UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., THE GILLETTE COMPANY, ADVANCED MICRO
`DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., and TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-008031
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.220
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00858, IPR2014-00996, and IPR2014-01061 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., THE GILLETTE COMPANY, ADVANCED MICRO
`DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., and TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-008031
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.220
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00858, IPR2014-00996, and IPR2014-01061 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................... 5
`
`A. The ‘184 patent: Dr. Chistyakov’s Pulse Control Technique. ............... 5
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ................ 15
`
`IV. THE BOARD’S COMPARISON OF THE CLAIMS TO THE
`PRIOR ART EFFECTIVELY APPLIES AN ERRONEOUS
`SCOPE TO THE CLAIMS ................................................................... 16
`
`A. Construction of “Voltage Pulse Having At Least One of a
`Controlled Amplitude and a Controlled Rise Time.” ..................... 16
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CLAIMS 1 –
`20 ARE OBVIOUS. .............................................................................. 26
`
` A. The Challenge Directed to Parent Claims 1 and 11. ................... 26
`
` 1. Neither Wang nor Kudryavtsev Teach the Claimed Control
`of Voltage Amplitude or Rise Time to Avoid Arc When
`Rapidly Forming a Strongly Ionized Plasma. ................................. 26
`
`
`
` 2. Scope of Cited Art and Differences Between the Claims and the Art.
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
` i. General Scope of Wang ....................................................... 27
`
`ii. General Scope of Kudryavtsev ............................................. 34
`
`3. Differences Between Wang and the Claims .............................. 41
`
`4. Differences Between Kudryavtsev and the Claims .................... 47
`
`5. Incompatibilities Between Kudryavtsev and Wang ................... 51
`
`6. Secondary Considerations ....................................................... 54
`
`
`
` 7. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Proven by a Preponderance
`of the Evidence that Claims 1, 11 are Obvious. ............................. 55
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Challenge Directed to Dependent Claims 7 and 17.................. 55
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`The present petition challenges dependent claims 6 – 10, and 16 – 20.
`
`The patentability of parent claims 1 and 11 was already discussed at length in
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2014-00799. The present response
`
`therefore repeats much of the analysis from the response in IPR2014-00803,
`
`but also adds some key additional arguments directed to the unique aspects of
`
`dependent claims 7, 17.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments hinge on fanciful misreadings of the prior art by
`
`its proffered expert, Mr. Richard DeVito.2 As will be shown below, neither
`
`Wang nor Kudryavtsev teach controlling the amplitude or rise time of a voltage
`
`pulse in order to increase the “ionization rate so that a rapid increase in
`
`electron density and a formation of a strongly-ionized plasma occurs without
`
`forming an arc,” as required by the claims of the ‘184 patent. Once the Board
`
`recognizes that Mr. DeVito essentially invented some of the alleged
`
`
`2 In its Institution Decision, the Board erroneously referred to Mr. DeVito as
`
`“Dr. DeVito.” IPR2014-00799, Decision to Institute, page 9. However, Mr.
`
`DeVito was never awarded a doctorate of any kind. See Ex. 1102, De Vito
`
`Declaration ¶2 - ¶4.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`“teachings” in Wang and Kudryavtsev to suit the Petitioner’s objectives, the
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`Board should agree to confirm the challenged claims.
`
`Neither Wang nor Kudryavtsev teach the claimed voltage control. The
`
`‘184 patent discloses carefully “controlling” the amplitude and rise time of a
`
`voltage pulse. The patent shows that, with proper control of voltage amplitude
`
`and rise time, the inventor, Dr. Chistyakov, was able to ignite a plasma without
`
`arcing, rapidly grow that plasma to a high density, and sustain that density for
`
`a relatively long duration, again all without arcing.3 Mr. DeVito and
`
`Petitioners erroneously argue that incidental, uncontrolled variations in voltage
`
`that occur in Wang and Kudryavtsev meet this limitation.
