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
`
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00818, 00819, 00821, 00827, 01098
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. OVERZET PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-43 ................................................. 9
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................10
`B.
`“means for ionizing a feed gas . . .” (claims 40 and 41) .....................13
`C.
`“means for supplying power . . .” (claim 40) and “means for applying
`an electric field . . .” (claim 41) ...........................................................15
`“means for diffusing . . .” ....................................................................18
`D.
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-43 .............................................................20
`A. General Discussion ..............................................................................20
`1. Power, Voltage, and Current ...............................................................20
`2. The Two Embodiments of Wang ........................................................24
`3. Kudryavtsev’s Strongly Ionized Plasma is Generated Without
`Forming an Arc .........................................................................................27
`4. Combining the Teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev ........................28
`5. Combining the Teachings of Wang and Lantsman .............................31
`Independent Claims 1, 10, 21, 31, 40, and 41 .....................................33
`1. Weakly-Ionized and Strongly-Ionized Plasma in Wang .....................33
`2. Wang and Lantsman Teach Feed Gas Diffusion ................................35
`3. Wang Teaches A Magnitude And A Rise-Time To Increase The
`Density Of The Weakly-Ionized Plasma ..................................................39
`Dependent Claims 3 and 12: Additional Feed Gas ............................41
`C.
`D. Dependent Claims 14 and 36: Selecting a pulse amplitude and/or
`width to increase an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma ...42
`Dependent Claim 26: Selecting a rise time to increase an ionization
`rate of the weakly-ionized plasma .......................................................47
`Dependent Claims 15, 27, and 37-38: The strongly-ionized plasma is
`substantially uniform ...........................................................................50
`
`B.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`1. At a single instance of time, Wang produces a substantially uniform
`plasma in a limited area adjacent to the cathode ......................................51
`2. Over time, Wang produces a substantially uniform plasma over the
`entire surface of the cathode .....................................................................54
`G. Dependent Claims 13, 24, and 32: A quasi-static electric field .........55
`H. Dependent Claim 25: A pulsed electric field .....................................57
`I.
`Dependent Claims 4-5, 22-23, and 33-34: A constant power or
`constant voltage ...................................................................................58
`Dependent Claims 21 and 28: A “gap” in the reactor ........................63
`J.
`K. Dependent Claims 6 and 29: An “electrode” in the reactor ...............66
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`I, Lawrence J. Overzet, declare as follows:
`
`
`
` My name is Lawrence J. Overzet. 1.
`
`2.
`
`
`I received my bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. in electrical engineering,
`
`all from the University of Illinois, College of Engineering, Urbana, IL. My
`
`doctoral thesis was titled “Enhancement of the Negative Ion Flux to Surfaces from
`
`Radio Frequency Processing Discharges.”
`
`3.
`
`
`Since graduating in 1988, I have worked as a professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Texas at Dallas. I have
`
`taught many courses including Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields I and II;
`
`Plasma Processing Technology; Plasma Science for Materials Processing; and
`
`Current Topics in Plasma Processing.
`
`4.
`
`
`I have written over 75 articles, presented over 240 presentations at
`
`international symposia, and have 8 patents in various areas of electrical
`
`engineering, most of which being related to plasma science.
`
`5.
`
`
`I am a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE), and am a fellow of the American Vacuum Society (AVS) for
`
`my contributions toward understanding pulsed plasmas and the role of negative
`
`ions in plasma processing.
`
`6.
`
`
`A copy of my resume is provided as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`7.
`
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (the “’142 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)).
`
`• D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics
`
`Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)).
`
`• A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1106)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)), including U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1117)) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex.
`
`2004)) which are both incorporated by reference by Wang.
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1004)).
`
`• D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
`Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1118)).
`
`8.
`
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications and any
`
`other publication cited in this declaration. The disclosure of each of these
`
`publications provides sufficient information for someone to make and use the
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`plasma generation and sputtering processes that are described in the above
`
`publications.
`
`9.
`
`
`Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00818, 00819, 00821, 00827, and 01098 including the Petitions and the
`
`accompanying Declarations of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. As discussed below, I agree
`
`with Dr. Kortshagen’s conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have
`
`reviewed the Board’s Institution Decisions, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`10.
`
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’142 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’142 Patent
`
`would have found the ’142 Patent invalid.
`
`11.
