throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`North America Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`inter partes review of claims 19–24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’716 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Zond,
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 19–24. Accordingly,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that the ’716 patent was asserted in several related
`district court cases, including Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu, No. 1:13-cv-11634-
`WGY (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. Petitioner also identifies other petitions for inter
`partes review that are related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`B. 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,
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`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
`conductivity substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even
`when high power is applied to the plasma.” Id. at 6:20–25. Once the
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are applied between
`the cathode and anode to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`weakly-ionized plasma “without developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber.” Id. at 6:52–54, 7:16–19, 20:26–27. The ’716
`patent also describes providing a flow of feed gas sufficient to cause a rapid
`volume exchange of the strongly-ionized plasma, which permits application
`of a high power pulse with a longer duration, resulting in formation of a
`higher density plasma. Id. at 4:56–67, 20:61–67.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Challenged claims 19–24 each depend from claim 14, which is not
`challenged in the present Petition. Claims 14 and 19 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.
`19. The method of claim 14 further comprising supplying
`feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma to transport the
`strongly-ionized plasma by a rapid volume exchange.
`Id. at 21:29–31.
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (Pet. 3–4):
`Wang
`US 6,413,382 B1
` July 2, 2002
`(Ex. 1304)
`Lantsman US 6,190,512 B1
` Feb. 20, 2001
`(Ex. 1306)
`
`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) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`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) ( “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow
`Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1307) (“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 4,
`15–56):
`
`Claims
`
`22–24
`
`19, 20
`
`21
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`Thesis
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Petitioner has also
`submitted a certified English-language translation (Ex. 1308).
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Claims
`
`21
`
`19, 20
`
`22–24
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`
`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). Claim terms 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). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`several claim terms. Pet. 13–15; Prelim. Resp. 15–20. In construing the
`claim terms below, we have considered these proposed constructions and
`applied the broadest reasonable construction, taking into account the plain
`meaning of the terms and their usage in the Specification.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Claim 14, from which challenged claims 19–24 depend, recites
`supplying an electrical pulse that “excites atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma, thereby generating a strongly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1301, 21:7–9.
`Petitioner proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be
`interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet.
`14–15 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s contention is supported by the
`Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. Id. (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 47). Dr.
`Kortshagen defines the term “density” in the context of plasma as “the
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1302
`¶ 21.
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes that the claim
`term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high
`peak density of ions.” Prelim. Resp. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1301, 6:22–24 (“the
`weakly-ionized plasma 232 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”)). Patent Owner also directs our
`attention to the Specifications of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1211, “the ’759 patent”),
`which are being challenged in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Company, Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00861, and Taiwan
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`00781, respectively. Id at 16–17. The Specification of the ’652 patent states
`“[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with
`a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak plasma density of the
`weakly[-]ionized plasma depends on the properties of the specific plasma
`processing system.” IPR2014-00861, Ex. 1101, 8:55–59. The Specification
`of the ’759 patent refers to “strongly-ionized plasma [as] having a large ion
`density.” Ex. 1315, 10:4–5.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Patent Owner characterizes at least the ’652 patent as “a related
`patent” (Prelim. Resp. 17), Patent Owner does not explain how the ’652
`patent, or the ’759 patent, is related to the involved patent in the instant
`proceeding (i.e., the ’716 patent). In fact, these patents do not share the
`same written disclosure, nor do they derive from the same parent
`application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference between the
`parties’ proposed constructions. Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1302 ¶ 48; Prelim. Resp.
`15–17. More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`“strongly-ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across each of
`these patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1301, 5:14–24. For purposes of this decision,
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`we construe the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and the claim term “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 ionizing a feed gas to form a “weakly-ionized plasma
`that substantially eliminates the probability of developing an electrical
`breakdown condition in the chamber.” Ex. 1301, 21:3–6. Petitioner does
`not provide a proposed construction of this claim term. Patent Owner asserts
`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). We are not persuaded on this
`record, however, that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest
`reasonable construction in view of the Specification of the ’716 patent. The
`Specification 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
`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, 6:16–26
`(“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma . . . substantially
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`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 without developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber,” also supports this construction. Ex. 1301, 21:9–
`11. Accordingly, on this record, we construe “weakly-ionized plasma that
`substantially eliminates the probability of developing an 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 to generate thereby a
`strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber”
`Claim 14 recites “ionizing a feed gas in a chamber.” Ex. 1301, 21:3.
