`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