UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., and TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`______________________________
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________________
`Case No. IPR2014-008031
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`______________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00858, IPR 2014-00996, and IPR 2014-01061 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00803, concerning U.S. Patent 7,808,184 (“the ’184 patent”), entered
`
`on September 30, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred when construing, according to its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ‘184 patent as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`the term “without forming an arc,” as recited in the claims of the ‘184
`
`patent, as “substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing?”
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Pat.
`
`6,413,382 to Wang (“Wang”) and 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)
`
`(“Kudryavtsev”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 68 and 18 unpatentable as
`
` 2
`
`

`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`
`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) (“Mozgrin”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 54
`
`Entered: September 30, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO
`DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`RENASAS 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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-008031
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00858, IPR2014-00996, and IPR2014-01061 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioners have shown,
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6–10 and 16–20 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’184 patent”) are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 6–10 and 16–20 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of the ’184 patent. TSMC included a Declaration of
`
`Mr. Richard DeVito (Ex. 1102) to support its positions. Patent Owner Zond,
`
`LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on October 1, 2014, we instituted an inter
`
`partes review of challenged claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 to
`
`determine if the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and of challenged claims 8
`
`and 18 to determine if the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. Paper 9
`
`(“Dec.”).
`
`
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted revised Motions for Joinder filed
`
`by other Petitioners (collectively, “Gillette”) listed in the Caption above,
`
`joining Cases IPR2014-00858, IPR2014-00996, and IPR2014-01061 with
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`the instant trial (Papers 16 and 17), and also granted a Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 37). Zond filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 32, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D.
`
`Hartsough, Ph.D. (Ex. 2015) to support its positions. Gillette filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 42, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a
`
`supplemental Declaration of Dr. John Bravman (Ex. 1128). An oral hearing2
`
`was held on May 28, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`
`record. Paper 53 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`
`
`Gillette indicates that the ’184 patent was asserted against Petitioner,
`
`as well as other defendants, in seven district court lawsuits pending in the
`
`District of Massachusetts. Pet. 1.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2 The oral arguments for the instant review and IPR2014-00477,
`IPR2014-00479, and IPR2014-00799 were consolidated.
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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,
`
`low-current plasma 152, and high-current plasma 154 created by the claimed
`
`methods using the pulsed power supply. Id. at 1:58–60.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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
`
`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. Id. at 5:43–46. 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.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`All of the challenged claims are dependent on either independent
`
`claim 1 or 11, which were addressed in IPR2014-00799. 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
`
`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). Gillette 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
`
`Gillette relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`Wang
`
`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”).
`
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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”).3
`
`
`
`F. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 31–32):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`8 and 18
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`
`
`3 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
`
`
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`
`ascertaining the invention . . . .”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`
`1. “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Both independent claims 1 and 11, from which all challenged claims
`
`depend, recite “formation of a strongly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1101, 22:52–
`
`53, 23:26–27. Prior to institution, Zond and Gillette submitted constructions
`
`of the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11–13; Pet. 14–15. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted
`
`Zond’s proposed constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation. Dec. 9–11; Ex. 1101, 7:14–18. We construed the
`
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`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.” Dec. 11.
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Zond, nor its
`
`expert witness, expressly challenged our claim construction as to this term
`
`(PO Resp. 16–25; Ex. 2015 ¶ 21), Zond improperly attempts to import
`
`extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing that the measure of the peak
`
`density of ions is necessary to determine whether a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`is formed. See PO Resp. 3–4, 46–47. It is well settled that if a feature is not
`
`necessary to give meaning to a claim term, it is “extraneous” and should not
`
`be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`We observe that the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma” are relative terms. The cross-examination
`
`testimony of Gillette’s declarant, Mr. DeVito, in which he discusses our
`
`construction, confirms that Mr. DeVito agrees the terms are relative
`
`(Ex. 2014, 166:21–24) and that three to four orders of magnitude difference
`
`in the peak density of ions between the initial ionized state and a plasma
`
`density that may be considered strongly-ionized is sufficient (id. at 166:25–
`
`170:25). Gillette’s second declarant, Dr. John C. Bravman, also confirms
`
`that weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasma are relative terms, as the
`
`’184 patent uses overlapping ranges of plasma density to describe them (see
`
`Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 31–32 (citing Ex. 1101, 7:14–18)), and that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not understand strongly-ionized plasma to require any
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`specific magnitude in the peak density of ions. Id. ¶ 30. Dr. Bravman also
`
`notes that strongly-ionized plasma is the same as high-density plasma. Id.