`Petitioner does not provide a proposed construction of this claim term.
`Patent Owner asserts that this term requires “ionization of gas in a chamber
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`while that gas is being fed into the chamber.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18. We are
`not persuaded by this contention. Nothing in the plain language of the
`claims requires the gas be fed into the chamber during the ionization, as
`asserted by the Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`improperly imports limitations from the Specification into the claims. See,
`e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
`explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
`import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
`In any event, our decision on institution does not turn on the
`construction of this claim term. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision,
`we do not provide an express construction of “ionizing a feed gas in a
`chamber.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`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).
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev, and
`over Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin
`Petitioner asserts that claim 21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`as obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 39–48.
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 22–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin.
`Pet. 53–56. As support, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how
`each claim limitation is disclosed in the cited references, as well as the
`Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1302). Id. at 39–48, 53–56. Patent
`Owner responds that the cited combination does not disclose every element
`of independent claim 14, from which claims 21–24 depend. Prelim. Resp.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`40–46. Patent Owner also asserts that there is insufficient reason to combine
`the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev, as applied to
`independent claim 14. See id. Patent Owner has not yet, at this stage,
`provided specific arguments as to the dependent claims challenged in the
`Petition on these grounds.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim
`21 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev, and that claims 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over the
`combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. Our discussion focuses
`on the deficiencies alleged by Patent Owner with respect to independent
`claim 14.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1304, Abstract. In particular,
`Wang discloses a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto
`advanced semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed 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. A sputter working gas is supplied to chamber 12 from gas source 32,
`via mass flow controller 34. Id. at 4:5–11. Vacuum system 38 pumps
`chamber 12 through pumping port 40. Id. at 4:11–12. According to Wang,
`the apparatus creates high-density plasma in region 42, which ionizes a
`substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into positively charged metal
`ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id. at 4:13–34. Magnet assembly
`40 creates a magnetic field near target 14, which traps electrons from the
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`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—the sputtered ions can
`be accelerated towards a negatively charged substrate, coating the bottom
`and sides of holes that are narrow and deep. 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
`background power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`peak power PP. Ex. 1302 ¶ 106; see Pet. 41. In Wang, the background
`power PB may be generated by DC power supply 100 and the 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, Abs., 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 ionization once multi-
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`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, right col. ¶ 6 (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.
`
`Weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`electrical breakdown
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner alleges that Wang does not
`disclose forming a “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of electrical breakdown,” as recited in claim 14. Prelim. Resp.
`40–44. In particular, Patent Owner argues that, because Wang teaches the
`“initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only once and at [] much
`lower power levels so that particulates produced by arcing are much
`reduced,” Wang cannot disclose this claim limitation. Id. at 42 (quoting Pet.
`43). Patent Owner’s argument, however, is premised upon a construction of
`this claim limitation not adopted for purposes of this decision—that this
`claim limitation requires the setup of a breakdown condition to be
`substantially eliminated when the plasma is formed. As discussed above, on
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`this record, we do not find that the broadest reasonable construction of
`forming a “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of electrical breakdown” requires the setup of a breakdown
`condition to be substantially eliminated when the plasma is formed, but only
`that the setup of a breakdown condition is substantially eliminated when an
`electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a strongly-
`ionized plasma.
`In light of this determination, we are persuaded, by the evidence
`currently before us, that Wang discloses this claim feature. See Pet. 42
`(citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 109–110); see id. at 11–12. As Petitioner notes, Wang
`explains that arcing, or breakdown conditions, may occur during plasma
`ignition. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1304, 7:3–49). Indeed, Wang recognizes that
`plasma ignition in a sputtering reactor has a tendency to generate arcing,
`dislodging large particles from the target or chamber. Ex. 1304, 7:3–8. This
`is because plasma ignition is an electronically noisy process, and if
`background power level PB is not maintained between the high power pulses
`PP, each power pulse would need to ignite the plasma (as illustrated in
`Figure 4 of Wang). Id. at 7:8–12.
