throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 51
`
`Entered: September 23, 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 IPR2014-008081
`Patent 7,604,716 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
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00849, IPR2014-00975, and IPR2014-01067 have been
`joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 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 19–24
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’716 patent”) are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corp. (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petitioner (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 19–24 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’716 patent. TSMC included a Declaration of
`
`Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (Ex. 1302) 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 14, 2014, we instituted an inter partes
`
`review of the challenged claims on the following grounds: claim 21 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang2 and Kudryavtsev3; claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`
`Lantsman4; and claims 22–24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 B1, issued July 2, 2002 (Ex. 1304).
`3 A.A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a Plasma
`Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH. PHYS.
`30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1305).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1306).
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`obvious over the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin.5
`
`Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted revised Motions for Joinder filed
`
`by other Petitioners listed in the Caption above, joining
`
`Cases IPR2014-00849, IPR2014-00975, and IPR2014-01067 with the
`
`instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a Joint Motion to Terminate
`
`with respect to TSMC (Paper 34).6 Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D.
`
`Hartsough, Ph.D. (Ex. 2004) to support its positions. Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply (Paper 42, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a
`
`supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1330). An oral hearing7
`
`was held on June 12, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`
`record. Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’716 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.
`
`
`
`5 D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1303).
`6 We refer to the remaining parties, listed in the Caption above, collectively,
`as “Petitioner” throughout this Decision.
`7 The oral arguments for IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00818,
`IPR2014-00819, IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098,
`IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-01100 were consolidated.
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`The ’716 Patent
`
`The ’716 patent relates to a method and apparatus for generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, for use in various plasma processes. Ex. 1301,
`
`Abstract, 7:30–47. For example, at the time of the invention, plasma
`
`sputtering was a widely used technique for depositing films on substrates.
`
`Id. at 1:24–25. As discussed in the ’716 patent, prior art magnetron
`
`sputtering systems deposited films having low uniformity and poor target
`
`utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:20–
`
`33. The ’716 patent discloses that increasing the power applied to the
`
`plasma, in an attempt to increase the plasma uniformity and density, can also
`
`“increase the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition
`
`leading to an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`
`chamber.” Id. at 3:34–40.
`
`The ’716 patent further discloses that using pulsed DC power can
`
`reduce the probability of establishing such an electrical breakdown
`
`condition, but that large power pulses still can result in undesirable electrical
`
`discharges. Id. at 3:42–52. According to the ’716 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 6:16–19. 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
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`conductivity substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma.” Id. at 6:20–25.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Challenged claims 19–24 each depend from claim 14, which is not
`
`challenged in the present Petition. Claims 14 and 21 are illustrative, and are
`
`reproduced as follows:
`
`14. A method for generating a strongly -ionized plasma,
`the method comprising:
`
`a. ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma
`that substantially eliminates
`the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber; and
`
`b. supplying an electrical pulse across the 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.
`
`Ex. 1301, 21:1–11.
`
`21. The method of claim 14 wherein the supplying the
`electrical pulse comprises applying a quasi-static electric field
`across the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Id. at 21:36–38.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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
`
`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”
`
`Independent claim 14 recites supplying an electrical pulse to “excite[]
`
`atoms in [a] weakly-ionized plasma, thereby generating a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Ex. 1301, 21:7–9. Prior to institution, the parties submitted
`
`proposed constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 15–17. In our
`
`Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, in
`
`light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretations.
`
`Inst. Dec. 7–9; see, e.g., Ex. 1301, 6:22–24 (“the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`has a low-level of ionization”), 7:16–18 (“high-power pulses generate a
`
`highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma 232”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Patent Owner,
`
`nor its expert witness, expressly challenged our claim constructions as to
`
`these terms (see, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶ 21), Patent Owner improperly attempts to
`
`import extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing that a specific
`
`magnitude for the peak density of ions is required to disclose a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, i.e., “equal to or greater than 1012 [cm-3]”
`
`(PO Resp. 4–5, 34). It is well settled that if a feature is not necessary to give
`
`meaning to a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read
`
`into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Patent Owner relies only on testimony from Petitioner’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, to support this construction requiring a specific magnitude
`
`for the peak density of ions. PO Resp. 4–5 (citing IPR2014-00818, Ex.
`
`2010, 44:13–58:12). Patent Owner, however, does not direct us to where the
`
`Specification provides an explicit definition for this claim term, nor do we
`
`discern one. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Moreover, Patent Owner’s
`
`newly proposed construction, requiring a specific ion density range, would
`
`render at least the limitation recited in dependent claim 24 superfluous.
