`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 34789.112
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and
`
`
`TSMC North America Corp.
`
`
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`Richard C. Kim, Reg. No. 40,046
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. and
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. ______________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,811,421
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ - 1 -
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... - 1 -
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`C. Counsel ..................................................................................................... - 2 -
`
`D. Service Information .................................................................................. - 2 -
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... - 2 -
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 3 -
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ................................................ - 3 -
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge .............................................................................. - 3 -
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology .................................................................. - 4 -
`
`A. Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 4 -
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms ............................................................................ - 5 -
`
`V. Overview of the ‘421 Patent .......................................................................... - 7 -
`
`A. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’421 Patent .................................... - 7 -
`
`B. Prosecution History ................................................................................... - 7 -
`
`VI. Overview of the primary prior art references ............................................... - 8 -
`
`A. Summary of the prior art ........................................................................... - 8 -
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ................................................................................ - 8 -
`
`C. Overview of Wang .................................................................................. - 10 -
`
`VII.
`
`Claim construction .................................................................................. - 11 -
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ....................... - 12 -
`
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition .................................................................. - 14 -
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 3-5, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kawamata................................................................................... - 14 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin ................................... - 14 -
`
`Independent claim 34 is anticipated by Mozgrin ................................. - 22 -
`
`3. Dependent claims 3-5, 36, 40 and 41 ................................................... - 24 -
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 3-5, 18-20, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Kawamata .............................................................. - 30 -
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Wang ....................................... - 30 -
`
`Independent claim 17 is anticipated by Wang ..................................... - 35 -
`
`Independent claim 34 is anticipated by Wang ..................................... - 37 -
`
`4. Dependent claims 3-5, 18-20, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Kawamata .......................................................... - 39 -
`
`C. Ground III: Claims 6, 31, 44 and 45 are obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin and Lantsman .................................................................................... - 42 -
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 17 is obvious in view of Mozgrin and Lantsman ... - 42 -
`
`2. Dependent claims 6, 31, 44 and 45 are obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin and Lantsman ................................................................................ - 46 -
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 7, 18-20 and 32 are obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin, Lantsman and Kawamata ................................................................. - 52 -
`
`E. Ground V: Claims 6, 31, 44 and 45 are obvious over the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman ........................................................................................ - 55 -
`
`F. Ground VI: Claims 7 and 32 are obvious over the combination of Wang,
`Lantsman and Kawamata................................................................................. - 59 -
`
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 60 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North
`
`America Corp. are the real parties-in-interest (“Petitioner”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (“’421 Patent”) (Ex. 1101)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.)1; and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette,
`
`Co.). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related2 to the ’421 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘421 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 7, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00473.
`
`Petitioner plans to seek joinder with that inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`1 The Petitioner is a co-defendant with Fujitsu in this lawsuit.
`
`2 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David L. McCombs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Telephone: 214-651-5533
`
`
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 of the ’421 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 3
`
`1.
`
`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. 1103)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1104)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1105)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata” (Ex. 1109)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44
`
`and 45 of the ’421 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition,
`
`
`3 The ’421 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.”) (Ex.
`
`1102)4 filed herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each
`
`challenged claim is not patentable.5 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1102). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as
`
`
`4 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by TSMC. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1102 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00473 (Ex.
`
`INTEL-1102), discussed above.
`
`5 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32,
`
`36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 of the ‘421 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining
`
`claims of the ‘421 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.6 Id. (Ex. 1102)
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘421 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target
`
`material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1102). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface
`
`causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1102). The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. Id. at
`
`¶ 24 (Ex. 1102). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1102). The need
`
`to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘421 patent was filed.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`
`6 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN2 (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1102). If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1102). A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. at (Ex. 1102). For
`
`example, the ‘421 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘421 Patent at
`
`13:47 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1102). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex.
`
`1102). For example, the ‘421 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘421 Patent at 4:20 and 13:497 (Ex. 1101).