`
`Importantly, Wang’s system controls the power of its pulses to a constant
`
`target level, as opposed to the claimed control of pulse voltage in order to avoid
`
`arcing during the transition to a strongly ionized plasma. Constant power pulses,
`
`such as used in Wang, have a voltage and current that will vary uncontrollably
`
`as the system attempts to control the power (i.e., the product of voltage and
`
`current) to a desired level. Since such power supplies are designed to control
`
`the product of voltage and current to a target level—and not voltage, the power
`
`supplies will allow the voltage to reach extremely high values when the current
`
`
`3 Ex. 2015, Declaration of Patent Owner’s Expert.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`is near zero (e.g., before plasma ignition or at low plasma densities) in an
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`attempt to achieve the target power level.4 Moreover, despite Mr. DeVito’s
`
`assertions, 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.
`
`
`
`In addition to his misreading of Wang, Mr. DeVito apparently does not
`
`fully understand and therefore misreads the very technical and difficult
`
`Kudryavtsev reference. In fact, during his deposition Mr. DeVito could not
`
`explain the equations discussed by Kudryavtsev and testified that he did not
`
`rely on those equations at all.5 Instead, Mr. DeVito purports to have relied on
`
`the experimental results of Kudryavtsev. But as explained by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert, Dr. Hartsough, the Kudryavtsev describes a flash tube that is designed
`
`to apply a high voltage across an inert gas, resulting in a brilliant flash of light
`
`for a short duration. Flash tubes apply a voltage greater than the breakdown
`
`voltage, which may initiate the flash by an arc. Mr. DeVito did not consider
`
`
`4 Ex. 1105, Wang, col. 5, lines 32 – 33; Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page
`
`212, line 23 – page 215, line 3.
`
`5 Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page 237, line 19 – page 241, line 2; page 307,
`
`line 24 – page 309, line 18.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`this aspect of Kudryavtsev’s system at all (possibly because his background and
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`education is not in the field of plasma physics, but solid state physics, which
`
`are fundamentally different).
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. DeVito testified that he understands the Board’s
`
`construction of the term “strongly ionized plasma” to require a 3 to 4 order of
`
`magnitude increase in peak density of ions over a weakly ionized plasma.6 But
`
`Mr. DeVito acknowledges that neither Wang nor Kudryavtsev disclose a
`
`magnitude for the peak density of ions.7 Thus, according to Mr. DeVito’s
`
`interpretation, it is impossible to conclude that either Wang or Kudryavtsev
`
`teach a strongly ionized plasma at all.
`
`
`6 Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page 169, line 10 – page 170, line 25; page 225,
`
`line 23 – page 226, line 3. Interestingly, this opinion conflicts with that of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen—Petitioner’s other expert—who requires an absolute peak ion
`
`density above a certain threshold to be considered strongly ionized and not a
`
`relative measure as required by Mr. DeVito. See Ex. 2019, Kortshagen
`
`Deposition, page 44, line 13 – page 47, line 16.
`
`7 Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page 222, lines 15-21; page 228, line 25 – page
`
`229, line 6; page 294, line 4 – page 297, line 15.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`The Board should disregard Mr. DeVito’s opinions—without which,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments have no support—and confirm the challenged claims.
`
`Once the prior art is properly understood, the Board will see that it is missing
`
`key claim limitations, namely voltage control and absence of arcing in the
`
`transition from a weakly ionized plasma to a highly ionized plasma.
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`The claims of the ‘184 patent are directed to a method for generating a
`
`strongly ionized plasma by, inter alia, generating a voltage pulse across a pair
`
`of electrodes, wherein the pulse has a controlled amplitude and/or rise time so
`
`as to increase an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron density
`
`without arcing.
`
`A. The ‘184 patent: Dr. Chistyakov’s Pulse Control Technique.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov invented a system that improves over conventional
`
`pulsed plasma sputtering systems by controlling the pulse voltage amplitude
`
`and rise time to achieve a rapid increase in a plasma’s electron density to form
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma, but without arcing that can occur upon plasma
`
`ignition and during the transition to high densities.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`Dr. Chistyakov implemented such control with a pulsed power supply
`
`that “can be programed to generate pulses having various shapes.”8 Toward
`
`this end, the power supply has two different energy output capacities called
`
`“power modes” that determine the maximum rate at which the power supply
`
`can deliver energy to the plasma, while the source’s controller attempts to
`
`direct and restrain the voltage to the programmed level or “set point.”9
`
`The disclosed power supply controller directs its voltage output to the
`
`programmed level. However, due the varying impedance load of the plasma,
`
`the time it takes to drive the voltage to the programmed level can vary with the
`
`impedance of the load and the rate at which the source can deliver energy to
`
`the plasma.10 Since the rate at which the voltage source can deliver energy is
`
`also programmable, the source controls the rise time by specifying the target
`
`voltage amplitude (i.e., the set point of the target voltage) and the energy
`
`output capacity of the source. This control is demonstrated in the various
`
`measured waveforms shown in the patent.
