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., ADVANCED
`MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S.,
`INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA
`AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC.,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA
`CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00800, 00802, 00805
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. OVERZET PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 6
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-48 ................................................. 9
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................10
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma” .....................................................12
`
`“pulse” .................................................................................................14
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-48 ......................16
`
`D. General Discussion ..............................................................................16
`
`1. Power, Voltage, and Current ...............................................................16
`
`2. The Two Embodiments of Wang ........................................................18
`
`E.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 17, 34, 46, 47, and 48 .....................................22
`
`1. Weakly-Ionized and Strongly-Ionized Plasma in Wang .....................22
`
`2. Wang teaches a pulse for creating a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma without arcing.
`
`23
`
`3. Wang teaches the generation of a voltage pulse whose amplitude,
`duration, and rise time are chosen to increase ion density. ......................30
`
`F.
`
`Dependent Claims 11 and 23: “the power supply generates a constant
`voltage”................................................................................................31
`
`G. Dependent Claims 12 and 24: “a rise time of the voltage pulse is
`chosen to increase an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma”
` .............................................................................................................35
`
`H. Dependent Claim 29: “a distance from the sputtering target to the
`substrate support in the range of approximately 1 cm to 100 cm” .....37
`
`I.
`
`Dependent Claims 14, 26, and 37: “the rise time of the voltage pulse
`is in the range of approximately 0.01V/µsec to 1000V/µsec” ............37
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`J.
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 31, and 45: “a gas flow controller that controls a
`flow of the feed gas so that the feed gas diffuses the strongly-ionized
`plasma” ................................................................................................37
`
`K. Dependent Claim 44: “diffusing the weakly-ionized plasma with a
`volume of the feed gas while ionizing the volume of the feed gas to
`create additional weakly-ionized plasma” ..........................................41
`
`L.
`
`Dependent Claims 7 and 32: “the gas flow controller controls the flow
`of the feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly ionized plasma, thereby generating additional thermal energy
`in the sputtering target” .......................................................................41
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Lawrence J. Overzet, declare as follows:
`
`
`
` My name is Lawrence J. Overzet. 1.
`
`2.
`
`
`I received my bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. in electrical engineering,
`
`all from the University of Illinois, College of Engineering, Urbana, IL. My
`
`doctoral thesis was titled “Enhancement of the Negative Ion Flux to Surfaces from
`
`Radio Frequency Processing Discharges.”
`
`3.
`
`
`Since graduating in 1988, I have worked as a professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Texas at Dallas. I have
`
`taught many courses including Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields I and II;
`
`Plasma Processing Technology; Plasma Science for Materials Processing; and
`
`Current Topics in Plasma Processing.
`
`4.
`
`
`I have written over 75 articles, presented over 240 presentations at
`
`international symposia, and have 8 patents in various areas of electrical
`
`engineering, most of which being related to plasma science.
`
`5.
`
`
`I am a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE), and am a fellow of the American Vacuum Society (AVS) for
`
`my contributions toward understanding pulsed plasmas and the role of negative
`
`ions in plasma processing.
`
`6.
`
`
`A copy of my resume is provided as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (the “’421 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)).
`(cid:120) D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics
`
`Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)), including U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex. 1009)) which is incorporated by reference by
`
`Wang.
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1005)).
`(cid:120) D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
`Physics Institute, 1994 and Certified Translation (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex.
`
`1207 and 1208)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 (Ex. 1032)
`
`8.
`
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications and any
`
`other publication cited in this declaration. The disclosure of each of these
`
`publications provides sufficient information for someone to make and use the
`
`plasma generation and sputtering processes that are described in the above
`
`4
`
`publications.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`9.
`
`
`Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00800, 00802, and 00805, including the Petitions and the accompanying
`
`Declarations of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. As discussed below, I agree with Dr.
`
`Kortshagen’s conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have reviewed
`
`the Board’s Institution Decisions, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`10.
`
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’421 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’421 Patent
`
`would have found the ’421 Patent anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior
`
`art.
`
`11.
`
`
`I have been retained by Toshiba America Electronic Components,
`
`Inc., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and
`
`Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba” or “Petitioner”) as an expert in the field of plasma
`
`technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and am
`
`being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $500/hour for my time. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`12.
