throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 50
`
`Entered: October 2, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-008051
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00851, IPR2014-00990, and IPR2014-01069 have been
`joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–7,
`
`18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 B2
`
`(Ex. 1101, “the ’421 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 3–7, 18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41,
`
`44, and 45 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’421 patent. TSMC included a
`
`Declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (Ex. 1102) to support its positions.
`
`Zond (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on October 6, 2014, we instituted
`
`an inter partes review of the challenged claims to determine if claims 3–5,
`
`18–20, 36, 40, and 41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over the combination of Wang2 and Kawamata3; if claims 6, 31, 44, and 45
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Lantsman4; and if claims 7 and 32 are unpatentable under
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 B1, issued July 2, 2002 (Ex. 1104).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155, issued Sept. 28, 1999 (Ex. 1109).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 B2, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1105).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman, and
`
`Kawamata. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted revised Motions for Joinder
`
`filed by other Petitioners listed in the Caption above, joining Cases
`
`IPR2014-00851, IPR2014-00990, and IPR2014-01069 with the instant trial
`
`(see Papers 12, 13), and also granted a Joint Motion to Terminate with
`
`respect to TSMC (Paper 30).5 Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2015) to support its positions. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 41,
`
`“Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a Declaration of
`
`Lawrence J. Overzet, Ph.D (Ex. 1126). An oral hearing6 was held on June 8,
`
`2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’421 patent was asserted against
`
`Petitioner, as well as other defendants, in seven district court lawsuits
`
`pending in the District of Massachusetts. Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`C.
`
`The ’421 Patent
`
`The ’421 patent relates to a method and apparatus for high-deposition
`
`sputtering. Ex. 1101, Abstract. At the time of the invention, sputtering was
`
`a well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates.
`
`
`
`5 We refer to the remaining parties, listed in the Caption above, collectively,
`as “Petitioner” throughout this Decision.
`6 The oral arguments for IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-00782, IPR2014-00800,
`IPR2014-00802, IPR2014-00805, IPR2014-01083, IPR2014-01086, and
`IPR2014-01087 were consolidated.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`Id. at 1:15–16. As discussed in the ’421 patent, prior art magnetron
`
`sputtering systems deposited films having low uniformity, poor target
`
`utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform manner), and
`
`relatively low deposition rate (low amount of material deposited on the
`
`substrate per unit time). Id. at 1:63–2:14. The ’421 patent discloses that
`
`increasing the power applied to the plasma, in an attempt to increase the
`
`target utilization and sputtering yield, can also “increase[] the probability of
`
`establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`
`process chamber.” Id. at 3:20–29.
`
`The ’421 patent further discloses that using pulsed power can reduce
`
`the probability of establishing an electrical breakdown condition, but that
`
`large power pulses still can result in undesirable electrical discharges. Id. at
`
`3:30–38. According to the ’421 patent, however, first forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma “substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber . . . when high-power pulses are applied
`
`between the cathode . . . and the anode.” Id. at 9:16–19. Once a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are applied between
`
`the cathode and anode to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at 9:29–31, 10:8–9. The “probability of
`
`establishing a breakdown condition is substantially eliminated because the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical
`
`conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity greatly reduces or
`
`prevents the possibility of a breakdown condition, even when high power is
`
`applied to the plasma.” Id. at 9:23–28.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Each of the challenged claims depends from one of independent
`
`claims 1, 17, and 34, which are not challenged in the present Petition.
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced as follows:
`
`1. A sputtering source comprising:
`
`a) a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering target that
`is positioned adjacent to an anode; and
`
`b) a power supply that generates 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 without an occurrence of arcing
`between the anode and the cathode assembly, an amplitude, a
`duration and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to
`increase a density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Ex. 1101, 22:14–24.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are part of,
`
`and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39,
`
`49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`the specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
`
`invention.”) (citations omitted).
`
`An inventor may provide a special definition of the term in the
`
`specification, as long as this is done so “with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, however, limitations are not to be
`
`read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Each of the independent claims from which the challenged claims
`
`depend recites “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1101,
`
`22:18–20, 23:14–16, 24:17–19. In our Institution Decision, we adopted
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, in light of the Specification, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of each of these claim terms. Inst.
`
`Dec. 8–10; see, e.g., Ex. 1101, 9:24–25 (“the weakly-ionized plasma 232 has
`
`a low-level of ionization”), 12:11–12 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is
`
`also referred to as a high-density plasma.”). Neither party has challenged
`
`our claim constructions as to these terms. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2015 ¶ 20;
`
`Reply 2; Ex. 1126 ¶¶ 26–28. Upon consideration of the complete record
`
`now before us, we discern no reason to change our claim constructions set
`
`forth in the Institution Decision with respect to these claim terms. See Inst.
