IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-008081
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC § 316 AND 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00849, IPR 2014-0975, and IPR 2014-01067 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 8
`
`
`A. Plasma Fundamentals. .................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Plasma Ignition ............................................................................................. 10
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas ................................................................................... 12
`
`
`III. THE ‘716 PATENT ......................................................................................... 13
`
`IV. ARGUMENT. ................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`A. Wang. ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................. 24
`
`C. Mozgrin. ........................................................................................................ 29
`
`D. Lantsman. ...................................................................................................... 29
`
`E. Wang and Kudryavtsev Do Not Suggest Generating a Strongly-Ionized
`Plasma Without Developing an Electrical Breakdown Condition as Required
`by the Challenged Claims of the ’716 Patent. ..................................................... 31
`
`F. The Combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev Does Not Suggest Supplying
`the Electric Pulse Comprises “ applying a quasi-static electric field,” as Recited
`in Dependent Claim 21. ....................................................................................... 35
`
`G. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine the Teachings of Wang
`and Kudryavtsev To Achieve the Invention Claimed in the ’716 Patent. ........... 37
`
`H. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine the Teachings of Wang,
`Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin To Achieve the Invention Claimed in the ’716
`Patent. .................................................................................................................. 40
`
` ii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`I. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine the Teachings of Wang,
`Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman To Achieve the Invention Claimed in the ’716
`Patent. .................................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 19
`
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 19
`
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 18
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 18
`
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit of Etai Lahav in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2002 Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2003 Affidavit of Tigran Vardanian in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2004 Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2005 Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, IPR2014-00807,
`-00808, -01099 & -01100, Dec. 22, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2006 Eronini Umez-Eronini, SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL,
`Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. (1999), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2007 Robert C. Weyrick, FUNDAMENTALS OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL,
`McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2008 Chiang et al., U.S. Patent 6,398,929.
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`All of the challenged claims (19-24) are patentable over Wang and
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`Kudryavtsev. The ‘716 patent requires generating a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition in a chamber.1 Wang,
`
`however, merely describes techniques for reducing, but not eliminating, electrical
`
`breakdown conditions such as arcing. The two are not the same. Kudryavtsev
`
`reports on “ionization relaxation” in a plasma when an external electric field is
`
`suddenly increased,2 but describes experiments with an apparatus that does not
`
`include a magnetic field3 and, that are consistent with a flash caused by electrical
`
`breakdown, and very likely, arcing.4 Thus, the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev would not suggest supplying an electrical pulse across a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma that excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma, thereby generating
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`
`the chamber,” as required by all of the challenged claims.5
`
`1 Ex. 1301 at 21:9-11 (claim 14) (emphasis added).
`
`2 Ex. 1305 at p. 30, left col, ¶ 1.
`
`3 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 73.
`
`4 Id. at ¶ 75.
`
`5 Id. at ¶ 105.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Wang describes applying DC power pulses to a plasma when sputtering
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`
`material from a target, but fails to teach or suggest controlling voltage during such
`
`activities or when generating a high-density plasma. In fact, Wang does not explain
`
`any electrodynamics of high-density plasmas.6 Control of power (as in Wang) is
`
`very different from controlling voltage,7 and even Wang acknowledges this
`
`distinction.8 Thus, unlike the ‘716 patent, in which the rise time of the electric field
`
`is chosen to increase an ionization rate of excited atoms in a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,9 Wang discloses a very different
`
`approach to achieving a high density plasma.10
`
`
`
`“Wang’s elections in this regard have consequences.”11 The power pulses
`
`will tend to produce an arc during the ignition of the plasma, as observed by Wang:
`
`
`6 Id. at ¶¶ 12, 71.
`
`7 Id. at ¶¶ 58-62.
`
`8 Ex. 1304 at 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse
`
`width is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse widths.”).
`
`9 See, e.g., Ex. 1301 at 8:40-47; 22:29-32.
`
`10 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 60.
`
`11 Id. at ¶ 61.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`Plasma ignition, particularly in plasma sputter reactors, has a
`tendency to generate particles during the initial arcing, which
`may dislodge large particles from the target or chamber.12
`
`This arcing is very problematic inasmuch as it leads to particle generation and can
`
`damage the chamber and power equipment.13 Because Wang expects arcing when
`
`his power pulses are used to ignite a plasma, the reference proposes only igniting
`
`the plasma once and applying a fixed background power so that the plasma is
`
`maintained in between power pulses.14
`
`
`
`Wang, however, does not solve the problem of arcing during plasma
`
`initiation.15 Instead, Wang merely proposes reducing the amount of arcing by
`
`keeping the plasma maintained so as not to require re-ignition with each pulse.16
`
`Arcing is still possible when a pulse is applied across a pre-existing plasma,
`
`particularly when there is a large, abrupt increase in the electric field as would
`
`occur upon the sudden application of a power pulse, such as in the transition from
`
`
`12 Ex. 1304 at 7:3-6.
`
`13 Id. at 7:1-12.
`
`14 Id. at 7:13-31.
`
`15 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 64.
`
`16 Id.
`
`3
`
`