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’421 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`
`
`inventor of the ’421 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`13.
`
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`
`prior art of record. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the
`
`’421 Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical/computer engineering, or chemical
`
`engineering, with two or more years practicing plasma generation methods and
`
`using plasma-based processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded these
`
`requirements for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’421
`
`Patent.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`15.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is anticipated
`
`if each and every element of the claim at issue is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference and the elements are arranged in the prior
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`art reference in the same way as recited in the claims at issue. I understand that an
`
`element is inherently present in a prior art reference if a person of skill in the art
`
`reviewing that reference would understand that the element is necessarily present.
`
`I further understand that one prior art reference may incorporate by reference
`
`material from a second prior art reference; the material that is incorporated by the
`
`reference may be considered for the purposes of anticipation.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`(cid:120) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`(cid:120) the scope and content of the prior art; and
`(cid:120) what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`
`
`prior art.
`
`18.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`(cid:120) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(cid:120) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`(cid:120) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`(cid:120) whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`19.
`
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`20.
`
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-48
`
`21.
`
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the declarations of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provided in the above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’421 Patent
`
`and I agree with the findings of Dr. Kortshagen at (1) No. 2014-00800, Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 93-141 and 160-167 captioned Ground II and Ground IV; (2) No. 2014-00802,
`
`Ex. 1202, pages 43-58 captioned Ground V and Ground VI; (3) No. 2014-00805,
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 90-125 and 150-176 captioned Ground II, Ground IV, and Ground V.
`
`
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the sputtering system 22.
`
`and methods described in claims 1 through 48 of the ’421 Patent are disclosed by
`
`the prior art, and are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`23.
`
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board.
`
`Where the Board has provided a construction, I have applied that construction.
`
`24.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this
`
`proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the claim terms as they would be understood by one skilled in the
`
`relevant art.
`
`
`
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for 25.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim terms not
`
`included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`course is for Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to
`
`its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` A plasma refers to the combination of electrons, ions, and gas. 26.
`
`Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density
`
`plasma” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density
`
`plasma.” Patent Owner has proposed similar definitions. The Board, after noting
`
`that there is “no significant difference between the parties’ constructions,” stated
`
`that “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.’” IPR2014-00800,
`
`Decision at p. 10 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00802, Decision at p. 11 (Paper No. 9);
`
`IPR2014-00805, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9).
`
`27.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’421 Patent are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art
`
`applies this construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the
`
`claims of the ’421 Patent or these terms in particular (“strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`and “weakly-ionized plasma”) to require any specific or quantified difference in
`
`magnitude between the peak density of ions of the “strongly-ionized plasma” and
`
`the “weakly-ionized plasma.” Accordingly, I agree with the Board’s adopted
`
`construction that “‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`density of ions,’ and that ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.’”
`
`
`
` Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term 28.
`
`“high-density plasma” to be the same as “strongly-ionized plasma.” These terms
`
`are used synonymously in the ’421 Patent, as evidenced at 12:11-12 (“The
`
`strongly-ionized plasma … is also referred to as a high-density plasma.”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`B.
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`29.
`
`
`I understand that Zond has proposed the following interpretation of
`
`the claim requirement that a voltage pulse “creates a weakly ionized plasma ….”:
`
`Claim Language
`
`Construction
`
`a voltage pulse … that creates a
`
`A voltage pulse that ignites a gas from a state in
`
`weakly-ionized plasma and then
`
`which there is no plasma to a state in which a
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma from
`
`plasma exists, wherein the plasma is initially a
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-
`
`without an occurrence of arcing
`
`ionized plasma that is formed from the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing
`
`
`
`30.
`
`
`I disagree that the construction proposed by Zond is the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Zond’s proposal describes the
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`initial ignition of a gas into a plasma. While the initial ignition of the plasma is
`
`one way to create a weakly-ionized plasma, it is not the only way.
`
`
`
` The ’421 Patent describes an alternative way to create a weakly-31.
`
`ionized plasma that is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
`
`claim limitation and inconsistent with Zond’s proposed construction. In one
`
`embodiment, after the section of the pulse that produces the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma ends, the “pulsed power supply 234 continues to supply a background
`
`power that is sufficient to maintain the plasma after time t6.” ’421 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 16:42-44. “The continuously generated power maintains the pre-
`
`ionization condition of the plasma [i.e., weakly-ionized plasma], while the pulsed
`
`power supply 234 prepares to deliver the next high-power pulse.” Id. at 16:48-51.
