`
`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.,
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`Case No. IPR2014-008181
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00866, IPR 2014-01012, and IPR 2014-01075 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00818, concerning U.S. Patent 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”), entered
`
`on September 25, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20,
`
`and 42 unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to Wang (“Wang”) and U.S. Pat. 6,190,512 to
`
`Lantsman (“Lantsman”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 8, 17, and 18 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Lantsman, and
`
`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) (“Mozgrin”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
` 2
`
`
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 50
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 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 IPR2014-008181
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and IPR2014-01075 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 20,
`2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and
`IPR2014-01075 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 34). Zond filed a
`Response (Paper 26 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`(Paper 42 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 12, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–
`20, and 42 of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00819, IPR2014-
`00821, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
`
`proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
`11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
`Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
`11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating
`high-density plasma. Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that
`prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit films having low uniformity
`and poor target utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform
`manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address these problems, the ’142 Patent
`discloses that increasing the power applied between the target and anode can
`increase the uniformity and density in the plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However,
`increasing the power also “can increase the probability of generating an
`electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
`(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, 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 anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 3–9, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 depend, directly or indirectly,
`from claims 1 or 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma in
`a chamber, the apparatus comprising:
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`from a feed gas, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber;
`a power supply that supplies power to the weakly-ionized
`plasma though an electrical pulse applied across the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a
`rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-
`ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma; and
`a gas line that supplies feed gas to the strongly-ionized
`plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma,
`thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power
`supply to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma.
`Ex. 1001, 20:35–52 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted grounds, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`
`
`Feb. 20, 2001
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`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. 1003) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 23):
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19,
`20, and 42
`8, 17, and 18
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, 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); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`enacting the AIA,”3 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). 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.”). 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).
`Claim 1 recites “the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-
`time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with claim 10 reciting a similar
`limitation. During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties also
`submitted their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma”
`and “a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 20–22. In our
`Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light
`of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 6–7.
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, 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,” the claim term “a strongly-
`ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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; Translogic,
`504 F.3d at 1259. 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42—Obviousness over Wang and
`Lantsman, or Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, and
`42 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman. Pet. 39–57. GlobalFoundries also
`asserts that claims 8, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin. Pet. 57–
`59. As support, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how
`each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for combining
`the references, as well as a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002).
`GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1022) to
`support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 34–54. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Lantsman, and
`Mozgrin. Id. at 19–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not argue that
`elements of claims 8, 17, and 18 are not taught or suggested by the
`combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, only that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the references. Id.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Lantsman, address their
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combination with Mozgrin with respect to the second ground, and then we
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1005, Abs. 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 power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`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. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. 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:
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`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. Id.
`at 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., 1kW). 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–130; see also Pet. 41–43.
`
`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. 1004, Abs.
`The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
`when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
`to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`and radio frequency (RF) sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also
`provides that “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.
`Lantsman also discloses that “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:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine References
`GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious to have
`combined Wang and Lantsman to render the claims obvious. Pet. 46–49
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–145). GlobalFoundries discusses the suggestion of
`continuing to supply the feed gas in the process of Wang, and argues that
`this continuance is likely to occur during that disclosed process, although not
`expressly recited. Pet. 44–46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 133. GlobalFoundries also argues
`that even if Wang does not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases,
`“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to
`exchange the feed gas during Wang’s application of background power and
`high peak power, as taught by Lantsman.” Pet. 47. GlobalFoundries
`submits an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wang and Lantsman because both are directed to sputtering and both
`employ two power supplies, one for pre-ionization and the other for
`deposition. Id. In addition, both Wang and Lantsman are concerned with
`generating plasma while avoiding arcing. Id. GlobalFoundries also cites to
`the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen that the continuous flow of gas would allow
`for diffusion of the strongly-ionized plasma and allow for additional power
`to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at 47–48; Ex. 1002 ¶ 138.
`Furthermore, GlobalFoundries acknowledges that Wang does not
`disclose explicitly that its magnets can be electro-magnets, or disclose
`specifically the peak plasma densities recited in claims 17 and 18. Pet. 57–
`59. GlobalFoundries argues that it would have been obvious to have used
`the electro-magnet of Mozgrin in the system of Wang and that, given the
`power levels used in Wang, Mozgrin makes clear that Wang’s peak plasma
`densities would have been similar. Id.
`We determine that both Wang and Mozgrin deal with pulse
`magnetron sputtering (Ex. 1005, Abs.; Ex. 1003, 400), and we are
`persuaded that it would have been obvious to have used Mozgrin’s
`electro-magnet in the system of Wang. Dec. 20–21 (citing Pet. 57–
`58). Additionally, given the similar power levels applied in both
`Wang and Mozgrin (Ex. 1005, 7:13–30; Ex. 1003, 401), we are
`persuaded also that the plasma formed in Wang would have similar
`peak plasma density parameters, or that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to use the densities disclosed in Mozgrin
`in the system of Wang. Id.
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that
`GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, and to
`achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or
`predictable results. PO Resp. 19–34.
`In particular, Zond contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin—e.g., pressure, chamber
`geometry, gap dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 28–34 (citing e.g.,
`Ex. 1003, 400–409; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 2:49–51, 4:11–37, 5:42–52;
`Ex. 1005, 3:60–61, 5: 18–22; Ex. 2004 5:60–62; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 80–84).
`Additionally, even if a combination was somehow made, Zond contends it
`would differ significantly from the system disclosed in the ’142 Patent. Id.