`
`¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1101, 7:11–14).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Zond’s assertion that
`
`the measure of the peak density of ions is necessary to determine whether a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is formed. Rather, upon review of the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence before us, we discern no reason to
`
`modify our claim constructions set forth in the Decision on Institution with
`
`respect to this claim term, which adopted Zond’s originally proposed
`
`construction. Dec. 9–11. Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written
`
`Decision, we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term
`
`“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.”
`
`
`
`2. “a voltage pulse having at least one of a
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 11, from which all challenged claims
`
`
`
`depend, recite the feature of “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
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`between the anode and the cathode assembly.5 During the pretrial stage of
`
`this proceeding, Gillette did not proffer an explicit construction for this
`
`feature (see Pet. 13–14), but Zond offered a construction, focusing on the
`
`meaning of the term “control.” Prelim. Resp. 14. In our Decision on
`
`Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed construction, in light of the ’184
`
`patent Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation, which is
`
`“generating a voltage pulse whose amplitude and/or rise time are directed or
`
`restrained” to achieve the increased ionization rate for a rapid increase in
`
`electron density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma without
`
`arcing. Dec. 11–12; 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).
`
`
`
`Subsequent to institution, Zond seeks a further clarification of our
`
`construction in light of our application of our construction to the prior art.
`
`PO Resp. 16–25.6 Zond takes issue with our claim construction as not
`
`
`
`5 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.
`6 Zond contends that our use of Figure 3 of the ’184 patent in the Decision
`on Institution to show control of a voltage pulse is misplaced because
`Figure 3 shows only weakly-ionized plasma. PO Resp. 16–19. We relied on
`the description of Figure 3 to illustrate the difference between a desired or
`idealized square pulse and an actual voltage pulse that shows oscillations.
`Dec. 22–23. As Gillette acknowledges, both Figure 3 and Figure 8 of the
`’184 patent, which Zond asserts describes “the compelling advantages of
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`encompassing the broadest reasonable interpretation. Id. at 19. Zond asserts
`
`that we “concluded that the claimed pulse control encompasses any change
`
`in voltage amplitude that is incidental to directing a pulse to a target power
`
`level (or set point) as in Wang, regardless of whether the voltage amplitude
`
`is the parameter under control.” Id.
`
`
`
`Zond asserts that Mr. DeVito agrees that this limitation requires a
`
`target voltage level or set point. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 2014, 173:14–174:20).
`
`Zond also utilizes the Eronini7 reference to explain how a desired value or
`
`“set point,” also known as a “controlled variable,” is achieved in a closed
`
`loop system using a feedback signal to control the manipulated variable,
`
`here the voltage pulse. PO Resp. 21–22. Zond concludes that:
`
`[T]he proper interpretation of the claim language—“voltage
`pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`controlled rise time”—requires controlling these voltage
`parameters to target levels or set points as shown in the
`specification, and not to any uncontrolled variation or
`manipulation that may occur incidental to controlling a different
`parameter, such as power. In other words, any variations or
`
`
`
`combining voltage amplitude control with voltage rise time control,” PO
`Resp. 14, show an idealized square pulse showing a target voltage level
`versus the actual output voltage amplitude and rise time showing numerous
`fluctuations. See Ex. 1101, Figs. 3, 8; Reply 5–7. The difference in the
`attainment of a strongly-ionized plasma in Figure 8 is explained not by how
`the voltage pulse was “controlled,” but by use of the high-power voltage
`mode that “supplies a sufficient amount of uninterrupted power” to drive the
`plasma to a strongly-ionized state. Ex. 1101, 13:52–57, 18:64–66; Reply 6–
`7.
`7 Eronini Umez-Eronini, SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL 10–13 (1999)
`(EX. 2021).
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`manipulations in voltage that may occur as a supply controls
`power to a target level do not equate with a control of voltage.
`
`Id. at 22. Zond points to Figure 5C of the ’184 patent as exemplary of a
`
`power supply programmed to direct the voltage amplitude to successive
`
`target levels or set points 306, 370, 380. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1101, 11:55–
`
`61). Zond concludes that “[t]his example shows that the specification
`
`describes a power supply that achieves the claimed conditions (of a rapid
`
`increase in electron density without arc) by controlling the voltage amplitude
`
`and rise times to target levels.” Id. at 25. Therefore, according to Zond,
`
`“generating a 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” should be construed as “generating 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 so that a rapid increase in electron density and a
`
`formation of a strongly ionized plasma occurs without forming an arc.” Id.
`
`at 23.
`
`
`
`Gillette counters that Zond’s newly proposed construction is
`
`unsupported by the Specification of the ’184 patent. Reply 1. For instance,
`
`Gillette asserts that the ’184 patent teaches that “the actual output voltage
`
`amplitude and rise time . . . is not ‘directed or restrained’ to the target value
`
`because there are numerous fluctuations that exceed and/or undershoot the
`
`target voltage level, and a lag in rise time is observed as compared to the
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`target value.” Reply 6. We agree with Gillette and decline to adopt Zond’s
`
`newly proposed construction.
`
`
`
`Dr. Bravman testifies that Figure 5C of the ’184 patent, which is
`
`annotated by Dr. Bravman as shown below,
`
`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 lines 304, 304’, and 304” onto each of
`the respective multi-stage voltage pulses 302, 302’, and 302”.”
`
`
`
`Ex. 1128 ¶ 38. We also agree that for every figure in the ’184 patent that
`
`shows the target and actual voltage pulses, such as Figure 8, which Zond
`
`asserts “demonstrates the compelling advantages of combining voltage
`
`amplitude control with voltage rise time control” (PO Resp. 15), the actually
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`generated voltage pulse deviates significantly from the desired target voltage
`
`pulse. See Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 37–39. Therefore, based on the Specification of the
`
`’184 patent, we agree with Dr. Bravman that “control as 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.” Id. ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`We thus continue to construe the claim phrase “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” to achieve the increased ionization rate for a rapid
`
`increase in electron density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without arcing.
`
`3. “without forming an arc”
`
`
`
`Neither party offers an explicit construction of the claim phrase
`
`“without forming an arc,” but we discern that Zond’s arguments are based
`
`on an incorrect interpretation of this claim phrase. Therefore, we construe
`
`the claim phrase “without forming an arc.”
`
`
`
`Specifically, Zond asserts that a key claim limitation missing from the
`
`teachings of the prior art, is the absence of arcing in the transition from a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to a highly-ionized plasma. PO Resp. 4. Zond
`
`describes Figure 4 as set forth in the ’184 patent as showing no arcing, as
`
`evidenced by the relatively steep continuous rise in current to achieve
`
`“controlled rapid growth to a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.” Id. at
`
`8, 10–11 (“By carefully controlling the target pulse voltage amplitude and
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`voltage rise times at selected moments and by selected amounts, the system
`
`increases the electron density to quickly transition a plasma to a strongly-
`
`ionized condition, while still restraining the plasma from arcing.”); id. at 11–
`
`13 (stating Figs. 5A–5C show rapidly achieving a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without arcing).