`
`In this embodiment, the system alternates between a weakly-ionized plasma and a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, and each subsequent iteration creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma by providing a background power that allows the system to reset to a state
`
`with a weakly-ionized plasma. Moreover, for the pre-ionized plasma to be
`
`“maintained,” the low-power region of Wang’s pulse is continuously forming a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`32.
`
`
`It is my opinion that the term “creates a weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`would be readily understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art and does not
`
`need to be construed. If the Board believes that a construction is necessary, it is
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`my opinion that it should construe the term to mean “forms or generates a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.”
`
`C.
`33.
`
`
`“pulse”
`
` It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art would understand the
`
`term “pulse” to refer to a property (e.g., voltage, current, or power) that is applied
`
`over a period of time. For example, a person of skill in the art would understand
`
`the term “voltage pulse” to refer to a voltage applied over a period of time.
`
`Similarly, a person of skill in the art would understand the term “power pulse” to
`
`refer to a power applied over a period of time. A person of skill in the art would
`
`understand the term “current pulse” to refer to a current applied over a period of
`
`time.
`
`
`
` While the term pulse is readily understood by those in the art, it can 34.
`
`be apply to a variety of different situations. For example, a pulse is not strictly
`
`limited to any particular duration of time. In fact, the ’421 Patent explains that
`
`“the width of the pulse can be on the order of 0.1 microseconds to one hundred
`
`seconds.” ’421 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 8:33-34. It is my understanding that the
`
`sputtering processing time is typically less than one minute in the semiconductor
`
`manufacturing industry. In other words, the ’421 Patent teaches that a single pulse
`
`can exceed the entire processing time.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Similarly, a person of skill in the art would recognize that it is 35.
`
`possible to have a pulse within a pulse. An example of two pulses within a longer
`
`pulse is shown in the figure below. The two shorter pulses starting at times t2 and
`
`t3 lie within the longer pulse starting at time t1 and ending at time t4. Thus, it is
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a pulse can have a complex shape in
`
`time. This complex shape may be described in the context of a single complex
`
`pulse or in the context of pulses within a pulse. Such a description is in agreement
`
`with the ‘421 patent language, which describes a voltage pulse in Figure 6 as a
`
`single pulse even though the voltage rises (starting at t2), falls (starting at t4) and
`
`eventually decreases a second time (starting at t6). ’421 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 15:37-
`
`41.
`
`
`
`
`
` Moreover, voltage, power, and current are additive properties. For 36.
`
`example, a shorter timescale 12 V pulse can be combined with a longer timescale 6
`
`V pulse to result in an 18 V pulse during the shorter timescale. A person of skill in
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`the art would recognize that the resulting complex voltage waveform may be
`
`described as either a single pulse in its own right or as two concurrent pulses – a
`
`pulse within a pulse. Whether the resulting voltage is described as a single 18 V
`
`pulse, a “pulse within a pulse,” or the super-position of two pulses is a semantical
`
`difference. The choice of terminology would make no difference on the physical
`
`properties of the system.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-48
`
`D. General Discussion
`
`1.
`
`Power, Voltage, and Current
`
`
`
` The related patents and references, including the ’421 patent, refer to 37.
`
`power supplies, as well as the concepts of power (P), voltage (V), and current (I).
`
`It is understood that instantaneous power is defined as a product of the voltage and
`
`(cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:51)(cid:3)(cid:32)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:3)(cid:194)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`
`
` The ’421 patent describes similar power supply operation as Wang. 38.
`
`See ’421 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 6 and Wang (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 6 (reproduced
`
`and annotated below).
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Although both the ’421 patent and Wang refer to power pulses, both 39.
`
`teach providing the power pulse in Fig. 6 (’421 patent) and Fig. 6 (Wang) using a
`
`voltage pulse. See ’421 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 8:13-21; Wang (Ex. 1004) at 7:61-64.
