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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2014-008191
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00867, IPR 2014-01014, and IPR 2014-01046 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`
`A. “Weakly-Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly-Ionized Plasma” ......................... 1
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ......................................................................... 2
`
`A. Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang. ........................... 2
`
`B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang and
`Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................. 3
`
`C. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a cathode that is positioned
`adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between” recited in claim
`21 and “a dimension of the gap . . . is chosen to increase an ionization
`rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma” recited in claim
`28. ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a quasi-static electric field”
`recited in claims 24 and 32. .......................................................................... 9
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a rise time of the electric field
`is chosen to increase an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma” recited in claim 26. ............................................. 11
`
`F. Wang in view Kudryavtsev teaches “selecting at least one of a pulse
`amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to cause the
`strongly-ionized plasma to be substantially uniform in an area adjacent
`to a surface of the cathode” recited in claim 37 and “the strongly
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionized plasma is substantially uniform proximate to the cathode”
`recited in claims 27 and 38. ........................................................................ 14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 16, 2015
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1201 U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“’142 Patent”)
`
`1202 Kortshagen Declaration (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`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”)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1),
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205 U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`Certified Translation of 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”)
`
`1206
`
`1207 Mozgrin Thesis (Original Russian)
`
`1208 Catalogue Entry at the Russian State Library for the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Office Action dated October 7,
`2003 (“10/07/03 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Response dated March 8, 2004
`(“03/08/04 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Notice of Allowance dated
`March 29, 2004 (“03/29/04 Allowance”)
`
`1212 U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”)
`
`1213
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response dated May 2, 2006
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`(“05/02/06 Response of ‘759 Patent File History”)
`
`1214
`
`1215
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm, Academic
`Press (1989) (“Manos”)
`
`Gas Discharge Physics, by Raizer, Table of Contents, pp. 1-35, Springer
`1997 (“Raizer”)
`
`1216 U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu”)
`
`1217
`
`1218
`
`1219
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`The Materials Science of Thin Films, by Ohring M., Academic Press
`(1992) (“Ohring”)
`
`European Patent Application 1560943, Response of April 21, 2008
`(“04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis as
`used in 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Wang and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`1223 Rismiller Declaration ISO Motion for PHV Admission of Brett C
`Rismiller
`
`1224 Declaration of Dr. Lawrence J. Overzet (“Overzet Decl.”)
`
`1225 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`1226 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`1227 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 8,125,155
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1228 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`1229 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 in response to Zond’s
`
`Response to Petition filed on January 2, 2015 (“Response,” Paper No. 26). The
`
`evidence and arguments in this reply confirm the Board’s initial determination that
`
`claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 of the ’142 Patent are rendered obvious
`
`over the prior art of record and thus should be canceled.
`
`Indeed, the ’142 Patent presents nothing novel; and Zond’s own declarant
`
`Dr. Hartsough concedes that the limitations in the claims were well known before
`
`the effective date of the ’142 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 1226 at 30:3-35:21.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Weakly-Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly-Ionized Plasma”
`The Board construed the term strongly-ionized plasma to mean a plasma with a
`
`relatively high peak density of ions and the term weakly-ionized plasma to mean a
`
`plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions. Petitioners and their experts agree
`
`with this construction. Ex. 2010 at 25:25-26:23; Ex. 1224, ¶¶ 23-30. This construction
`
`is consistent with the ’142 Patent in that it does not require any specific or quantified
`
`difference in magnitude between the peak ion densities of the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`and the strongly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1224, ¶¶ 28-29. Also, Zond’s declarant, Dr.
`
`Hartsough, agrees with the Board’s construction and concedes that there is “not a
`
`magic number that one can arbitrarily say across all conditions as to what’s a weakly
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionized plasma or a strongly ionized plasma.” Ex. 1225 at 60:5-8; 63:7-10.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`A. Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang.
`Zond’s arguments directed to Wang are flawed, for among other reasons,
`
`because throughout they indiscriminately transition between two different
`
`embodiments of Wang – applying statements directed from one embodiment (Fig.
`
`4) to another embodiment (Fig. 6). Ex. 1224, ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1205, Figs 4 and 6 (annotated); Ex. 1224, ¶ 53.
`
`Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 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. See
`
`Ex. 1205 at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are illustrated in
`
`the figures reproduced above. Further, Dr. Overzet provides a chart summarizing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`the difference between these two embodiments, including the portion cited below.
`
`Ex. 1224, ¶¶ 54-58.
`
`
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`Internal
`impedance
`
`“[C]hamber impedance
`dramatically changes.” Wang
`at 5:29-30, 52-53.
`
`“[C]hamber impedance changes
`relatively little ….” Wang at 7:49-
`51.
`
`Power
`Pulse or
`Voltage
`Pulse
`
`Arcing
`
`“Where chamber impedance
`is changing, the power pulse
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang
`at 5:52-54.
`
`Where chamber impedance changes
`“relatively little,” there is no
`preference to specify power pulse
`over current or voltage pulse. See
`Wang at 7:49-51.
`
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: See Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang
`and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Wang and Kudryavtsev. See Response at 27-36. All of these
`
`arguments are based on nothing more than the alleged differences between the
`
`physical systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev and focus on bodily incorporating their
`
`systems. This is not the proper standard for determining obviousness. See, e.g., In
`
`re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a
`
`determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). And Zond’s declarant, Dr.