`
`8 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 6, lines 9 - 10.
`
`9 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 6, lines 2 - 5 ; col. 7, lines 37 – 44; col. 12, lines 58
`
`– 62; col. 13, line 65 – col. 14, line 5; col. 14, lines 12 – 14; Ex. 2015, Patent
`
`Owner’s Expert Declaration, ¶ 63 - 69.
`
`10 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner’s Expert Declaration, ¶ 64 - 69
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`Figures 4 through 7 show various multi-stage voltage pulses that Dr.
`
`Chistyakov experimented with. In each of these examples, the voltage source
`
`is initially set to the low energy mode and to a target voltage level that together
`
`are sufficient to gently ignite a plasma without arcing. After a plasma has
`
`ignited and stabilized, the supply’s program changes the supply’s output
`
`energy capacity to a high energy mode, and steps the target voltage upward to
`
`drive the plasma to a high ion density. At this higher voltage level and at the
`
`stronger energy capacity, there is a danger that the supply could drive the
`
`plasma into an arc. Therefore, the supply is programed to later step down the
`
`target voltage to maintain a stable dense plasma but restrain it from arcing.
`
`1.
`The Power Supply Program of Figure 4
` The example in figure 4 of the ‘184 patent shows a voltage pulse whose
`
`
`
`programmed target voltage amplitudes are superimposed in dotted lines 253.11
`
`
`11 see e.g., Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 6, lines 8 – 12; col. 11, lines 57 – 61.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`
`
`Before the pulse begins (shown at 253), the current is zero because there is no
`
`plasma between the electrodes.12 In the first stage 254, 258, the supply is
`
`programed in the low power mode13 with a target voltage shown at 253. In
`
`response, the electrode voltage rises relatively slowly as shown, and a plasma is
`
`gently ignited without arcing as shown by the initiation of current at 261.
`
`
`
`In the next stage 264, the power supply continues to operate in the low
`
`power mode14 but the target voltage level is raised in an increment shown at
`
`
`12 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert, ¶ 80; Ex. 2016, DeVito 11/21 Deposition,
`
`page 87, line 10 – page 90, line 5.
`
`13 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 7, lines 37 – 41.
`
`14 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 8, lines 23 – 27.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`268. As a result, the rise time of the measured voltage is “relatively slow,”15
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`causing a corresponding increase in the plasma density as evidenced by the
`
`increase in current 276. This raises the density of the plasma in preparation for
`
`a controlled rapid growth to a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.
`
`In the next stage 272, the power supply continues to operate in the low
`
`power mode16 while the target voltage is again increased to further grow the
`
`density. Again the electrode voltage continues to rise slowly as shown due to
`
`the size of the voltage step and the chosen low-energy capacity of the supply.
`
`In the next stage 278, the power supply is programmed to operate in the
`
`high-energy mode17 and the target voltage is stepped to the high level shown,
`
`approximately 750 volts. Because a plasma has already been ignited and
`
`grown in the earlier stages, the plasma does not arc when this much larger
`
`voltage is applied under the supply’s high energy capacity mode. As a result,
`
`the electrode voltage “increases sharply,” as shown, thereby causing a rapid
`
`increase in electron density but without arcing (as evidenced by the relatively
`
`steep continuous rise in current). Note however that the power (“P”) shown
`
`
`15 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 8, lines 7 – 29.
`
`16 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 8, lines 39 – 40.
`
`17 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 8, lines 41 -42.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`in stages 258 through 283 of figure 4 rises gradually over time, thus
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`demonstrating the rise time of power is NOT the same parameter as the rise
`
`time of voltage.