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments apply
`statements directed to different embodiments of Wang together and attempt
`to physically incorporate Lantsman into Wang. Reply 2–4.
`GlobalFoundries also responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have viewed Lantsman’s teachings as applicable to Wang’s system, based on
`the ordinary level of skill in the art and the similarities between Wang and
`Lantsman. Id. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are
`persuaded by GlobalFoundries’ contentions.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Mozgrin’s,
`Lantsman’s, and Wang’s sputtering apparatuses would have been viewed as
`significantly different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of
`the references. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be achieved. In re
`Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`“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); 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). 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 (stating that 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”).
`As Dr. Overzet testifies, Lantsman states that its techniques can be
`applied to any plasma process, including DC magnetron sputtering, where
`Wang is directed to DC magnetron sputtering. Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–67 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 6:14–17). Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that the different
`processing conditions in Wang and Lantsman are routine variables that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would understand need to be changed to
`accommodate different systems and processing conditions. Id. ¶ 68. In
`addition, Dr. Overzet points out that both Lantsman and Wang “teach two
`stage plasma systems.” Id. Indeed, Lantsman discloses both “limited” and
`“substantial” plasma stages (Ex. 1004, 2:48–51, 4:58–61, 5:6), and Wang
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discloses plasma states that vary with the application of pulses (Ex. 1005,
`7:13–39). As noted above, Wang discloses background power PB of 1 kW
`(falling within the range of 0.01–100 kW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for
`generating a weakly-ionized plasma), and pulse peak power PP of 1 MW
`(falling within the range of 1 kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent,
`for generating a strongly-ionized plasma). Ex. 1005, 7:19–25; Ex. 1001,
`11:34–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 5. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s testimony
`(Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–69) because his explanations are consistent with the prior
`art of record.
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin as indicated
`in the Petition, and where that reason is supported by a preponderance of
`evidence.
`
`
`Feed Gas from a Gas Line Diffusing the Strongly-Ionized Plasma
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the
`strongly-ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma,
`thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply to be
`absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 10
`reciting similar subject matter.
`Zond argues that Lantsman fails to disclose generating a strongly-
`ionized plasma, or disclose any activity of the feed gas and plasma diffusion.
`PO Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Additionally, Zond argues that
`Wang does not teach “the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because Wang’s chamber is significantly different in design from that of the
`’142 Patent and the feed gas in Wang “‘could not possibly diffuse the
`strongly ionized plasma because it enters the chamber far from the strongly
`ionized plasma and is directed away from the strongly ionized plasma.’” Id.
`at 36–40 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Also, Zond argues that the only motivation
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma and allow additional power to be
`absorbed comes from the ’142 Patent. Id. at 40–41. We do not find Zond’s
`arguments to be persuasive.
`First, we note that it not essential for Lantsman to disclose a strongly-
`ionized plasma because Wang discloses a strongly-ionized plasma, and the
`specified ground of unpatentability relies on the combination of Lantsman
`and Wang. Second, as GlobalFoundries notes, Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`“the gas will tend to diffuse throughout the whole volume,” including
`areas containing the high-density plasma. Reply 5–6; Ex. 1024, 87:22–88:9,
`88:22–89:2, 92:18–93:7. Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that due to
`random thermal motion and the pressure gradient in the reaction chamber,
`Wang’s argon gas will diffuse into the plasma near the target. Ex. 1022
`¶ 77. Lastly, Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that a feed gas was commonly
`used to diffuse a strongly-ionized plasma (Ex. 1024, 32:18–33:5), such that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would have used such a process without resort to
`the disclosure of the ’142 Patent.
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention the provision of a feed gas to a strongly-
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionized plasma, to diffuse the plasma and allow for greater absorption of
`power, as required by claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`Electrical Pulse with Magnitude and Rise-Time to Generate Strongly-
`Ionized Plasma
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a
`rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-ionized
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with claim 10 reciting similar
`subject matter.
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach that the magnitude and the rise
`time of its pulses are sufficient to increase the density of weakly-ionized
`plasma to generate strongly-ionized plasma, as required by independent
`claims 1 and 10 of the ’142 Patent. PO Resp. 41–42. GlobalFoundries
`argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from the
`teachings of Wang, that certain parameters, such as the magnitude or the rise
`time of a voltage pulse, could be chosen to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma. Reply 9. We agree with GlobalFoundries.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. Wang selects pulse
`characteristics and reactors with the goal of “producing a high fraction of
`ionized sputtered particles,” which “has long been exploited in high-density
`plasma.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–8, 30–37. Therefore, we are persuaded that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parameters of the
`magnitude and the rise time of a voltage pulse could be controlled to achieve
`the desired plasma processes, and that it would have been obvious to select
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the magnitude and the rise time of the electrical pulse, to achieve the goals
`of the cited references.
`In addition, claim 1 is an apparatus claim and claim 10 is a method
`claim. With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded that the claim recites an
`intended use that will not limit the scope of the claim, such that the
`obviousness of claim 1 is based on whether the elements of that claim are
`obvious, not on their intended use. With respect to claim 10, the method
`does not require an optimization of magnitude or rise time to achieve the
`strongly-ionized plasma, but simply that the generated electric pulse achieve
`that plasma state, which Wang does, as discussed above.
`Based on the evidence before us, we are persuaded that
`GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman renders obvious the supplying an
`electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise time of the voltage pulses to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma, per claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`Substantially Uniform Strongly-Ionized Plasma
`Claim 15 recites, in part, “selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude
`and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to cause th