`
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner as an expert in the field of plasma
`
`technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter on behalf of
`
`Petitioner and am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $500/hour
`
`for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioners. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’142 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’142 Patent.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`13.
`
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`14.
`
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`16.
`
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`
`prior art of record. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the
`
`’142 Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical/computer engineering, or chemical
`
`engineering, with two or more years practicing plasma generation methods and
`
`using plasma-based processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded these
`
`requirements for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’142
`
`Patent.
`
`18.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`• the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`19.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`20.
`
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`21.
`
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-43
`
`22.
`
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the declarations of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provided in the above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’142 Patent
`
`and I agree with the findings of Dr. Kortshagen at (1) No. 2014-00818, Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 115-175 captioned Ground II and Ground III; (2) No. 2014-00821, Ex. 1102, ¶¶
`
`92-129, 145-156, and 166-168 captioned Ground II, Ground IV, and Ground VI;
`
`(3) No. 2014-00819, Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 104-149 captioned Ground III; (4) No. 2014-
`
`00827, Ex. 1302, ¶¶ 109-157 captioned Ground II.
`
`
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the plasma generation 23.
`
`methods described in claims 1 through 43 of the ’142 Patent are disclosed by the
`
`prior art, and are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`24.
`
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for 25.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim terms not
`
`included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`course is for Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to
`
`its contentions in this proceeding.
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
` A plasma refers to the combination of electrons, ions, and gas. 26.
`
`
`
`Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density
`
`plasma” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density
`
`plasma.” Patent Owner, relying on the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`(“the ’652 Patent”) has proposed similar definitions. The Board, after noting that
`
`there is “no significant difference between the parties’ constructions,” stated that
`
`“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.’” IPR2014-00818, Decision at
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`p. 7 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00821, Decision at p. 10 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-
`
`00819, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00827, Decision at pp. 7-8 (Paper
`
`No. 9); IPR2014-01098, Decision at p. 9 (Paper No. 9).
`
`27.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claims of
`
`the ’142 Patent or these terms in particular (“strongly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma”) to require any specific or quantified difference in
`
`magnitude between the peak density of ions of the “strongly-ionized plasma” and
`
`the “weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`
`
` As stated above, I understand that claims are construed in light of the 28.
`
`specification. I do not understand the ’142 Patent specification to require orders of
`
`magnitude difference between the “weakly-ionized” and the “strongly-ionized”
`
`plasma. For example, the ’142 Patent specification states: “the peak plasma
`
`density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about 106 and 1012 cm-3)” and claim
`
`17 recites that “the peak plasma density of weakly-ionized plasma is less than 1012
`
`cm-3.” ’142 Patent at 5:19-21; 21:47-49 (claim 17) (Ex. 1001). The ’142 Patent
`
`states that “the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm-3.” ’142 Patent at 7:16-17 (Ex. 1001). I have produced Overzet Fig.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`1 below to illustrate that these are ranges without any specific magnitude or order
`
`difference, as described by the specification of the ’142 Patent.
`
`Overzet, Figure 1.
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ’142 Patent specification 29.
`
`that weakly-ionized plasma and strongly-ionized plasma can have numerically
`
`overlapping ranges of plasma density, I agree with the Board’s adopted
`
`construction that “‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,’ and that ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.’”
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
` Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term 30.
`
`“high-density plasma” to be the same as “strongly-ionized plasma.” These terms
`
`are used synonymously in the ’142 Patent, as evidenced at 7:25-26 (“The strongly-
`
`ionized plasma … is also referred to as a high-density plasma.”) and 9:45-47 (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas . . .” (claims 40 and 41)
`
`B.
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that this 31.
`
`
`
`element is a means-plus-function element that must be construed to recite a
`
`function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-01098, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9).
`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 32.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for ionizing a feed gas to form a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma that reduces the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber” has a claimed function of “ionizing a feed
`
`gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma that reduces the probability of developing an
`
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Patent Owner has proposed
`
`similar definitions. The Board, in adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`stated that the recited function of this claim element is “to ionize a feed gas to
`
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-01098, Decision at p. 11 (Paper No.
`
`9).
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`33.
`
`
`I note that the Board’s construction of the claimed function is broader
`
`than the construction previously proposed by both Petitioner and Zond; as a result,
`
`Petitioner’s previous analysis is based on a narrower construction which is still
`
`correct in light of the Board’s broader construction. I agree with this construction
`
`by the Board, and my determination that the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies this construction. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that this term claims the function of creating a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma by ionizing the feed gas and that it is this weakly-ionized plasma that
`
`subsequently reduces the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.