`
`PB to PP shown in Wang’s Fig. 6.17 Wang does not discuss the risk of arcing in
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`connection with the application of power pulses, PP, or how to avoid it. Thus,
`
`Wang does not teach or suggest that arcing could be avoided.18
`
`The teachings of Kudryavtsev do not suggest any different result. As
`
`discussed by Dr. Hartsough, a qualitative analysis reveals that Kudryavtsev’s flash
`
`tube experiments had results consistent with arcing.19 Consequently, any
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev would, at best, suggest techniques to
`
`reduce, but not eliminate, arcing. It is also worth noting that Petitioners’ expert, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen, testified that he understands the Board’s construction of the terms
`
`“strongly ionized plasma” and “weakly ionized plasma” to require a range of
`
`absolute magnitudes in peak density of ions, (namely, equal to or greater than 1012
`
`and equal to or less than 109, respectively).20 Interestingly, this opinion conflicts
`
`with that of Mr. Devito—Petitioner’s other expert—who requires that a strongly-
`
`
`17 Id. at ¶ 65.
`
`18 Id.
`
`19 Id. at ¶ 107 (discussing the rapid drop in voltage reported by Kudryavtsev—
`
`characteristic of arcing).
`
`20 IPR2014-00818 Ex. 2010 at 44:13 – 58:12.
`
`4
`
`

`
`ionized plasma have a peak density of ions that is 3-4 orders of magnitude greater
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`than a weakly ionized plasma.21 But Dr. Kortshagen acknowledges that neither
`
`Wang nor Kudryavtsev disclose a magnitude for the peak density of ions.22 Thus,
`
`according to Dr. Kortshagen’s interpretation, it is impossible to conclude that
`
`either Wang or Kudryavtsev teach a strongly ionized plasma at all.
`
`
`
`In contrast, the ‘716 patent demonstrates that arcing can be avoided, even on
`
`plasma ignition, with proper control of electric field amplitude and rise time. This
`
`is recited in the claims of the ‘716 patent, which require generating the strongly
`
`ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber.23 Inasmuch as the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev fails to suggest
`
`such features, the patentability of the challenged claims should be confirmed over
`
`these references.
`
`
`
`The situation does not change if one considers the additional teachings of
`
`Mozgrin or Lantsman. Mozgrin relates to “high-power quasi-stationary low-
`
`
`21 IPR2014-00799, Ex. 2014 at 169:10 – 170:25; 225:23 – 226:3.
`
`22 IPR2014-00818 Ex. 2010 at 212:20-22; 216:2 – 217:21; 154:23 – 155:15.
`
`23 Ex. 1301 at 21:9-11 (emphasis added); 22:13-15.
`
`5
`
`

