`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 34789.117
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and
`TSMC North America Corp.
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`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
`
`Case No. IPR__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 14-18 AND 25-32
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`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...........................................- 2 -
`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 ‘716 Patent ........................................................................- 6 -
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent....................................- 6 -
`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 Kudryavtsev .....................................................................- 10 -
`D. Overview of Wang ...............................................................................- 11 -
`VII.
`Claim Construction...............................................................................- 12 -
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .......................- 12 -
`VIII.
`Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................- 14 -
`A. Ground I: Claims 14-18 and 25-32 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev .............................................................................- 14 -
`1.
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`Kudryavtsev .............................................................................................- 14 -
`2.
`Independent claim 26 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`Kudryavtsev .............................................................................................- 25 -
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`3. Dependent claims 15-18, 25 and 27-32 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev .................................................- 28 -
`B. Ground II: Claims 14-18 and 25-32 are obvious over Wang in view of
`Kudryavtsev .................................................................................................- 40 -
`1.
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev .............................................................................................- 40 -
`2.
`Independent claim 26 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev .............................................................................................- 47 -
`3. Dependent claims 15-18, 25, and 27-32 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev .....................................................- 51 -
`IX. Conclusion ..............................................................................................- 59 -
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`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 7,604,716
`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. 7,604,716 (“’716 Patent”) (Ex. 1201)
`
`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 ’716 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘716 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 27, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00522. Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`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 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David M. O’Dell
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone: 972-739-8635
`
`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.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 14-18 and 25-32 of the ’716 Patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`
`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. 1203)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1204)), which is prior art under 102(a)
`
`and (e).
`
`3.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1205)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 14-18 and 25-32 of the ’716 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr.
`
`Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1202))4 filed herewith, demonstrates that
`
`3 The ‘716 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the prior art.
`
`4 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by TSMC. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1202 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00522 (Ex.
`
`INTEL-1202), discussed above.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1202). The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged
`
`ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as 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. Id. (Ex. 1202).6
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades before
`
`the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). For example, sputtering
`
`is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material
`
`5 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 14-18 and 25-32 of
`
`the ‘716 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘716
`
`Patent in separate petitions.
`
`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. ¶ 21, FN 1 (Ex. 1202).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1202). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface
`
`causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1202). The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive
`
`release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘716 Patent was
`
`filed. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1202). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1202). 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. 1202).
`
`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.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have
`
`equal numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1202). A collision with a free
`
`electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. (Ex. 1202). For
`
`example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at 9:7
`
`(Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). A collision between a free, high energy,
`
`electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex. 1202). For
`
`example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equations to describe production of an
`
`argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*.
`
`See ‘716 Patent at 2:65 and 9:9 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before the
`
`‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1202).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘716 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent
`
`The ‘716 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a electrical pulse in
`
`a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘716 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical pulse
`
`to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized plasma.” Id. at
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`¶ 29 (Ex. 1202). The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce the probability of
`
`forming an electrical breakdown condition. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used. Id. at ¶ 30 (Ex. 1202).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘716 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/065,629 (now U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 6,853,142) (Ex. 1206). See ‘716 Patent at Certificate of Correction (Ex.
`
`1201).
`
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1207). The applicant then amended
`
`every independent claim to require “substantially eliminating the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” and “without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” or similar limitations.
`
`See 09/24/08 Resp. (Ex. 1208).
`
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of Allowance
`
`explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for allowance. 06/11/09
`
`Allowance at 2 (“The closest prior art of record Kouznetsov WO 98/40532 fails to
`
`teach the claimed elements including ‘substantially eliminating the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber’ and ‘without
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”) (Ex. 1209).
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and all other limitations of the
`
`challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1202).
`
`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 ‘716 Patent. Id. at ¶ 34 (Ex. 1202).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin7
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma
`
`“without forming an arc discharge.” Id. at
`
`¶ 35 (Ex. 1202). Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied
`
`below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`discharge. 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. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`7 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime
`
`2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202). Application
`
`of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1202). 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. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex.
`
`1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1202). Increasing the current applied to the “high-
`
`current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1202). 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. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`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. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202). Further increasing the applied current
`
`causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Id. (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at ¶ 42 (Ex. 1202).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1205). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202). In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how
`
`ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes. Id. (Ex. 1202). The first
`
`process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are converted directly to ions.
`
`See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1205). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1202). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1205). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions
`
`multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev
`
`at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1205). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin
`
`took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into
`
`account the dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘716 Patent.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Overview of Wang
`D.
`Wang8 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.
`
`1204). 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 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. 1204); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1202). 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. 1204).
`
`8 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1202). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`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
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.9 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”
`
`9 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 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1202). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘716 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and then
`
`goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power
`
`304. ‘716 Patent at 11:24-30; 11:66-12:6 (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1202). The ‘716 Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized
`
`and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘716 Patent at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma
`
`density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 24
`
`(“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about
`
`1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1202).
`
`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
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1210).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1202), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 14-18 and 25-32 of the ’716 Patent, and how
`
`those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Ground I: Claims 14-18 and 25-32 are obvious in view of the
`A.
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing litigation
`
`involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 14-18 and 25-32
`
`are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1215 (Ex. 1215). Dr. Kortshagen reviewed that chart and agrees
`
`with it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of
`1.
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 14 begins, “[a] method for generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of
`
`devices: a planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow electrodes.”
`
`Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54
`
`(Ex. 1202). The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.10
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.11
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015 cm-3.12
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent
`
`at claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is
`
`greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-
`(1)
`ionized plasma”
`
`10 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density
`
`in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`12 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1203).
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘716 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘716 Patent at 5:14-15 (“The weakly-ionized plasma 232 is
`
`also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56
`
`(Ex. 1202). 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 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage
`
`of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the exemplary
`
`density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent at claim 23
`
`(“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about
`
`1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1201); 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 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1203) (emphasis added). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon and
`
`Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge regimes in
`
`various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”) (emphasis added); 402, ¶ spanning left and
`
`right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges of discharge
`
`current…and operating pressure…using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or their
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`mixtures of various composition…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1203). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma was generated between the anode
`
`and cathode, both of which reside within a chamber. See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59
`
`(Ex. 1202). For example, Mozgrin states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume was
`
`pumped out; minimal residual gas pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.” Mozgrin at 401,
`
`left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1203). That is, Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a desired
`
`base pressure within the chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex. 1203). See
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1202).
`
`“that substantially eliminates the probability of
`(2)
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`col, ¶3 (Ex. 1203). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1202).
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`(a)
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1201) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1211) name the same
`
`inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in related
`
`litigation identified in Section I.B. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, the Patent
`
`Owner argued that Mozgrin does not teach “without forming an arc.” See 05/02/06
`
`Resp. of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1212). However, the Patent
`
`Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin does teach “without
`
`forming an arc” as required by the ‘759 Patent as well as “substantially eliminat[ing]
`
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as
`
`required by the ‘716 Patent. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`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 region
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). Id. at ¶ 62 (Ex. 1202). However, if the current is limited, the
`
`plasma will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Id. (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. Id. at ¶ 63 (Ex. 1202). But
`
`Mozgrin’s discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Id. (Ex.
`
`1202). Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation of the conditions under which arcing occurs
`
`provides a recipe for avoiding arcs. Id. (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs
`
`can be avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit to
`
`arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1203). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 63 (Ex. 1202).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have understood that the arc discharge region
`
`should be avoided during plasma generation that is used for applications such as
`
`sputtering or etching. Id. at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1202). 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 ‘716 Patent was
`
`filed, states that “arcs…are a problem…” Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`1213).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have further understood that Mozgrin’s arc region
`
`can be avoided, such as by generating a weakly-ionized plasma as explained above.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 65 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause
`
`transition to the arc regime is useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to
`
`avoid arcs. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Specifically, one of ordinary skill reading Mozgrin would have understood that
`
`controlling discharge parameters, such as by generating the weakly-ionized plasma,
`
`causes the plasma to remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). See
`
`Mozgrin at 406, right col, ¶3 (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 66 (Ex. 1202).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`(1)
`ionized plasma,”
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 3(b) shows a voltage pulse generated by the “high-voltage
`
`supply unit” of Mozgrin’s power supply (shown in Mo