`
`Dec. 8–10. Therefore, we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,” and the claim term “a strongly-ionized plasma” as “a
`
`plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`“without an occurrence of arcing”
`
`Each of the independent claims from which the challenged claims
`
`depend recites “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of
`
`arcing between the anode and the cathode assembly.” Ex. 1101, 22:18–22,
`
`23:14–18, 24:17–20. We did not provide an express construction of the
`
`claim term “without an occurrence of arcing” in our Institution Decision.
`
`The Specification of the ’421 patent does not recite or explicitly define this
`
`claim term. Rather, it discloses a process that reduces or substantially
`
`eliminates the possibility of the occurrence of arcing when high-power
`
`pulses are applied to a pre-ionized plasma.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’421 patent discloses:
`
`Forming a weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`breakdown condition in the chamber 202 when high-power
`pulses are applied between the cathode assembly 216 and the
`anode 238. . . . The probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition
`is
`substantially
`eliminated
`because
`the
`weakly-ionized plasma has a low-level of ionization that
`provides electrical conductivity through the plasma. This
`conductivity greatly reduces or prevents the possibility of a
`breakdown condition when high power is applied to the plasma.
`
`Id. at 9:16–28 (emphases added).
`
`As described herein, the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`262 substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`breakdown condition when high-power pulses are applied to the
`weakly-ionized plasma 262.
` The suppression of
`this
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of
`undesirable arcing between the anode 238 and the cathode
`assembly 216.
`
`Id. at 15:66–16:5 (emphases added).
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues both that the claims require
`
`creation of the weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing (see,
`
`e.g., PO Resp. 11, 14, 16, 18, 28; Tr. 59:22–62:7), and that “[w]hile the
`
`presence of pre-ionized plasma in figure 6 [of Wang] reduces the likelihood
`
`of arcing, Wang never says that the background power PB entirely
`
`eliminated arcing after ignition” (PO Resp. 33, citations omitted).
`
`We first address Patent Owner’s argument that the claims require no
`
`arcing during creation of the weakly-ionized plasma. Here, Patent Owner
`
`improperly attempts to import extraneous limitations into the claim by
`
`arguing repeatedly that the claims require that arcing is avoided, even on
`
`plasma ignition. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11, 14, 16, 18, 28; Tr. 59:22–62:7.
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation, however, is not consistent with the language
`
`of the claims, particularly when considered in view of the Specification.
`
`The plain claim language of the independent claims, which recite “creat[ing]
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma without an
`
`occurrence of arcing,” supports a claim construction where the claim phrase
`
`“without an occurrence of arcing” modifies only the portion of the claim
`
`reciting the transition to a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma. Further, as seen in the quoted portions of the Specification set forth
`
`above, the Specification of the ’421 patent describes the weakly-ionized
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`plasma as substantially eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition, and
`
`thus arcing, when the high-power pulses are applied across the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s
`
`assertion that the setup of a breakdown condition, or arcing, also be
`
`substantially eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma itself is formed. In
`
`fact, the Specification indicates that it is the presence of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that provides for the ability to substantially eliminate arcing when
`
`the high-power pulses are applied. See Ex. 1101, 9:16–28, 15:66–16:5.
`
`Accordingly, we decline to construe the claims to require creation of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing. See In re NTP,
`
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s claim
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(stating that the Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one
`
`that those skilled in the art would reach”).
`
`We now address Patent Owner’s focus on the distinction between
`
`reducing versus eliminating. See PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner does not
`
`explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in the plasma art would have
`
`interpreted the claim term “without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition,” in light of the Specification, to require the transformation of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma with a guarantee of
`
`eliminating all possibility of arcing. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d at 1288;
`
`In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1358. One with ordinary skill in the art would
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`have recognized that electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering
`
`apparatus occurs naturally under certain processing conditions. In this
`
`regard, Dr. Overzet testifies that “[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 possibility that a system will arc.”
`
`Ex. 1126 ¶ 51 (emphases added). We credit the testimony of Dr. Overzet as
`
`it is consistent with the Specification of the ’421 patent, which discloses
`
`only that the possibility of arcing is “substantially eliminated” or “greatly
`
`reduced.” Ex. 1101, 9:16–28, 15:66–16:5.
`
`It is well settled that “[a] claim construction that excludes the
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
`
`persuasive evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`
`Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). A construction that excludes all disclosed embodiments, as urged
`
`by Patent Owner here, is especially disfavored. MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In short, claim
`
`construction requires claim terms to be read so that they encompass the very
`
`preferred embodiment they describe. On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
`
`Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that the possibility of
`
`arcing is completely eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`transformed to a strongly-ionized plasma. Rather, it explicitly states that
`
`“the formation of weakly-ionized plasma 262 substantially eliminates the
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power pulses are
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 262,” and “[t]he suppression of this
`
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of undesirable
`
`arcing between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.” Ex. 1101,
`
`15:66–16:5 (emphases added).