`
`Ex. 1301, 21:45–47 (Claim 24 states “[t]he method of claim 14 wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`cm-3.”). It is well settled that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward
`
`giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`
`441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors,
`
`Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions
`
`which render phrases in claims superfluous). Further, “[i]t is improper for
`
`courts to read into an independent claim a limitation explicitly set forth in
`
`another claim.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 698,
`
`699 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s newly
`
`proposed construction that requires a specific ion density. Rather, upon
`
`consideration of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us,
`
`we discern no reason to change our claim constructions set forth in the
`
`Institution Decision with respect to these claim terms, which adopted Patent
`
`Owner’s originally proposed constructions. Inst. Dec. 8–9. Therefore, we
`
`construe, in light of the Specification, the claim 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.”
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition”
`
`Claim 14 recites forming “a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially
`
`eliminates the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition
`
`in the chamber.” Ex. 1301, 21:3–6 (emphasis added). During the pre-trial
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`stage of this proceeding, Patent Owner argued that this claim term requires
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma be
`
`plasma having a level of ionization that is low enough and
`sufficiently conductive to substantially eliminate the setup of a
`breakdown condition when the weakly[-]ionized plasma is
`formed and when an electrical pulse is applied across the
`plasma to thereby excite neutral atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma to thereby generate a strongly ionized plasma.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 18–20 (emphasis added). In our Institution Decision, we
`
`construed this claim term as “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially
`
`eliminates the probability of developing a breakdown condition when an
`
`electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Inst. Dec. 9–10.
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Patent Owner,
`
`nor its expert witness, expressly challenged our construction as to this term
`
`(see, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶ 22), Patent Owner again improperly attempts to import
`
`extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing repeatedly that the claims
`
`require that arcing8 is avoided, even on plasma initiation. See, e.g., PO
`
`Resp. 3, 23, 33. Patent Owner’s interpretation, however, is not consistent
`
`with the language of the claims, or the Specification. The Specification of
`
`the ’716 patent describes the weakly-ionized plasma only as substantially
`
`eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition when the high-power pulses
`
`are applied across the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized
`
`
`
`8 Patent Owner often uses the term “arcing” when discussing the claim term
`“electrical breakdown condition.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 1–4, 31–35.
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`
`setup of a breakdown condition be substantially eliminated when the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma itself is formed. See, e.g., Ex. 1301, 6:16–25 (“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.”)
`
`(emphasis added); id. at 11:39–47, 12:65–13:4, 16:59–63, 17:48–54; see
`
`also id. at 5:41–46 (“[A] direct current (DC) power supply . . . is used in an
`
`ionization source to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized . . .
`
`plasma . . . . In this embodiment, the DC power supply is adapted to
`
`generate a voltage that is large enough to ignite the weakly-ionized plasma.”)
`
`(emphasis added); id. at 11:51–54 (“[T]he power from the pulsed power
`
`supply . . . is continuously applied after the weakly-ionized plasma . . . is
`
`ignited in order to maintain the weakly-ionized plasma . . . .”) (emphasis
`
`added). The additional claim language of claim 14, which recites
`
`“generating a strongly-ionized plasma [by supplying an electrical pulse
`
`across the weakly-ionized plasms] without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber,” also supports our claim construction
`
`set forth in the Institution Decision. Ex. 1301, 21:7–11.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ explanations and supporting
`
`evidence, we discern no reason to change our claim construction set forth in
`
`the Institution Decision with respect to this term. Inst. Dec. 10. Therefore,
`
`we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of developing an
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as “weakly-ionized plasma
`
`that substantially eliminates the probability of developing a breakdown
`
`condition when an electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition”
`
`Claim 14 recites “generating a strongly-ionized plasma without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Ex. 1301,
`
`21:7–11 (emphasis added). Neither the Specification nor the original
`
`disclosure of the ’716 patent recites the claim term “without developing an
`
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Rather, they disclose a
`
`process that reduces or substantially eliminates the possibility of developing
`
`an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’716 patent discloses:
`
`Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`breakdown condition in the chamber when high-power pulses
`are applied between the cathode 204 and the anode 216. The
`probability of establishing a breakdown condition
`is
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma
`232 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.
`
`Id. at 6:16–25 (emphases added).
`
`The partially ionized gas is also referred to as a weakly-ionized
`plasma or a pre-ionized plasma 232 (FIG. 2B). The formation
`of weakly-ionized plasma 232 substantially eliminates the
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232 as
`described herein.