`Figure 6 of Wang (reproduced previously in our initial discussion of
`Wang) is reproduced below with annotations added by Petitioner (Pet. 13):
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at
`background power level PB between power pulses 96, rising to peak power
`level PP. Ex. 1304, 7:13–25. Background level PB is chosen to exceed the
`minimum power necessary to support a plasma with little, if any, actual
`sputter deposition. Id. The initial plasma ignition needs to be performed
`only once, and at a very low power level so that particulates produced by
`arcing are much reduced. Id. at 7:26–55. According to Dr. Kortshagen,
`because “the plasma need not be reignited thereafter, arcing will not occur
`during subsequent applications of the background and peak power levels, PB
`and PP,” and “Wang therefore teaches that the weakly-ionized plasma
`reduces ‘the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition.’”
`Ex. 1302 ¶ 110.
`We, thus, are persuaded, based on the record before us, that Wang
`discloses a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`when an electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a
`strongly ionized plasma.
`
`Electrical pulse . . . that excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner alleges that Wang does not
`disclose “supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized plasma that
`excites atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 14. Prelim.
`Resp. 43–46. In particular, Patent Owner argues that, Wang “never hints of
`such a multi-step ionization process in which atoms are first excited and then
`ionized,” and further argues that the teachings of Kudryavtsev do not
`remedy this deficiency. Id. at 43; see id. at 44–46.
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`teaches the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma.
`Pet. 43–45(citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 111–117). We are persuaded, by the evidence
`currently before us, that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches
`this claim feature. Id. In particular, Petitioner contends that Kudryavtsev
`teaches that ionization proceeds in a slow stage followed by a fast stage and
`that excited atoms are produced in both stages. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1302
`¶ 70). Thus, according to Petitioner, excited atoms would be generated in
`Wang’s weakly-ionized plasma in response to the applied electrical pulse.
`Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 117). Petitioner further submits that it would
`have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust Wang’s
`operating parameters (e.g., to increase the pulse length of the power and/or
`the pressure of the gas inside the chamber) to trigger a fast stage of
`ionization. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 115). According to Petitioner,
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`triggering such a fast stage of ionization in Wang’s apparatus would increase
`plasma density and, thereby, would increase the sputtering rate, and reduce
`the time required to reach a given plasma density. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex.
`1302 ¶ 115). As such, Petitioner argues, the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev teaches that atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma are excited.
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner disagrees that it would
`have been obvious to how combine Wang and Kudryavtsev, arguing that
`Wang’s sputtering apparatus differs significantly from Kudryavtsev’s
`plasma apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 45. In particular, Patent Owner argues that
`“the electrodes of Wang were spaced closely together in a magnetic field,”
`whereas “Kudryavtsev[’s] . . . model and experimental set up used a tubular
`electrode structure in which the electrodes were spaced far apart without the
`influence of a magnetic field.” Id. Patent Owner continues that the
`“probability of arcing in response to a pulse is obviously very different in
`Kudryavtsev’s electrode structure than in the electrode structure described
`by Wang.” Id.
`Those arguments are not persuasive. “It is well-established that a
`determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
`does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion for obviousness is not
`whether the references can be combined physically, but whether the claimed
`invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)).
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`In that regard, one with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow
`blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the
`exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,733
`F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21 (A person
`with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`Patent Owner has not explained adequately why triggering a fast stage
`of ionization in Wang’s apparatus (e.g., resulting in excitation of atoms in
`the weakly-ionized plasma) would have been beyond the level of ordinary
`skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Kudryavtsev
`states that because “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of
`ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas, they
`must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas
`lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1305, 34, right col. (emphasis
`added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field.
`Ex. 1304, 7:61–63; see Ex. 1302 ¶ 116. More importantly, Wang discloses
`background power PB of 1 kW (falling within the range of 0.1–100 kW, as
`disclosed in the ’716 patent, for generating a weakly-ionized plasma), and
`pulse peak power PP of 1 MW (falling within the range of 1kW–10 MW, as
`disclosed in the ’716 patent, for generating a strongly-ionized plasma).
`Ex. 1304, 7:19–25; Ex. 1301, 11:25–29, 11:60–64, Fig. 4. Dr. Kortshagen
`testifies that “[b]ecause Wang’s power levels fall within the ranges disclosed
`
`22
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00808
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`by the [’]716 Patent, Wang is as likely as is the [’]716 Patent to excite atoms
`within the weakly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 114.
`On this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it

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