`
`pressure discharge in a magnetic field.”24 While it is true that Mozgrin took into
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`account certain dependencies reported by Kudryavtsev in designing a pulsed power
`
`supply unit,25 this does not imply that one or ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`combined the teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Mozgrin determined that for
`
`systems employing a magnetic field, a supply unit “providing square voltage and
`
`current pulses with rise times (leading edge) of 5 – 60 µs and durations as much as
`
`1.5 ms” was needed.26 Wang, on the other hand was concerned with regimes in
`
`which pulses had “significant” rise times and pulse widths were preferably kept to
`
`less than 200 µs and no more than 1 ms.27 Given these important distinctions in the
`
`nature of the supply unit, the teachings of Mozgrin would be of little value to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art when considering the system of Wang.28
`
`Significant experimentation would still be required in order to adapt any teachings
`
`of Mozgrin to the regime of Wang.
`
`
`24 Ex. 1303 at p. 400, Abstract.
`
`25 Id. at p. 401, rt. col.
`
`26 Id.
`
`27 Ex. 1304 at 5: 26-27, 43-48; 8:41-42.
`
`28 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 126.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`Lantsman describes a circuit with two power supplies: “[a] secondary power
`
`
`
`supply pre-ignites the plasma by driving the cathode to a process initiation voltage.
`
`Thereafter, a primary power supply electrically drives the cathode to generate
`
`plasma current and deposition on a wafer.”29 Immediately then, and irrespective of
`
`any teachings Lantsman may or may not provide concerning the provision of a
`
`feed gas, one can discern a significant difference between Wang and Lantsman.30
`
`Indeed, Lantsman fails to discuss any pulsed power supply, electrical pulse, or
`
`strongly-ionized plasma and thus differs substantially from Wang in important
`
`regards.31 Systems that use a pulsed discharge supply unit, like those of Wang,
`
`would operate very differently if modified to use two DC power supplies, one of
`
`which supplies power for an entire deposition period, as taught by Lantsman.32
`
`Such modifications would be significant changes to semiconductor processing
`
`methods employing such apparatus and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`need to undertake significant experimentation with such equipment to understand
`
`
`29 Ex. 1306 at 4:11 and 4:19 (describing two DC power supplies).
`
`30 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 87.
`
`31 Id. at ¶ 100.
`
`32 Id.
`
`7
`
`

`
`how the plasma was affected. In short, there would be no motivation for a person
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such changes.33 Indeed, inasmuch as Lantsman
`
`fails to even mention strongly-ionized plasma, there appears to be little, if any,
`
`reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have consulted Lantsman for any
`
`relevant teachings concerning systems in which an electrical pulse is applied across
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.34
`
`
`
`Thus, the challenged claims are patentable over the combinations of
`
`references cited by Petitioners and all of the proposed rejections should be denied.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘716 patent relates to “[m]ethods and apparatus for generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.”35 Accordingly, we first review some fundamentals
`
`concerning plasmas, and strongly-ionized (or high-density) plasmas in particular,
`
`and then address Dr. Chistyakov’s particular solution for generating such a plasma.
`
`
`
`
`33 Id.
`
`34 Id.
`
`35 Ex. 1301 at Abstract.
`
`8
`
`

`
`A.
`
`Plasma Fundamentals.
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`Plasma is a distinct state of matter characterized by a significant number of
`
`electrically charged particles.36 In an ordinary gas, each atom or molecule contains
`
`an equal number of positive and negative charges, so that each is electrically
`
`“neutral.” When the atoms or molecules of the gas are subjected to heat or other
`
`energy, they begin to lose electrons and are left with a positive charge. This
`
`process is called ionization. When enough gas atoms or molecules have been
`
`ionized such that the ions, together with the free electrons, significantly affect the
`
`electrical characteristics of the substance it is said to be plasma. Although made up
`
`of charged particles the plasma remains electrically neutral overall.37
`
`Plasmas are used in a number of commercial and industrial applications,
`
`including the manufacture of semiconductor devices. To that end, if a target (or an
`
`object in its vicinity) is made electrically negative compared to the plasma,
`
`positively charged ions in the plasma will be accelerated towards the target and a
`
`number of different interactions may occur (see Figure 1, below).38
`
`
`36 Id. at 1:6-8.
`
`37 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 46.
`
`38 Id. at ¶ 47.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`Plasma
`
`Surface
`of
`Target
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Interactions at a target’s surface
`In Figure 1, an arriving ion is adsorbed onto the surface of the target at (A).
`
`At (B), the incoming ion transfers some of its momentum to one of the target’s
`
`surface atoms and causes it to be displaced. If the energy of the incoming ion is
`
`sufficiently high, surface atoms of the target may be removed in a process referred
`
`to as sputtering (shown in (C)). If the ion energy is even greater, then it may be
`
`implanted into the target (at (D)).39 Sputtering is often used to deposit layers of
`
`material on a semiconductor substrate as part of an integrated circuit fabrication
`
`process.40
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plasma Ignition
`
`To ignite a plasma, a gas is introduced in a space between two electrodes,
`
`
`39 Id. at ¶ 48.
`
`40 Ex. 1304 at 1:10-15.
`
`10
`
`

`
`for example in a tube or other container, and an electric field is applied between
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`the electrodes. An example of such an arrangement is shown in Figure 2.41
`
`Cathode
`
`Anode
`
`Tube
`
`Gas
`
`Electric Field
`
`+
`
`_
`
`Voltage
`Source
`Figure 2: Simplified plasma system
`Ions and electrons in the gas are accelerated towards the electrically negative
`
`
`
`electrode (the “cathode”) and the electrically positive electrode (the “anode”),
`
`respectively. As electrons collide with gas atoms, they produce new ions.42
`
`When the ions are in close proximity to the cathode (e.g., on the order of a
`
`few Angstroms), electrons can tunnel from the cathode, neutralizing the ions and
`
`releasing energy. If sufficient energy is transferred to a surface electron at the
`
`cathode, “secondary electrons” are emitted into the gas. The secondary electrons
`
`are accelerated towards the anode, and when they collide with gas atoms they
`
`
`41 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 49.
`
`42 Id.
`
`11
`
`

`
`generate new ions and free electrons. The process of ionization proceeds in this
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`fashion; and, if the applied power is sufficiently high, a plasma is created.43
`
`
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas
`
`The ‘716 patent is particularly concerned with high-density plasmas, for
`
`example, plasmas having a density greater than 1012 cm-3.44 Magnetron reactors
`
`develop high-density plasmas using a magnetic field configured parallel to a target
`
`surface to constrain the secondary electrons. The ions also concentrate in the same
`
`region, maintaining the quasi-electrical neutrality of the plasma.45 This trapping of
`
`electrons and ions creates a dense plasma.46
`
`Conventional magnetron systems suffer from undesirable, non-uniform
`
`erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.47 To address
`
`such problems, researchers tried increasing the applied power and later pulsing the
`
`applied power. However, increasing the applied power increased “the probability
`
`43 Id. at ¶ 50.
`
`44 See, e.g., Ex. 1301 at 21:45-7.
`
`45 Id. at 3:13-28.
`
`46 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 51.
`
`47 Ex. 1301 at 3:29-31.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical
`
`discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber . . . .”48 Even with the pulsed approach,
`
`“very large power pulses can still result in undesirable electrical discharges
`
`regardless of their duration.”49
`
`
`
`III. THE ‘716 PATENT
`
`To overcome some of the deficiencies of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`invented a plasma processing apparatus and corresponding method in which:
`
`An ionization source generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode. A power supply produces an electric
`field in the gap between the anode and the cathode. The electric
`field generates excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and
`generates secondary electrons from the cathode. The secondary
`electrons ionize the excited atoms, thereby creating a strongly-
`ionized plasma.50
`
`***
`
`
`48 Id. at 3:38-41.
`
`49 Id. at 3:50-52; and see Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 52-54.
`
`50 Ex. 1301 at Abstract.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-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 [ ]. 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
`substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition,
`even when high power is applied to the plasma.51
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ‘716 patent, Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma
`
`processing apparatus includes a cathode 204.52 An anode 216 is positioned “so as
`
`to form a gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204 that is sufficient to
`
`allow current to flow through a region 222 between the anode 216 and the cathode
`
`204. . . . The gap 220 and the total volume of the region 222 are parameters in the
`
`ionization process . . . .”53
`
`
`51 Id. at 4:16-25 (emphasis added).
`
`52 Id. at 3:63-64.
`
`53 Id. at 4:30-39.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`
`“[O]nce the weakly-ionized plasma 232 is formed, the pulsed power supply 202
`
`generates high-power pulses between the cathode 204 and the anode 216 (FIG.
`
`2C).”54
`
`
`
`
`54 Id. at 6:51-53.
`
`15
`
`

`
`“The high-power pulses generate a strong electric field 236 between the cathode
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`204 and the anode 216. . . . [and] generate a highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232 . . . .”55 The strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is also referred to as a high-density plasma.56
`
`The challenged claims are all directed to generating a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma using the multi-stage ionization described above. In particular, the claims
`
`require generating a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in a chamber.57
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT.
`
`In this proceeding, claim 21 is alleged to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious in view of the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Claims 19
`
`and 20 are alleged to be obvious in view of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman.
`
`Claims 22-24 are alleged to be obvious in view of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`
`Mozgrin. However, Petitioners cannot prevail on any proposed grounds of
`
`rejection because none of the proposed combinations of references teach or suggest
`
`55 Id. at 7:3-18.
`
`56 Id. at 7:18-19.
`
`57 Id. at 21:9-11 (emphasis added).
`
`16
`
`