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before the
`
`‘421 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1102).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘421 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’421 Patent
`
`The claims of the ‘421 Patent are directed to using a single voltage pulse to
`
`generate a so called weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing. Specific claims add operational details such as
`
`characteristics of the voltage pulse, using ions in the plasma for sputtering and the
`
`type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected all pending claims over WO
`
`02/103078 A1 (“Kouznetsov”) (Ex. 1106). See 04/21/10 Office Action at 2 (Ex.
`
`1112).
`
`
`7 The equation describing production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon
`
`atom, Ar*, is printed incorrectly in the ‘421 patent, i.e., the “*” is omitted. See
`
`‘421 Application at ¶[0097] (Ex. 1115).
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Patent Owner traversed the rejection arguing that rather than a single
`
`pulse, Kouznetsov uses two distinct pulses. See 06/23/10 Resp. at 10, ¶ 1
`
`(“Kouznetsov does not describe apparatus that generate a voltage pulse between
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Indeed, Kouznetsov
`
`describes methods and apparatus for generating two separate and independent
`
`pulses.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1113). The claims were then allowed. See
`
`08/19/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1114).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the prior art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new or
`
`non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘421 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin8
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`8 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not applied substantively during prosecution.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1102). Increasing the current applied to the
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to
`
`region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is
`
`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶
`
`5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can enhance
`
`the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3 (“…part
`
`4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1102). Further increasing the applied
`
`current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at ¶ 40 (Ex. 1102).
`
`C. Overview of Wang9
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24), a
`
`cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig. 7),
`
`and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-8:12
`
`(Ex. 1104). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the power
`
`Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the DC
`
`
`9 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is generated by
`
`the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1104); see also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the plasma after
`
`ignition and application of the higher power level, PP, raises the density of the
`
`plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The background power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the
`
`minimum power necessary to support a plasma... [T]he application of the high peak
`
`power, PP, quickly causes the already existing plasma to spread and increases the
`
`density of the plasma.”) (Ex. 1104). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial, industrial plasma
`
`sputtering device. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.10 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The following
`
`discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those terms. 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 the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to
`
`seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this
`
`proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1102). With reference to Fig. 6, the ‘421 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 330 and then
`
`
`10 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher
`
`power 350. ‘421 Patent at 15:56-61; 16:38-44 (Ex. 1101). The ‘421 Patent also
`
`provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas.
`
`See ‘421 Application at original pending claim 22 (“wherein the peak plasma
`
`density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm3”); original pending
`
`claim 26 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater
`
`than about 1012 cm3”) (Ex. 1115).11
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when faced
`
`with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent application,
`
`argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not just in view of
`
`the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the claims indicates
`
`a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-ionized plasma’
`
`and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943 (Ex. 1116).
`
`
`11 Pending claims 22 and 26 were canceled during prosecution, but were
`
`nonetheless part of the original disclosure of the ‘421 Patent. See also ‘421 Patent
`
`at 8:22-28 (Ex. 1101).
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1102), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 3-7, 18-20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44 and 45 of the
`
`’421 Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`The claim charts that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable, are submitted hereto as Exhibits 1118-1123 (Ex. 1118-
`
`1123). Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those claim charts and agrees with them.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶¶ 47, 48, 90, 126, 150, 163, 173 (Ex. 1102).
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 3-5, 36, 40 and 41 are obvious over the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kawamata12
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 1 begins, “A sputtering source comprising.” Mozgrin discloses a
`
`sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49
`
`(Ex. 1102). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`12 The invalidity of claims 1 and 34 are addressed in a separate petition. Claims 1
`
`and 34 are addressed herein to establish the invalidity of claims that depend from
`
`claims 1 and 34.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads “a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`target that is positioned adjacent to an anode.”