`
`
`
`Finally, Zond identifies Figure 8 of the ’184 patent as evidencing a
`
`single-stage voltage pulse that ignites and grows a plasma to high density
`
`without arcing. Zond concludes that:
`
`Thus, this example demonstrates that compelling advantages of
`combining voltage amplitude control with voltage rise time
`control: Dr. Chistyakov was able to find a controlled voltage
`level coupled with a controlled rise time for his programmable
`supply that could both ignite a plasma and stably grow it into a
`plasma that was dense enough for sputtering, but without
`arcing.
`
`PO Resp. 15.
`
`The Specification of the ’184 patent contains only a few references to
`
`arcing. For instance, the Specification of the ’184 patent, in describing
`
`Figure 1, which illustrates a cross-sectional view of a plasma sputtering
`
`apparatus having a pulsed direct current (DC) power supply according to one
`
`embodiment of the invention, discloses the following:
`
`The pulsed power supply 102 can include circuitry that
`minimizes or eliminates the probability of arcing in the
`chamber 104. Arcing is generally undesirable because it can
`damage the anode 124 and cathode assembly 116 and can
`contaminate the wafer or work piece being processed. In one
`embodiment, the circuitry of the pulse supply 102 limits the
`plasma discharge current up to a certain level, and if this limit is
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`exceeded, the voltage generated by the power supply 102 drops
`for a certain period of time.
`
`Ex. 1101, 4:6–15 (emphasis added). In describing Figure 2, the
`
`Specification of the ’184 patent states that “[s]puttering with discharge
`
`voltages greater than –800V can be undesirable because such high voltages
`
`can increase the probability of arcing and can tend to create sputtered films
`
`having relatively poor film quality.” Id. at 5:23–27.
`
`
`
`The Specification of the ’184 patent also describes other ways to
`
`reduce arcing. For instance, ’184 patent discusses Figure 9, which depicts a
`
`plasma sputtering apparatus according to the invention and describes the gap
`
`between the anode and the cathode assembly. See Ex. 1101, 19:4–7. The
`
`Specification of the ’184 patent states that “[t]he gap 514 can reduce the
`
`probability that an electrical breakdown condition (i.e., arcing) will develop
`
`in the chamber 104.” Id. at 19:34–36, 20:40–41 (“The geometry of the gap
`
`514 can be chosen to minimize the probability of arcing . . . .”).
`
`Zond does not explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in the
`
`plasma art would have interpreted the claim term “without forming an arc,”
`
`in light of the Specification, to require the ionization of excited atoms be
`
`performed completely free of arcing. See Tr. 22–29; In re NTP, Inc.,
`
`654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s claim
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(stating that the Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one
`
`that those skilled in the art would reach”). Nor does Zond direct our
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00803
`Patent 7,808,184 B2
`
`
`attention to credible evidence that would support its attorney’s arguments
`
`regarding the disputed claim term at issue. See PO Resp. 2–5, 7–15.
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that no arcing occurs in
`
`the formation of the strongly-ionized plasma. Rather, the Specification
`
`explicitly states that such a probability may be minimized or eliminated. Ex.
`
`1101, 4:6–8. Given the disclosure in the Specification, we decline to adopt
`
`Zond’s implicit construction—absolutely no arcing—because it would be
`
`unreasonable to exclude the disclosed embodiments. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that the
`
`Specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term”).
`
`Instead, we construe the claim term “without forming an arc” as
`
`“substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing,” consistent with an
`
`interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach when reading
`
`the claim term in the context of the Specification.
`
`Finally, although Zond acknowledges that “Wang’s teachings of a
`
`‘reduction’ in arcing upon ignition are inapposite to the ’184 patent’s
`
`requirement of avoiding arcing during the rapid increase in electron density
`
`and a formation of the strongly-ionized plasma” (PO Resp. at 3), Zond faults
`
`Wang’s alleged teaching that arcing was unavoidable upon plasma ignition
`
`(id. at 15). Zond is attempting to import improperly a limitation not in the
`
`claims. Independent claims 1 and 11 require formation of a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma without an arc, but do not require that the ignition or the formation of
`
`a weakly-ion