`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 34.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for the recited function is a
`
`power supply electrically coupled to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode,
`
`wherein the latter are arranged relative to the sputtering target as shown in Figs.
`
`2A-2D and 6A-6D of the ’142 Patent. Patent Owner proposed similar structures
`
`without the limitation that the components be arranged relative to the sputtering
`
`target. The Board, after noting that there is “more similarity than difference
`
`between the corresponding structures proffered by GF and Zond,” stated it
`
`identifies “a pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode,
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`and/or an electrode” to be the corresponding structures. IPR2014-01098, Decision
`
`at p. 11 (Paper No. 9).
`
`35.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to
`
`ionize a feed gas to create a weakly-ionized plasma, the ’142 Patent relies on the
`
`components that allow power to be absorbed by the feed gas. As demonstrated by
`
`the ’142 Patent, these ionization components include a power supply connected to
`
`both a cathode and an anode which may or may not include an electrode. ’142
`
`Patent at 5:5-10 (no electrode); 16:27-29 (includes electrode) (Ex. 1001).
`
`C.
`
`“means for supplying power . . .” (claim 40) and “means for
`applying an electric field . . .” (claim 41)
`
`
`
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these 36.
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-01098, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9).
`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 37.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for supplying power to the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma by applying an electrical pulse 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
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`plasma” (claim 40) has a claimed function that maps to the same claim language of
`
`claim 40. Patent Owner proposed similar definitions. The Board, in adopting the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, stated that the recited function of this claim
`
`element is “applying an electrical field through an electrical pulse across the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a strongly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-01098,
`
`Decision at p. 12 (Paper No. 9).
`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 38.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for applying an electric field
`
`across the weakly-ionized plasma in order to excite atoms in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and to generate secondary electrodes from the cathode, the secondary
`
`electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`(claim 41) has a claimed function that maps to the same claim language of claim
`
`41. Patent Owner proposed the same definition. The Board, in adopting the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, stated that the recited function of this claim
`
`element is “applying an electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma thereby
`
`generating secondary electrons to create a strongly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-
`
`01098, Decision at p. 12 (Paper No. 9).
`
`
`
` While the functions of these two claim limitations are slightly 39.
`
`different, Petitioner previously proposed that each of these functions correspond to
`
`the same structures: a power supply electrically coupled to a cathode, an anode,
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`and/or an electrode, wherein the latter are arranged relative to the sputtering target
`
`as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D of the ’142 Patent. The Board subsequently
`
`agreed that both claimed functions are carried out by the same structures: “a pulsed
`
`power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.”
`
`IPR2014-01098, Decision at pp. 12-13 (Paper No. 9).
`
`40.
`
`
`I note that the Board’s construction of the claimed function is broader
`
`than the construction previously proposed by both Petitioner and Zond; as a result,
`
`Petitioner’s previous analysis is based on a narrower construction which is still
`
`correct in light of the Board’s broader construction. I agree with this construction
`
`by the Board, and my determination that the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies this construction. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that both of the claimed functions ultimately create a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma from weakly-ionized plasma. In order to accomplish these
`
`functions, the ’142 Patent specification relies on ionization components comprising
`
`a power supply connected to both a cathode and an anode which may or may not
`
`include an electrode. ’142 Patent at 5:5-10 (no electrode); 16:27-29 (includes
`
`electrode) (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 41.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for the recited function is a
`
`power supply electrically coupled to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode,
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`wherein the latter are arranged relative to the sputtering target as shown in Figs.
`
`2A-2D and 6A-6D of the ’142 Patent. Patent Owner proposed similar structures
`
`without the limitation that the components be arranged relative to the sputtering
`
`target. The Board stated it identifies “a pulsed power supply electrically
`
`connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode” to be the corresponding
`
`structures. IPR2014-01098, Decision at p. 13 (Paper No. 9).
`
`42.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to
`
`ionize a feed gas to create a weakly-ionized plasma, the ’142 specification relies on
`
`the components that allow power to be absorbed by the feed gas. As demonstrated
`
`by the ’142 patent, these ionization components include a power supply connected
`
`to both a cathode and an anode which may or may not include an electrode. ’142
`
`Patent at 5:5-10 (no electrode); ’142 Patent at 16:27-29 (includes electrode) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`“means for diffusing . . .”