`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`condition in a chamber as required by the challenged claims.58 Accordingly, the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims should be confirmed.
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent claim as obvious must demonstrate
`
`that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”59 This
`
`determination is one that must be made at the time the invention was made.60 This
`
`
`58 All of the challenged claims depend from claim 14, which requires generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`
`a chamber. Id. (emphasis added).
`
`59 See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“To decide whether risedronate was obvious in light of the prior art, a
`
`court must determine whether, at the time of invention, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had ‘reason to attempt to make the composition’ known
`
`as risedronate and ‘a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`60 Id.
`
`17
`
`

`
`temporal requirement prevents the “forbidden use of hindsight.”61 Furthermore,
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`rejections for obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.62
`
`“Petitioner[s] must show some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have thought to combine particular available elements of knowledge, as
`
`evidenced by the prior art, to reach the claimed invention.”63 Inventions are often
`
`deemed nonobvious (and thus patentable) even when all of the claim elements are
`
`individually found in the prior art because an “invention may be a combination of
`
`
`61 See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Indeed, where the invention is less technologically complex, the need for
`
`Graham findings can be important to ward against falling into the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight.”).
`
`62 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`63 Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper
`
`12 at p. 9 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418) (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`18
`
`

`
`old elements.”64 The motivation to combine inquiry focuses heavily on “scope and
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`content of the prior art” and the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” aspects
`
`of the Graham factors.65 Accordingly, we begin with a discussion of the references
`
`at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`A. Wang.
`Wang discusses “[a] pulsed magnetron sputter reactor [with] a high plasma
`
`density.”66 In this reactor, “narrow pulses of negative DC power” are used to
`
`sputter material from a target.67 In one example, Wang indicates that the pulses are
`
`applied to both ignite the plasma and maintain it,68 while in another example Wang
`
`64 Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`65 Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We
`
`further explained that the ‘motivation to combine’ requirement ‘[e]ntails
`
`consideration of both the ‘scope and content of the prior art’ and ‘level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art’ aspects of the Graham test.’”).
`
`66 Ex. 1304 at 3:16-22.
`
`67 Id. at 4:33-34.
`
`68 Id. at 5:29-30.
`
`19
`
`

`
`describes maintaining the plasma using a background power level with the pulses
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`applying a much greater peak power to increase the density of the plasma.69 In both
`
`examples it is the power applied to a cathode target that is driven to a prescribed
`
`level, not voltage.70
`
`“This is not merely a difference in semantics.”71 Wang acknowledges there
`
`is a substantive difference between controlling power and controlling voltage, and
`
`chooses to control power parameters rather than those of current or voltage:
`
`Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse width
`is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse
`widths.72
`
`Thus, unlike the ‘716 patent, in which the rise time of the electric field is chosen to
`
`increase an ionization rate of excited atoms in a weakly-ionized plasma to generate
`
`
`69 Id. at 7:13-30.
`
`70 Id. at 5:18-20; 7:13-30; and see 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is
`
`changing, the power pulse width is preferably specified rather than the current or
`
`voltage pulse widths.”); and see Ex. 2004 at ¶ 58.
`
`71 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 60.
`
`72 Ex. 1304 at 5:52-54.
`
`20
`
`

`
`a strongly-ionized plasma,73 Wang discloses a very different approach to achieving
`
`IPR2014-00808
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`a high density plasma.74
`
`“[W]hen it comes to manipulating plasma density, configuring a power
`
`supply to generate electrode power pulses can yield substantially different results
`
`than configuring a power supply to generate voltage pulses with amplitude and rise
`
`times.”75 Power pulses are the product of voltage and current. Therefore, to
`
`maintain a constant power in the presence of a varying impedance (as in the case of
`
`a weakly ionized plasma being transformed to a strongly ionized plasma), voltage
`
`and current can vary significantly.76 A power supply will drive the voltage
`
`extremely high when the current is near zero (e.g., before plasma ignition or when
`
`the plasma density is low),77 producing an arc:
`
`