`
`Id. at 11:41–47 (emphasis added).
`
`As described herein, the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`232 substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a
`breakdown condition when high-power pulses are applied to the
`weakly-ionized plasma 232.
` The suppression of
`this
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of
`undesirable arcing between the anode 216 and the cathode 204.
`
`Id. at 12:65–13:4 (emphases added).
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues that “[r]educing, but not
`
`eliminating, arcing is not the same as nor does it suggest generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition because it still admits of some arcing.” PO Resp. 35; see Ex. 2004
`
`¶ 108. Patent Owner’s arguments, attempting to distinguish the claims from
`
`Wang, focus on this distinction—reducing versus eliminating. See id. at 1–
`
`4, 19–24, 31–35. Patent Owner, however, 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 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”).
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`One with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering apparatus occurs naturally
`
`under certain processing conditions. In this regard, Dr. Kortshagen testifies
`
`that
`
`[t]he probability of arcing can never be completely eliminated
`in a realistic sputtering system application. This stems from
`arcs being the potential result of stochastic electron density
`fluctuations that may trigger an instability feedback mechanism
`capable of creating a short circuit. Such density fluctuations
`can result from the inherent stochastic motion of electrons, but
`also from external factors such as cathode and anode erosion
`over time or the flaking of deposited films from the chamber
`walls, which all can lead to local enhancements of the electric
`field. Because of the unpredictable nature of such events, there
`is always a chance that a local electron density fluctuation can
`become sufficiently high to create a short circuit and result in
`an arc discharge.
`
`Ex. 1330 ¶ 76 (emphases added). During his cross-examination,
`
`Dr. Hartsough also recognized that “[o]ne can’t say that an arc would never
`
`occur . . . .” Ex. 1335, 188:14–189:3; see Reply 8–9; Ex. 1336, 129:17–22.
`
`We credit this testimony of Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough as it is
`
`consistent with the Specification of the ’716 patent. Ex. 1301, 6:16–25,
`
`11:41–47, 12:65–13:4.
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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 232 substantially eliminates the
`
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power pulses are
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232,” and “[t]he suppression of this
`
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of undesirable
`
`arcing between the anode 216 and the cathode 204.” Ex. 1301, 12:65–13:4
`
`(emphases added).
`
`Given the disclosure in the Specification and the consistent testimony
`
`of Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough, 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
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`“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.
`
`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.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A patent 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
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Wang, in Combination with Kudryavtsev,
`Lantsman, and/or Mozgrin
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev, either alone or in additional combination with Lantsman or
`
`Mozgrin. Pet. 39–56. Petitioner explains how each 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. 1302;
`
`Ex. 1330) to support its Petition and Reply. Patent Owner responds that the
`
`cited combination does not disclose every claim element (see, e.g.,
`
`PO Resp. 31–37), and asserts that there is insufficient reason to combine the
`
`technical disclosures of the various references (id. at 37–47), relying on the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 2004) to support its Response.
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of each of the cited references, 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. 1304, Abstract. Wang also
`
`discloses a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`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. 1304, 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
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`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. 1304, 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
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`background power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of
`
`peak power PP. Ex. 1302 ¶ 106; see Pet. 41. 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. 1304, 7:56–64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1302
`
`¶ 45.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1305, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6.
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, reproduced below with annotations added by
`
`Petitioner (Pet. 25), illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and
`
`fast stages of ionization.
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line
`
`labeled “e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)).
`
`Dr. Kortshagen explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`ionization once multi-step ionization becomes the dominant process.
`
`Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 70–71; Pet. 23–25.
`
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1305, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abstract, Fig. 6.
`
`Lantsman
`
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1306,
`
`Abstract. The primary power supply provides the power to drive electrically
`
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma. Id.
`
`According to Lantsman, “arcing which can be produced by
`
`overvoltages can cause local overheating of the target, leading to
`
`evaporation or flaking of target material into the processing chamber and
`
`causing substrate particle contamination and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it
`
`is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes during processing wherever
`
`possible.” Id. at 1:51–59. The plasma “pre-ignition” allows the system to
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`smoothly transition to final plasma development and deposition without
`
`voltage spikes, when the primary power supply is applied. Id. at 2:48–51.
`
`In Lantsman, “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is introduced
`
`into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed, the gas
`
`flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of Lantsman
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a timing diagram for operation of the Lantsman
`
`apparatus. Id. at 3:35–36. As shown, gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow
`
`and pressure ramp upwards toward normal processing level

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