`
`Given the disclosure in the Specification, we decline to construe the
`
`claims to require the transformation of the weakly-ionized plasma to a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma occur with a guarantee of eliminating all possibility
`
`of an electrical breakdown condition or arcing, because it would be
`
`unreasonable to exclude the disclosed embodiments, all of which stop short
`
`of such a guarantee. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that the Specification is “the single best guide
`
`to the meaning of a disputed term”). Instead, we construe the claim term
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as
`
`“substantially eliminating the possibility of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber,” consistent with an interpretation that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would reach when reading the claim term in
`
`the context of the Specification. Additionally, as noted above, we also
`
`decline to construe the claims to require formation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma without an occurrence of arcing, and instead, consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’421 patent, determine the “without an occurrence of
`
`arcing” language modifies only the creation of the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`from the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 17 recites “a voltage pulse . . . that
`
`creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma.”7 Ex. 1101, 22:18–20, 23:14–16. We did not
`
`provide an express construction of the term “creates” in our Institution
`
`Decision.
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner proposes the phrase “creates a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “ignites a gas from a state
`
`in which there is no plasma to a state in which a plasma exists, wherein the
`
`plasma is initially a weakly-ionized plasma . . . .” PO Resp. 22. In support
`
`of its proposed construction, Patent Owner identifies the following portions
`
`of the Specification in support of its construction (PO Resp. 18):
`
`In operation, the pulsed power supply 102 applies a
`voltage pulse between the cathode assembly 114 and the anode
`130 that has a sufficient amplitude to ionize the argon feed gas
`in the vacuum chamber 104.
`
`Ex. 1101, 4:13–15.
`
`The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a
`weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between
`the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.
`
`Id. at 8:19–21.
`
`
`
`7 Claim 34 recites, similarly, a “voltage pulse creating a weakly-ionized
`plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized
`plasma.” Ex. 1101, 24:17–19.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234
`generates a low power pulse . . . in order to generate the
`weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Id. at 8:29–34.
`
`Patent Owner also cites to Dr. Kortshagen’s deposition, in which he
`
`testified the mechanism of the “creation of a plasma” is “typically referred to
`
`as ignition of the plasma where you go from a state where you do not have a
`
`plasma present to a state where you now have a plasma present.” PO
`
`Resp. 19; Ex. 2017, 12:13–24. Patent Owner further contends that
`
`Petitioner’s discussion of Wang in the Petition suggests Petitioner uses
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma” to refer to “ignition of a gas to cause a
`
`plasma to come into existence.” PO Resp. 19–20.
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`improperly reads an “ignite” limitation into the claims. Reply 2. Petitioner
`
`argues the Specification of the ’421 patent describes other embodiments that
`
`support a broader interpretation of “creates,” and proposes the term should
`
`be construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning or an explicit
`
`construction of “forms or generates.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1101, 16:42–44,
`
`16:48–51).
`
`Initially, we note Patent Owner has not identified, nor do we find, any
`
`portion of the Specification of the ’421 patent that explicitly defines the term
`
`“creates.” The ’421 patent describes choosing characteristics of a voltage
`
`pulse such that an electric field develops that creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma. Ex. 1101, 11:14–20. However, the ’421 patent also uses the term
`
`“creates” in various other contexts. For example, the ’421 patent describes
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`strongly-ionized plasma tends to diffuse homogenously in region 264, which
`
`“creates a more homogeneous plasma volume,” and the high power pulse
`
`“creates strongly-ionized plasma.” Id. at 12:16–19, 20:22–24. The ’421
`
`patent further describes an initial voltage that “creates a plasma discharge
`
`voltage.” Id. at 8:53–56.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would interpret “creates a weakly-ionized plasma” as
`
`suggested (PO Resp. 18–22). In its Motion on Observations, Patent Owner
`
`further argues that Dr. Overzet’s deposition testimony supports its proposed
`
`construction. Paper 44, 1–5. We are not persuaded, however, that
`
`Dr. Overzet’s cited testimony supports Patent Owner’s proposal, nor is it
`
`necessary for construction of the claims; instead, we determine the meaning
`
`of the claim limitation is apparent from the intrinsic evidence alone.
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we determine that “creates” would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean “to bring into
`
`existence,” consistent with the use of the word in the Specification and the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning thereof. See Create Definition, Merriam-
`
`Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 271 (10th edition 2000). Furthermore, the
`
`’421 patent does not explicitly define “creates a weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`While Patent Owner provides examples described in the Specification
`
`(PO Resp. 18), we will not import the suggested “ignition” limitation into
`
`the claim. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
`
`description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
`
`a part of the claim.”).