`
`The ‘421 Patent admits that the claimed cathode assembly and anode were
`
`well known. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1102). For example, the ‘421 Patent shows
`
`in prior art Fig. 1 a “cross-sectional view of a known magnetron sputtering apparatus
`
`100…” ‘421 Patent at 3:39-40 (Ex. 1101). The known “magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus 100 also includes a cathode assembly 114 having a target material 116.”
`
`‘421 Patent at 3:51-52 (Ex. 1101). Moreover, “an anode 130 is positioned in the
`
`vacuum chamber 104 proximate to the cathode assembly.” ‘421 Patent at 4:1-2 (Ex.
`
`1101).
`
`Similarly, Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is adjacent to
`
`Mozgrin’s anode “2.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin also discloses
`
`that its cathode includes a sputtering target. Id. (Ex. 1102). Specifically, Mozgrin
`
`discusses sputtering that occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col., ¶4
`
`(“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering….”) (Ex. 1103). In a
`
`magnetron, the portion of the cathode that can be sputtered is the “sputtering target.”
`
`See, e.g., Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“…The pulsed deposition rate of the
`
`cathode material…”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1102).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin’s power supply is shown in Fig. 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex.
`
`1102). The upper portion of the ‘421 Patent’s Fig. 6, which shows the ‘421 Patent’s
`
`voltage pulse, and Mozgrin’s Fig. 3b, which shows the voltage pulse generated by
`
`Mozgrin’s power supply, are copied below. As shown, Mozgrin’s voltage pulse is
`
`very similar to the ‘421 Patent’s voltage pulse. Id. at (Ex. 1102).
`
`Excerpt of Fig. 6 of ’421 Patent
`(Ex. 1101)
`
`Fig. 3(b) of Mozgrin
`(Ex. 1103)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin’s voltage pulse is applied between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode assembly.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“It was possible to form the high-current quasi-
`
`stationary regime by applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was
`
`filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1102).
`
`(2)
`“that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`The ‘421 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘421 Patent at 8:22-23 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is also
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1101). Mozgrin’s power supply (shown
`
`in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin at 402,
`
`right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.… Part I in
`
`the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘421 Patent. ‘421
`
`Application at original pending claim 22 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1115);
`
`Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron
`
`discharge; … provided the initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm3 range.”) (Ex.
`
`1103) (emphasis added). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1102).
`
`After Mozgrin creates the weakly-ionized plasma in region 1, the voltage
`
`shown in region 2 of Fig. 3b increases the density of the plasma and forms a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1102). The density of
`
`Mozgrin’s region 2 plasma matches the exemplary density for strongly-ionized
`
`plasma given in the ‘421 Patent. ‘421 Application at original pending claim 26
`
`(“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1115); Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering …
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).)” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). See also
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1102).
`
`(3)
`“without an occurrence of arcing between the anode
`and the cathode assembly”
`
`Limitation (b) of claim 1 continues “without an occurrence of arcing between
`
`the anode and the cathode assembly.” Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron systems of
`
`various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit to arcs can be
`
`obtained even at high currents.”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`In addition to the ‘421 Patent, the Patent Owner also owns the related U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent” (Ex. 1107)) and the Patent Owner has asserted
`
`both the ‘421 and ‘759 Patents in concurrent litigation against the Petitioner. During
`
`prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach
`
`the “without forming an arc” limitation. See 05/02/06 Resp. of ‘759 Patent file
`
`history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1117). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1102).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Id. (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin does teach
`
`creating a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma “without an
`
`occurrence of arcing between the anode and the cathode assembly.” Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and current is
`
`allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma will remain in
`
`the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Id. at ¶ 59 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s discussion
`
`of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation
`
`of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Id. at ¶ 60 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be avoided. See
`
`Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron systems of various
`
`geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit to arcs can be
`
`obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). One of ordinary skill
`
`would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided during an
`
`industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1102). For
`
`example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm (“Manos”), a
`
`well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in 1989, over a
`
`decade before the ‘421 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a problem…”
`
`Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1108).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e.g., Mozgrin
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,811,421
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in