`
`Given that the power supply is in a high-energy mode and that the target
`
`amplitude is approximately 750 volts during this stage, the plasma is at risk of
`
`being driven into an arc if this condition is sustained.18 Accordingly, in the
`
`final stage 283 the target voltage is stepped down to a level that, in the high-
`
`energy mode, is sufficient to stably sustain the dense plasma while also
`
`preventing it from growing into an arc.19
`
`Thus, figure 4 is an example of a plasma generator that includes a pulsed
`
`power supply that generates at its output a voltage pulse having a “controlled”
`
`voltage amplitude and voltage rise time. The power supply controls the
`
`voltage amplitude by attempting to drive the voltage to a programmed target
`
`levels (set-points). The supply also controls voltage rise time by selecting an
`
`energy capacity mode that, combined with the selected target voltage level,
`
`controls the rate at which the voltage rises to the specified target.20 By
`
`
`18 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert Declaration, ¶ 87.
`
`19 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert Declaration, ¶87
`
`20 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert Declaration, ¶64 – 69.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`carefully controlling the target pulse voltage amplitude and voltage rise times
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The ‘184 patent shows several other experiments with such control,
`
`wherein Dr. Chistyakov attempted to ignite and rapidly grow a plasma to a
`
`stable, high density plasma without arcing. In these experiments, he attempted
`
`to achieve these conditions with fewer stages than shown in figure 4.
`
`2. Other Programs: Figures 5A – 5C
`
`Figures 5A – 5C show three examples, each with a successively more
`
`rapid increase in electron density (as shown by the current I) due to voltage
`
`amplitude and rise-time control, while still avoiding arc. As in figure 4, each
`
`of these pulse programs initially operated in the low-power mode to ignite a
`
`plasma, then transitioned to a high power mode to grow the plasma density
`
`into a strongly ionized plasma.21
`
`Figure 5A was an attempt that used two stages. A high density was
`
`achieved without arcing, but at a relatively slow rate in comparison to figures
`
`
`21 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert Declaration, ¶ 89 – 93.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`5B and 5C, as shown by the rise in current I because of the small size of the
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`voltage step to the target level 320:
`
`To achieve a more rapid rate shown in figures 5B and 5C, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`added larger voltage step in the high-energy transient stages 340, 370.
`
`Fig. 5B
`
`Fig. 5C
`
`
`
`
`As shown by a comparison of figures 5B and 5C, Dr. Chistyakov was able to
`
`
`
`achieve a more rapid rise in density (as evidence by the rate of current growth)
`
`with the high voltage step (340, 370). But in both cases, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`dropped the target voltage down to a level 350, 380 soon enough to avoid an
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`arcing condition.22 Thus, figures 5A – 5C show how the control of voltage
`
`amplitude and voltage rise time can determine the rate at which a strongly
`
`ionized plasma is formed, so as to rapidly achieve such a plasma without
`
`arcing.
`
`3. Other Programs: Figures 6 - 8
`
`
`
`In figures 6 and 7, Dr. Chistyakov experimented with variations of target
`
`voltage levels and rise times to determine the conditions needed to create and
`
`sustain a high-density plasma, as needed for applications such as sputtering. A
`
`comparison of Figure 6A to Figure 6B shows that unless the high voltage
`
`amplitude during high-energy transition stage 410 is maintained long enough,
`
`the ignited plasma will not rapidly transition to a high density plasma, as
`
`shown by the current in figure 6A which begins to rise at 414, but decays back
`
`to level 416:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert, ¶ 92.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`Fig. 6A
`
`Fig. 6B
`
`
`
`
`A comparison of figures 7A and 7B, show that even if a high density
`
`
`
`plasma is formed, the plasma will not be sustained if the target voltage 444 is
`
`dropped too low (for avoiding arc) as occurs in figure 7B:
`
`Fig. 7A
`
`Fig. 7B
`
`
`In figure 8, Dr. Chistyakov shows the results of his attempts to ignite a plasma
`
`
`
`and then grow it to a high density plasma using a single target voltage level,
`
`but still without arcing.23 In this example, he programmed the supply in the
`
`high-energy mode from the beginning, but set the target voltage level low
`
`enough so that, at the selected energy rate, the gas will not arc during plasma
`
`
`23 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner’s Expert Declaration, ¶ 97
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`ignition. For example, note that the target voltage in figure 8 is set lower than
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`that used in the low power mode of figure 3. But the voltage level in figure 8
`
`was still high enough that in the high-energy mode, the plasma eventually
`
`grew to a high density but without arcing. Thus, this example demonstrates
`
`the 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. In comparison, Wang believed that
`
`arcing was unavoidable upon plasma ignition when using his power pulses.
`
`With this understanding of Dr. Chistyakov’s work, we now examine the
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to his patent claims
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground
`III
`
`IV
`
`Claims
`6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
`20
`8, 18
`
`Wang
`
`Art
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Wang
`
`Kudryavtsev Mozgrin
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`IV. The Board’s Comparison Of the Claims to the Prior Art Effectively
`Applies an Erroneous Scope to the Claims
`A. Construction of “Voltage Pulse Having At Least One of a
`Controlled Amplitude and a Controlled Rise Time.”
`
`
`The Board tentatively ruled in its decision of October 1, that Zond’s
`
`proposed claim construction, reproduced below, is the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the claimed step of generating a “voltage pulse … having at
`
`least one of a controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time:”
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`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 …24
`
`Approved Construction
`Generating a voltage pulse whose
`amplitude and/or rise time are directed
`or restrained 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.
`
`However, for purposes of comparing this claim element to the prior art,
`
`the Board went on to say that it believed that the ‘184 patent’s description of
`
`figure 3 suggests that Wang’s square power pulses are “controlled” as specified
`
`by the claim:
`
`
`24 This is the language of claim 1, but for purposes of this analysis, independent
`
`claim 11 includes nearly identical language.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`“The specification of the ‘184 patent, however, describes its
`
`“controlled” voltage pulse in a similar manner to Wang. The
`
`specification of the ‘184 patent provides as follows with respect to
`
`Figure 3 reproduced below. … Therefore we are persuaded based
`
`on this record that the amplitude and rise time of Wang’s voltage
`pulses are controlled”25
`
`However, as explained below, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`
`Board erred in concluding that the pulse of figure 3 is an embodiment of the
`
`claimed step for generating a controlled voltage pulse, and that the ‘184
`
`patent’s description of the figure supports the conclusion that claimed pulse
`
`control encompasses Wang’s square power pulses.
`
`The pulse in figure 3 is NOT an example of the claimed voltage pulse
`
`control.26 Although this pulse was generated with the same programmable
`
`power supply as the pulses in figures 4 through 8 of the ‘184 patent, the ‘184
`
`patent clearly states that the pulse of figure 3 produces a “weakly-ionized
`
`plasma … that is typical of known plasma processing systems.”27 As shown
`
`
`25 Board Decision at p. 22 - 23.
`
`26 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert Declaration, ¶ 74 – 76.
`
`27 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 1.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`below, the pulse of figure 3 generates only a weakly ionized plasma, as
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`indicated by the relatively low plasma current.28
`
`
`
`The supply was programed to generate a target voltage level 203 in a low
`
`energy mode: “The energy supplied by the pulsed power supply 102 in the low
`
`power mode generates a weakly-ionized plasma … [that] corresponds to a plasma
`
`generated by a conventional DC magnetron.”29 As a result, the rise time of the
`
`plasma voltage 206 is relatively slow and only a weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed. In contrast, the claim requires that the generation of a voltage pulse,
`
`
`28 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 6, lines 8 – 10.
`
`29 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 6, lines 2 – 10.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`wherein at least one of a controlled voltage amplitude and a controlled voltage
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`rise time cause a rapid increase in electron density and the formation of a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma without arcing. The pulse of figure 3 does not direct
`
`or restrain the voltage amplitude or rise time of the pulse to achieve the
`
`claimed conditions and therefore is not an embodiment of the claim.
`
`The Board also 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. The Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits that such an interpretation is not the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification. Since the Board has not made
`
`its final determination with respect to claim construction, the Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests the Board to reconsider the proper interpretation of this
`
`key aspect of the claim in view of the background information provided in the
`
`declaration of Patent Owner’s Expert, the testimony of Mr. DeVito, and the
`
`following analysis, including the following proposed adjustment to the claim
`
`construction that addresses this critical distinction.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`Both Experts agree that the “control” of voltage amplitude refers to
`
`directing or restraining the voltage amplitude to a target voltage level or set-
`
`point.30 Petitioner’s expert Mr. DeVito testified:
`
`Q: What does it mean to direct the amplitude of a voltage pulse?
`
`A: Well in this context, you would set the power supply to a
`
`specific magnitude and you would make the power supply go to
`
`that magnitude. You would control it to go for that power – I’m
`
`sorry -- that voltage.
`
`***
`
`Q: So again, the question is, what does it mean to direct the
`
`amplitude of a voltage pulse?
`
`A: You would set the – you would set the peak magnitude of the
`
`voltage pulse on our power supply and you would control --- -it
`would go to that voltage.31
`
`In any control system, the desired value or “set point” is known as the
`
`“controlled variable.”32 This is consistent with textbook theory of control
`
`systems. As explained in the excerpt below from a text by Eronini:33
`
`
`30 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert, ¶Ex. 2021, Eronini; Ex. 2011, Weyrick; Ex.
`
`2012, Kua; Ex. 2013, Sinka.
`
`31 Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page 173, line 14 – page 174, line 20.
`
`32 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert, ¶41 - 44; Ex. 2014, DeVito Deposition, page
`
`173, line 14 – page 174, line 20.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`The controller compares the [feedback] signal with the desired
`
`value or set point and sends appropriate instructions to the
`
`actuator or ‘effector’ mechanism (or final control element), which
`
`then acts on the system or control object (or plant) to bring
`
`subsequent outputs into agreement (prescribed relationship with
`
`the set point. What we have described is the typical feedback (or
`closed loop) control structure.34
`
`Eronin further explains that when a control system directs the “controlled
`
`variable” to its desired value, the system may “manipulate” another variable
`
`he calls the “manipulated variable” as shown below:
`
`Weyrick confirms this terminology:
`
`The controlled output C is the process quantity being controlled.
`
`
`
`
`33 Ex. 2021, Eronini, page 12.
`
`34 Ex. 2021 Eronini, page 12.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`The manipulated variable is the control signal which the control
`elements process35
`
`Similarly, Kua and Sinka show that this terminology is widely accepted in
`
`both open loop and closed loop control systems:
`
`
`
`Kua (Open Loop)
`
`
`
`Sinha (Closed Loop)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner proposes that the 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 manipulations in
`
`voltage that may occur as a supply controls power to a target level do not
`
`equate with a control of voltage.
`
`
`35 Ex. 2011, Weyrick at 13.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`The table below shows a proposed claim interpretation (with the
`
`amendments highlighted). The excerpts from the specification that follow the
`
`table explain why this is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`the specification:
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`Generating a voltage pulse …
`having at least one of a controlled
`amplitude and a controlled rise
`time that … increases an ionization
`rate so that36 a rapid increase in
`electron density and a formation of
`a strongly ionized plasma occurs
`without forming an arc …
`
`Proposed Construction
`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.
`
`In view of the terminology commonly used in control systems, we revisit
`
`the example of Figure 5C of the ‘184 patent to provide context for the claim
`
`language at issue. Here, the power supply is programmed to direct the voltage
`
`amplitude to successive target levels or set points 306, 370, 380.37
`
`
`36 The language is that of claim 1, but for purposes of this analysis,
`
`independent claim 11 includes nearly identical language.
`
`37 Ex. 1101, ‘184 patent, col. 11, lines 55 – 61.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184
`IPR2014-00803
`
`
`
`
`During each stage, the programmed power supply controls its output to try to
`
`direct or restrain the voltage to the selected target voltage level despite changes
`
`in the plasma impedance and the resultant overshoots as shown in figure 5C.
`
`The supply is also programed to control the voltage rise time to a desired
`
`target by the combination of the selected target voltage level and the selected
`
`output energy mode.38 In the first stage, the voltage supply controls the voltage
`
`to a target amplitude 306,’’ but is operating in the low energy mode to thereby
`
`yield a rise time that forms a weakly ionized plasma without arcing as shown.
`
`A subsequent target voltage level 370 and the selected high-energy mode yield
`
`a rise time that rapidly transforms the weak plasma to a strongly ionized state.
`
`The final target level 380 and energy level sustain the plasma in that condition
`
`38 Ex. 2015, Patent Owner Expert, ¶ 67 - 69.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`with a lower target voltage
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