`
`As such, we interpret the term “creates a weakly-ionized plasma” as
`
`“brings into existence a weakly-ionized plasma,” and do not limit the claim
`
`to a circumstance that the gas is ignited from a state in which there is no
`
`existing plasma, as proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`“pulse”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 17 recites “a power supply that
`
`generates a voltage pulse.”8 Ex. 1101, 22:17, 23:13. Patent Owner asserts
`
`the term “pulse” should be given its ordinary meaning, but does not proffer
`
`any “formal construction.” PO Resp. 17. Petitioner proposes we construe
`
`“pulse” as “a property (e.g., voltage, current, or power) that is applied over a
`
`period of time.” Reply 6.
`
`The parties’ dispute with respect to this term focuses on the
`
`application of the cited art to the claims, rather than on a particular meaning
`
`of the term itself. For this reason, we do not provide an express construction
`
`for this term. Instead, we address the parties’ arguments regarding the usage
`
`of the term “pulse” in more detail below, in the context of applying the cited
`
`art to the claims.
`
`B.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`8 Claim 34 recites, similarly, “generating a voltage pulse.” Ex. 1101, 24:15.
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on
`
`the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`C. Obviousness Over Wang in Combination with Kawamata
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang and Kawamata. Pet. 30–42. Petitioner explains how each claim
`
`limitation is disclosed in or taught by the cited references, and provides an
`
`articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining the
`
`prior art teachings. Id. Petitioner also relies on the Declarations of
`
`Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1102) and Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1126) to support its Petition
`
`and Reply, respectively. Patent Owner responds that Wang does not
`
`disclose every element of the independent claims from which claims 3–5,
`
`18–20, 36, 40, and 41 depend, relying on the Declaration of Dr. Hartsough
`
`(Ex. 2015) to support its Response. PO Resp. 23–44.
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang, and then we address the
`
`parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1104, Abstract. Wang also
`
`discloses a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`
`of a magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Ex. 1104, 3:57–
`
`4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus creates high-density plasma in
`
`region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into
`
`positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id. at
`
`4:13–34. Magnet assembly 40 creates a magnetic field near target 14, which
`
`traps electrons from the plasma to increase the electron density. Id. at 4:23–
`
`27. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered particles
`
`are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and effectively. Id. at
`
`1:24–29.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP.
`
`Ex. 1104, 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum
`
`power necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational
`
`pressure (e.g., 1 kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100
`
`or 1000 times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak
`
`power PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the
`
`density of the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus
`
`generates a low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of
`
`background power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of
`
`peak power PP. Ex. 1102 ¶ 97; see Pet. 32. In Wang, background power PB
`
`may be generated by DC power supply 100 and peak power PP may be
`
`generated by pulsed power supply 80. Ex. 1104, 7:56–64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 41.
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`Independent Claims 1, 17, and 34
`
`Petitioner explains how each limitation of independent claims 1, 17,
`
`and 34 is disclosed in Wang. Pet. 30–39. For example, regarding claim 1,
`
`Petitioner contends that anode 24 and the cathode assembly, including
`
`sputtering target 14, of Wang disclose the claimed cathode assembly
`
`adjacent an anode. Id. at 30; Ex. 1104, 3:33–4:1; Ex. 1102 ¶ 93. Petitioner
`
`further contends that the combination of DC power supply 100 and pulsed
`
`DC power supply 80, the outputs of each of being coupled to cathode target
`
`14, discloses the claimed power supply that generates a voltage pulse.
`
`Pet. 31–32; Ex. 1104, 3:66–4:1, 7:58–62, Figs. 1, 6, 7; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 94–96.
`
`According to Petitioner, DC power supply 100 of Wang supplies
`
`background power PB that generates a low density plasma, thus disclosing
`
`creating a weakly-ionized plasma, and pulsed DC power supply 80 of Wang
`
`supplies peak power PP that generates a high density plasma from the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma, thus disclosing creating a strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1104, 7:17–39; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98. Petitioner contends that
`
`Wang also discloses forming the strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.
`
`Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1104, 7:3–6, 7:13–28, 7:47–49, Fig. 6; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 99–100.
`
`Petitioner further contends that Wang discloses the voltage pulse having an
`
`amplitude, duration, and/or rise time to result in an increased density of ions
`
`in the strongly-ionized plasma. Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1104, 5:23–26, 7:19–30;
`
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 101–102. In its discussion of claims 17 and 34, Petitioner
`
`primarily refers back to its discussion of corresponding limitations of
`
`claim 1. See Pet. 35–39. Regarding claim 17, Petitioner further relies on
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00805
`Patent 7,811,421 B2
`
`pedestal electrode 18 and RF power source 44 of Wang as disclosing the
`
`claimed substrate support and bias voltage source. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1104,
`
`3:63–66, 4:32–34; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 106–107.
`
`With respect to the independent claims, the parties’ dispute mainly
`
`centers

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket