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`low-current plasma 152, and high-current plasma 154 created by the claimed
`
`methods using the pulsed power supply. Id. at 1:58–60.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows current-voltage characteristic 154 that represents
`
`actual data for plasma generated by the pulsed power supply in the plasma
`
`sputtering system depicted in Figure 1 (not reproduced here). Id. at 5:28–30.
`
`The current-voltage characteristic 154 is in a high-current regime that
`
`generates a relatively high plasma density (greater than 1012–1013 cm-3). Id.
`
`at 5:40–43. The pulsed power supply generates waveforms that create and
`
`sustain the high-density plasma with current-voltage characteristics in the
`
`high-current regime. Id. at 5:55–59. The ’184 patent explicitly defines the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`term “high-current regime” as “the range of plasma discharge currents that
`
`are greater than about 0.5 A/cm2 for typical sputtering voltages of between
`
`about -300V to -1000V. The power density is greater than about 250 W/cm2
`
`for plasmas in the high-current regime.” Id. at 5:43–48.
`
`The ’184 patent also describes a multi-stage ionization process
`
`wherein a multi-stage voltage pulse that is generated by the pulsed power
`
`supply creates a strongly-ionized plasma. See id. at 2:1–3; 7:4–7 (describing
`
`Figure 4 (not reproduced here) as such an example); id. at 14:50–15:46
`
`(describing Figure 5C (not reproduced here) as an illustrative multi-stage
`
`voltage pulse). Such a multi-stage voltage pulse initially generates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma in a low-current regime (shown as 152 in Figure 2
`
`above), and then eventually generates a strongly-ionized or high-density
`
`plasma in a high-current regime. Id. at 7:10–13. “Weakly-ionized 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.” Id. at 7:14–18.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`All of the challenged claims are dependent on either independent
`
`claim 1 or 11. Challenged claims 6 through 10 depend from claim 1, and
`
`challenged claims 16 through 20 depend from claim 11. Claim 1,
`
`reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. A method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma, the
`method comprising:
`
`a) supplying feed gas proximate to an anode and a cathode
`assembly; and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`b) generating a voltage pulse between the anode and the
`cathode assembly, the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time that increases
`an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron density
`and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma occurs without
`forming an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly.
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:24–54 (emphasis added). TSMC characterizes the challenged
`
`dependent claims as “directed to further operational details, such as moving
`
`a magnet, characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur during the
`
`generation of the voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.” Pet. 8.
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`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. 1103) (“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 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1104) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1107) (“Mozgrin
`Thesis”).1
`
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. TSMC provided a
`certified English-language translation (Ex. 1106).
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`6–10 and 16–20
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`8 and 18
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`III. 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). 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).
`
`In the instant proceeding, TSMC proposes a construction of the terms
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–15. Zond
`
`offers its own construction of these two terms in addition to a construction of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`a “voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time.” Prelim. Resp. 11–16 (emphases added). We address
`
`each of the claim terms identified by the parties in turn.
`
`1. “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Both independent claims 1 and 11 recite “formation of a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.” TSMC proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized
`
`plasma” should be interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the
`
`claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher
`
`density plasma.” Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted). TSMC notes that the ’184
`
`patent provides exemplary densities for weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas. Id. at 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1101, 7:14–17 (“Weakly-ionized
`
`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.”)).
`
`TSMC’s contention is supported by the declaration of Dr. Richard DeVito.
`
`Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1102); Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 45–48. In his declaration, Dr.
`
`DeVito defines the term “density” in the context of plasma as “the number
`
`of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 20.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively
`
`low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`ions.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1101, 7:12–132 (referring to strongly-
`
`ionized plasma as a “high-density plasma”); id. at 8:3–4 (stating “peak
`
`plasma density can be controlled by controlling the slope of the rise time of
`
`the voltage pulse”); Ex. 1113, 10:4–5 (referring to U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`B2 (“the ’759 patent), which is being challenged in IPR2014-00781,
`
`IPR2014-00782, IPR2014-01083, IPR2014-01086, and IPR2014-01087, as
`
`stating the “strongly-ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density”); Ex.
`
`1101, 17:24–25 (describing weakly ionized plasma as “plasma having a
`
`relatively low-level of ionization”); id. at 6:58–59 (referring to “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” as “low-density plasma”)). Zond also directs our attention
`
`to the Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”),
`
`which is being challenged in IPR2014-00861. Prelim. Resp. 13.
`
`The Specification of the ’652 patent provides:
`
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma
`from the initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also
`referred to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-
`density plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined
`herein to mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma
`density. For example, the peak plasma density of the high-
`density plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge
`current that is formed from the high-density plasma can be on
`the order of about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the
`range of about 50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of
`about 5 mTorr to 10 Torr.
`
`
`
`2 Zond refers to the ’184 patent as exhibit 1001, but the exhibit number for
`the ’184 patent in this proceeding is 1101. Therefore, we will refer to the
`’184 patent by “Ex. 1101” for this proceeding.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`’652, 10:57–67.3
`
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`
`although Zond characterizes the ’652 patent as “a related patent” (Prelim.
`
`Resp. 13), Zond does not explain how the ’652 patent is related to the
`
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’184 patent). In fact,
`
`those patents do not share the same written disclosure, nor do they derive
`
`from the same parent application.
`
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference exists between the
`
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 13–15; Ex. 1102 ¶ 45–48; Prelim. Resp. 11–16.
`
`More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across the ’652, the ’759, and
`
`the ’184 patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 7:14–18. For this decision, we
`
`construe the claim term “weakly-ionized 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.”
`
`2. “a voltage pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`Both independent claims 1 and 11 recite the feature of “generating a
`
`
`
`voltage pulse . . . having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`
`3 While it appears that Zond intended to file four exhibits, Exhibits 2001
`through 2004, with its Preliminary Response, including the ’652 patent as
`Exhibit 2004, these exhibits were not filed.
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`controlled rise time” to achieve an increasing ionization rate so that a rapid
`
`increase in electron density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`occurs without forming an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly.4
`
`TSMC does not proffer a construction for this claim feature. Zond offers a
`
`construction, focusing on the meaning of the term “control.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`14–16. Zond relies on Webster’s dictionary definition of the term “control”
`
`as “the condition of being directed or restrained.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex.
`
`2002). Utilizing this definition, Zond proposes that the claim language
`
`“generating a voltage pulse . . . having at least one of a controlled amplitude
`
`and a controlled rise time” should be construed as “generating a voltage
`
`pulse whose amplitude and/or rise time are directed or restrained” to achieve
`
`the increased ionization rate for formation of a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without arcing. We are persuaded that, on this record, the proffered
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable construction supported by the
`
`Specification of the ’184 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 6:8–9 (stating the
`
`pulsed power supply “can be programmed to generate voltage pulses having
`
`various shapes”); id. at 8:41–60 (referring to Fig. 4, describing specific,
`
`relatively fast rise time of the voltage shifts the electron energy distribution
`
`to higher energies for formation of the strongly-ionized plasma).
`
`
`
`4 Claim 11 adds that such amplitude or controlled rise time of the voltage
`pulse “shifts an electron energy distribution in the plasma to higher
`energies” to achieve the increased ionization rate. See Ex. 1101, 23:21–28.
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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;
`
`(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; 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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`C. Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 – Obviousness over
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`TSMC asserts that claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 44–57. As support, TSMC provides detailed
`
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the references and
`
`rationales for combining the references, as well as a declaration of Dr.
`
`DeVito (Ex. 1102). Id.
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`
`not disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 45–50. Zond also argues
`
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev. Id. at 48.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over the combination
`
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies
`
`alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1105, 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 cross-sectional view
`
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`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. 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. 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:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`
`(e.g., 1kW). 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. DeVito, 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. 1102 ¶¶ 43, 114; see Pet. 44.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1104, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates the atomic energy levels during the
`
`slow and fast stages of ionization. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`As shown in 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 “e”) from the
`
`ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. DeVito explains that
`
`Kudryavtsev pre-ionized a gas and then applied a voltage pulse (Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 119; Pet. 48), and under these conditions, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`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. 1102 ¶ 119 (quoting Ex. 1104, 31, right col., ¶ 6 (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.” Ex. 1104, 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev –
`“Rapid Increase in Electron Density” Claim Feature
`
`TSMC argues that Wang teaches each limitation of claim 1, but as to
`
`the claim feature requiring a “rapid increase in electron density,” “if one of
`
`ordinary skill, did not experience Kudryavtsev’s ‘explosive increase’ in
`
`plasma density in Wang, it would have been obvious to adjust the operating
`
`parameters, e.g., increase the pulse length and/or pressure, so as to trigger
`
`Kudryavtsev’s fast stage of ionization.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 120).