`
`D.
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that these 43.
`
`
`
`similar elements are means-plus-function elements that must be construed to recite
`
`a function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-01098, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9).
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 44.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the claim term “means for diffusing the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma with additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma” has a claimed function of “diffusing the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma with additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Patent Owner proposed the same definition. The Board,
`
`in adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation, stated that the recited function
`
`of this claim element is “providing a feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`sufficiently to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” IPR2014-01098, Decision at p. 13 (Paper No. 9).
`
`45.
`
`
`I note that the Board’s construction of the claimed function is broader
`
`than the construction previously proposed by both Petitioner and Zond; as a result,
`
`Petitioner’s previous analysis is based on a narrower construction which is still
`
`correct in light of the Board’s broader construction. I agree with this construction
`
`by the Board, and my determination that the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies this construction. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that this term claims the function of allowing more power to be
`
`absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma by providing additional feed gas to the
`
`already-strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
` Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest 46.
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure for the recited function is
`
`“feed gas lines 224 as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D and as described in the
`
`text of the ’142 Patent at 4:48-5:4.” The Board, after disagreeing with Zond’s
`
`proposed construction relating to the ’142 Patent’s chamber, stated that it identifies
`
`“a feed gas source and structures for supplying the gas to the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” as the corresponding structures. IPR2014-01098, Decision at pp. 13-14
`
`(Paper No. 9).
`
`47.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to
`
`diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, the ’142 Patent relies on the components that
`
`supply enough feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma to allow additional energy
`
`to be absorbed. As demonstrated by the ’142 Patent, feed gas structures include
`
`components such as a gas source and a gas flow control system. ’142 Patent at
`
`4:60-62 (Ex. 1001).
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-43
`A. General Discussion
`1.
`Power, Voltage, and Current
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
` The related patents and references, including the ’142 patent and 48.
`
`Kudryavtsev, refer to power supplies, as well as the concepts of power (P), voltage
`
`(V), and current (I). As shown below, Kudryavtsev illustrates the relationship
`
`between voltage and current, exactly as shown in the ’142 patent, noting that
`
`voltage leads current by a time ts.
`
`
`
`
`
` Although Kudryavtsev does not show a power pulse, it is understood 49.
`
`that power is defined as a product of the voltage and current (P = V ∙ I).
`
`
`
` Further, and more importantly, the ’142 patent describes similar 50.
`
`power supply operation as Wang. See ’142 Patent at Fig. 4 (Ex. 1001) and Wang at
`
`Fig. 6 (Ex. 1005) (reproduced and annotated below).
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Although both the ’142 patent and Wang refer to power pulses, both 51.
`
`teach providing the power pulse in Fig. 4 (’142 patent) and Fig. 6 (Wang) using a
`
`voltage pulse. See ’142 patent 14:6-14 (Ex. 1001); Wang at 7:61-64 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Wang specifically teaches: “a power supply connected to said target and delivering
`
`pulses of power of negative voltage.” Wang at 8:37-38 (Ex. 1005). The negative
`
`voltage pulses are further illustrated in Fig. 7 of Wang, being output from the
`
`pulsed supply 80.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`52.
`
`
`In short, and as illustrated above, to generate a power pulse, a voltage
`
`pulse with a specific amplitude and rise time is first provided by the power supply.
`
`After a period of time (illustrated as the time between t3 and t4 of the ’142 patent,
`
`and illustrated as time ts in Kudryavtsev) the current and power will pulse with
`
`related profiles.
`
`The Two Embodiments of Wang
`
`2.
`
`
` As a threshold matter, I note that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s 53.
`
`assertions regarding Wang are flawed because their analysis generally jumps back
`
`and forth between two different embodiments, improperly applying some of
`
`Wang’s statements directed to one embodiment to the other embodiment.
`
`
`
` Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 54.
`
`reactor in Fig. 1, and then in connection with Figs. 4 and 6, shows and discusses
`
`two different embodiments, respectively, of pulsing a target in the reactor of Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00819
`GlobalFoundries 1224
`
`

`
`See Wang at 3:37-50 (Ex. 1005). These two separate and distinct embodiments are
`
`shown by the figures reproduced above.
`
`
`
` While both of these embodiments show power pulses PP that can be 55