`
`Wang specifically teaches: “a power supply connected to said target and delivering
`
`pulses of power of negative voltage.” Wang (Ex. 1004) at 8:37-38. The negative
`
`voltage pulses are further illustrated in Fig. 7 of Wang, being output from the
`
`pulsed supply 80.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`
`In short, and as illustrated above, to generate a power pulse, a voltage
`
`pulse is first provided by the power supply. After a period of time (illustrated as
`
`the time between t3 and t4 of the ’421 patent) the current and power will pulse with
`
`related profiles.
`
`2.
`
`The Two Embodiments of Wang
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` As a threshold matter, I note that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s 41.
`
`assertions regarding Wang are flawed because their analysis generally jumps back
`
`and forth between two different embodiments, improperly applying some of
`
`Wang’s statements directed to one embodiment to the other embodiment.
`
`
`
`
`
` Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 42.
`
`reactor in Fig. 1, and then in connection with Figs. 4 and 6, shows and discusses
`
`two different embodiments, respectively, of pulsing a target in the reactor of Fig. 1.
`
`See Wang (Ex. 1004) at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are
`
`shown by the figures reproduced above.
`
`
`
` While both of these embodiments show power pulses PP that can be 43.
`
`used to form a strongly-ionized plasma, they are quite different in the manner in
`
`which they form the plasma. Specifically, the embodiment in Fig. 4 shows a graph
`
`of the power pulsing from 0 (off) to a peak power PP, while the embodiment in Fig.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`6 shows the power pulsing from a background power level PB to the peak power
`
`level PP. Wang’s lower power level of “0” in Fig. 4 terminates the plasma (and
`
`thus, the current) and requires that the plasma be re-ignited for each pulse. Id. at
`
`5:28-29 (“in this embodiment, each pulse 82 needs to ignite the plasma.”). When
`
`plasma is terminated, the corresponding impedance becomes very high. Thus, in
`
`Fig. 4 a condition of near zero current occurs just before the ignition of the plasma
`
`for each pulse. Also under Fig. 4’s changing impedance level, Wang recognizes
`
`that “power pulse widths is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage
`
`pulse widths.” Id. at 5:52-54.
`
`44.
`
`
`In contrast, Wang’s background power PB, shown in Fig. 6, maintains
`
`the plasma after ignition allowing the peak power PP to have a controlled voltage
`
`amplitude and rise time to avoid arcing. Id. at 7:17-19 (“The background level PB
`
`is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma.”). Wang
`
`specifically recognizes the embodiment of Fig. 6 as an improvement upon that of
`
`Fig. 4: “The on-and-off pulsing represented in the waveforms of Fig. 4 can be
`
`further improved to benefit semiconductor processing…Accordingly, it is
`
`advantageous to use a target power waveform illustrated in Fig. 6 in which the
`
`target is maintained at a background power level…” Id. at 7:1-15. In contrast to
`
`Fig. 4, Wang’s Fig. 6 maintains a plasma, and accordingly, “the chamber
`
`impedance changes relatively little between the two power levels PB and PP.” Id. at
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`7:49-51. Because of the application of background power level, a near zero current
`
`condition is not provided just before or at the transition to high power level PP.
`
`
`
` These and several additional important differences between the 45.
`
`operation of the reactor using the two embodiments of Figs. 4 and 6 are
`
`summarized in the table below.
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`Single stage: A single stage
`combines ignition and
`generation of strongly ionized
`plasma. Wang at Fig. 4.
`
`Three stages: Separate ignition
`stage, weakly ionized plasma stage,
`and strongly ionized plasma stage.
`Wang at Fig. 6.
`
`Repeated ignition as plasma
`turns on and off: [E]ach pulse
`needs to ignite the plasma and
`maintain it.” Wang at 5:28-29.
`
`Single ignition as plasma remains
`on in between the high power
`pulses: “[P]lasma always exist in the
`chamber.” Wang at 7:17-19, 51.
`
`
`
`Stages
`
`Ignition
`
`Ignition
`Power
`
`Plasma is ignited to generate
`strongly ionized plasma with
`higher voltage/power:
`“narrow pulses of negative DC
`power supplied from a pulsed
`DC supply 80.” Wang at 5:17-
`18, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`Plasma is ignited to generate weakly
`ionized plasma with lower
`voltage/power: “The initial plasma
`ignition [is] performed …at much
`lower power levels.” Wang at 7:47-
`48. “Advantageously, the plasma
`may be ignited by the DC power
`supply 100 before the pulsed power
`supply 80 is even turned on.” Wang
`at 8:2-4, Fig. 6.