`
`TSMC concludes that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`apply Kudryavtsev’s fast stage ionization in Wang’s pulsed magnetron
`
`sputtering device to increase plasma density, thereby reducing the time
`
`required to reach a given plasma density and increasing the sputtering rate.
`
`Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev,
`
`arguing Wang’s magnetron sputtering system and Kudryavtsev’s long
`
`cylindrical electrode structure are incompatible, and therefore, not subject to
`
`combination. Prelim. Resp. 48. In particular, Zond notes that
`
`“Kudryavtsev’s electrodes were spaced nearly two feet apart from each other
`
`at opposite ends of a tube having a diameter of approximately one inch,” and
`
`Kudryavtsev used a special circuit to generate its pulses that was never
`
`described, including whether the circuit controlled amplitude or rise time or
`
`avoided arcing. Id. at 32–33.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, those arguments are not persuasive.
`
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
`
`(noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can
`
`be combined physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching
`
`of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
`
`judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (A person with ordinary skill
`
`in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in
`
`many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
`
`like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`
`Zond has not explained adequately why triggering a fast stage of
`
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would have been beyond the level of
`
`ordinary skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Kudryavtsev
`
`states that because “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of
`
`ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas, they
`
`must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas
`
`lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1104, 34, right col. (emphasis
`
`added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field.
`
`Ex. 1105, 7:61–63; see also Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (“Because Wang applies voltage
`
`pulses that ‘suddenly generate an electric field,’ one of ordinary skill reading
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`Wang would have been motivated to consider Kudryavtsev and to use
`
`Kudryavtsev’s fast stage in Wang.”).
`
`More importantly, Wang discloses that application of the high peak
`
`power PP to the background power PB “quickly causes the already existing
`
`plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma” to form a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma. Ex. 1105, 7:29–30; Ex. 1102 ¶ 117. Dr. DeVito testifies
`
`that “[l]ike Kudryavtsev’s voltage pulse, application of Wang’s voltage
`
`pulse (which produces the peak power PP) to the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`rapidly increases the plasma density and the density of the free electrons.”
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 119.
`
`On this record, we credit Dr. DeVito’s testimony, as it is consistent
`
`with the prior art disclosures. Moreover, we also agree with Dr. DeVito that
`
`if one of ordinary skill did not experience Kudryavtsev’s “explosive
`
`increase” in plasma density in Wang, triggering a fast stage of ionization (as
`
`disclosed by Kudryavtsev) in Wang’s apparatus would have been a
`
`combination of known techniques yielding the predictable results of rapidly
`
`increasing the ionization rate and electron density. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 120.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev is merely a predicable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
`
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). We also determine
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`that TSMC has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art the “rapid increase in electron density” claim feature.
`
`Voltage Pulse Having a Controlled Amplitude or Rise Time
`
`TSMC asserts that Wang discloses “generating a voltage pulse . . .
`
`having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time” to
`
`achieve increasing an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron
`
`density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma occurs without forming
`
`an arc between the anode and the cathode assembly recited in claims 1 and
`
`11. Pet. 47–53 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 117–125).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond contends that neither Kudryavtsev
`
`nor Wang discloses the claimed control of the amplitude or rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse. Prelim. Resp. 45–48. Specifically, Zond asserts that Wang
`
`admits that it shows “idealized” power pulses, thereby acknowledging that
`
`Wang’s power pulses have a rise time that can vary from the desired square
`
`pulse shape. Id. at 45–46. Such an admission, Zond asserts, shows that
`
`Wang’s amplitude and rise time of its power pulse are uncontrolled, and
`
`concomitantly, fail to show any controlled pulse yields a rapid increase in
`
`electron density. Id. at 46.
`
`As TSMC notes, Wang expressly discloses selecting a background
`
`power PB of 1 KW and a pulse peak power of 1 MW. Pet. 50 (citing Ex.
`
`1105, 7:19–25 (“Preferably, the peak power level PP is at least 10 times the
`
`background power level PB . . . most preferably 1000 times. . . . A
`
`background power PB of one kW will typically be sufficient.”)). Dr. DeVito
`
`testifies that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that Wang’s
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`voltage amplitude was controlled to produce Wang’s specified peak power
`
`level PP.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 122. On this reco