`
`Impedance changes little:
`“[C]hamber impedance changes
`relatively little ….” Wang at 7:49-
`51.
`
`Internal
`impedance
`
`Impedance changes
`dramatically: “[C]hamber
`impedance dramatically
`changes.” Wang at 5:29-30,
`52-53.
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`Power or
`Voltage
`
`“Where chamber impedance is
`changing, the power pulse
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang
`at 5:52-54.
`
`Where chamber impedance changes
`relatively little, there is no
`preference to specify power pulse
`over current or voltage pulse. (V = I
`* R).
`
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: see Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`Arcing
`
`
`
`46.
`
`
`I highlight the teachings of Wang above because I understand that
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough do not always properly distinguish the important
`
`differences between the embodiments of Fig. 4 and Fig. 6.
`
`E.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 17, 34, 46, 47, and 48
`
`1. Weakly-Ionized and Strongly-Ionized Plasma in Wang
`
`
`
` All of the independent claims (claims 1, 17, 34, 46, 47, and 48) of the 47.
`
`’421 patent recite weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasma. I understand Wang
`
`to teach a “weakly ionized plasma” and a “strongly-ionized plasma,” as recited in
`
`the independent claims. Regarding weakly ionized plasma, Wang teaches that its
`
`“background power PB of 1 kW will typically be sufficient to support a
`
`plasma…with little if any actual sputter deposition.” Wang (Ex. 1004) at 7:23-25.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that plasma which
`
`provides little sputtering is a weakly ionized plasma.
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Second, Wang teaches strongly ionized plasma. As discussed above in 48.
`
`the claim construction section, a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`that the term “high-density plasma” is the same as “strongly ionized plasma.” See,
`
`e.g., ’421 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 12:11-12. Wang teaches that “[f]or charge
`
`neutrality, the ion density also increases, thus creating a region 42 of a high-density
`
`plasma (HDP), which not only increases the sputtering rate but also at sufficiently
`
`high density ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into positively
`
`charged metal ions.” Wang (Ex. 1004) at 4:26-31; see also 7:28-30 (“the
`
`application of the high peak power PP instead quickly causes the already existing
`
`plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma”); 3:66-4:1; 5:23-26; 7:3-
`
`6; 7:13-39; 7:61-62; Figs. 1, 6, and 7.
`
`49.
`
`
`I also note that because Wang provides for a peak power pulse PP
`
`having a magnitude a thousand times greater than the magnitude of the background
`
`power PB, Wang’s plasma density at peak power PP would have a relatively high
`
`peak density of ions. See Wang (Ex. 1004) at 7:19-22. This is made clear by
`
`Wang’s statement that the peak power pulse PP produces a “very high plasma
`
`density” which “ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles,” and that
`
`there is “highly ionized sputtering.” Id. at Abstract; 4:26-31; 7:36-38.
`
`2. Wang teaches a pulse for creating a weakly-ionized plasma
`and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma without arcing.
`
`23
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`a) Wang discloses the elimination of arcing.
`
`50.
`
`
`I disagree with Zond’s assertion that “Wang never says that the
`
`background power PB entirely eliminated arcing after ignition.” E.g., IPR2014-
`
`00800, p. 33 (Paper No. 27). In my opinion, eliminating arcing is the purpose of
`
`including the background power PB. Wang warns that plasma ignition at high
`
`power has a tendency to create arcing. Wang (Ex. 1004) at 7:1-6. It teaches the
`
`same solution to this problem as the ’421 Patent: forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`at a low power before forming a strongly-ionized plasma at a high power. Id. at
`
`7:13-17. Any argument that Wang does not address the elimination of arcing in
`
`the transition from a preionized plasma to a strongly ionized plasma is unfounded
`
`because the elimination of arcing is the entire reason for using that transition in the
`
`first place.
`
`
`
` To the extent that Zond is attempting to draw a distinction between 51.
`
`“eliminating” and “reducing” arcing, I do not believe such a distinction is
`
`appropriate. A person of skill in the art would recognize that arcing is undesirable
`
`and it is always the goal to completely prevent arcing from occurring. However, it
`
`is not possible to construct a perfect system and there is always a