`
`Hartsough, concedes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood how physical differences (such as pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`
`dimensions, magnetic field) would affect a system and understood how to adjust
`
`for such differences. Ex. 1226 at 75:24-80:2. As further discussed below, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be encouraged to combine the teachings of the
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev. See also Ex. 2011 at 171:14-21.
`
`Kudryavtsev is a study of the behavior of plasma, and modeling such
`
`behavior, which is general in its application. Ex. 1224, ¶ 61. Kudryavtsev applies
`
`its theory to an experimental embodiment. Id.; see also Ex. 1204, Abstract.
`
`Kudryavtsev’s theoretical framework is not intended to be limited in application to
`
`any specific type of apparatus (flash tube or otherwise) within which plasma is
`
`discharged. Ex. 1224, ¶ 61. In fact, while Kudryavtsev may have utilized a
`
`particular experiment to verify the disclosed model and “show[] that the electron
`
`density increases explosively in time,” Kudryavtsev provides general teachings
`
`that are applicable “whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized
`
`gas.” Id.; see also Ex. 1204 at Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (emphasis added).
`
`Wang is directed to a specific application of a plasma reactor—a pulsed
`
`sputtering reactor with a small rotating magnetron. Ex. 1205, Abstract. Like
`
`Kudryavtsev, Wang teaches a pulsed power supply. Ex. 1224, ¶ 62. During peak
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`power PP, Wang suddenly applies an electric field by way of a “negative voltage
`
`pulse” to “quickly cause[] the already existing [weakly ionized] plasma to
`
`spread and increase[] the density of the plasma.” Id.; see also Ex. 1205 at 7:29-
`
`30; 7:62 (emphasis added). In view of Wang’s application, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have looked to Kudryavtsev to understand how plasma would
`
`react to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how to achieve an explosive increase
`
`in electron density (if not already experienced) while generating strongly ionized
`
`plasma. Ex. 1224, ¶ 62. Kudryavtsev is useful for describing how a voltage pulse,
`
`such as Wang’s voltage pulse, operates and how to adjust voltage amplitude and
`
`duration in order to increase the ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron
`
`density and the formation of a strongly ionized plasma occurs, for the benefit of
`
`improved sputtering and manufacturing processing capabilities. Id.
`
`Whether there are differences in the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev’s is
`
`inconsequential. Ex. 1224, ¶ 63. A person of ordinary skill in the art still would
`
`have known how to apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems such as Wang’s
`
`(i.e., for performing sputtering, irrespective of different pressures, different
`
`dimensions, different sizes, magnets, and/or other feature differences). Id.
`
`Differences in such systems are routine and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would work with such differences on a regular basis, and would consider it routine
`
`to make any necessary changes to accommodate for any and all such variables. Id.;
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`see also Ex. 1226 at 75:24-80:2. In fact, Mozgrin is evidence that those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art not only would, but actually did look to and apply the
`
`teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems similar to Wang’s. Ex. 1224, ¶ 64; Ex. 1203
`
`at p. 401 ¶ spanning left and right cols.
`
`Finally, it is not necessary to conduct actual experiments in order to
`
`conclude that Wang and Kudryavtsev are combinable. See Response at 35-36; Ex.
`
`1224, ¶ 65. While the application of Kudryavtsev’s teachings to Wang is
`
`straightforward and easily combinable for a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`conducting actual experiments may inevitably take more time, such as to carry out
`
`routine characterization of this system in order to ready it for manufacturing (e.g.,
`
`performing design of experiments (DOE)) and the like. Ex. 1224, ¶ 65; Ex. 1225 at
`
`132:5-135:23. To characterize the system of the ’142 Patent for manufacturing
`
`would take a similar amount of time (e.g., including time for performing a DOE).
`
`Ex. 1224, ¶ 65. Therefore, and contrary to Zond’s argument, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`C. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a cathode that is
`positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between”
`recited in claim 21 and “a dimension of the gap . . . is chosen to increase
`an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma”
`recited in claim 28.
`
`With regard to claim 21, Zond argues that Wang does not teach a gap.
`
`Response at 37. However, with regard to claim 28 (which depends from claim 21),
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Zond concedes that “Wang’s device has a gap of 14-29 cm and that longer gaps
`
`give the best distribution.” Response at 53. Zond then cites its own declarant for
`
`support that Wang has a gap. Id. (citing Ex. 2005, ¶ 138). Therefore, Zond agrees
`
`that Wang teaches a gap.
`
`Zond also argues that Wang does not teach a gap because it does not teach
`
`that any plasma is positioned between its cathode and the anode. Response at 38.
`
`However, in Wang the cathode is part of the target 14 and it is separated from the
`
`anode 24 by a gap. Ex. 1224, ¶ 124. For example, Fig. 1 of Wang clearly shows
`
`that target 14 is directly connected to the pulsed DC supply 80. Ex. 1205, Fig. 1;
`
`see also Ex. 1224, ¶ 124. The DC supply 80 “biases the target 14 to between about
`
`-300 to -700VDC to support a plasma of the argon working gas.” Ex. 1205 at 4:13-
`
`15. The other electrode of Wang’s power supply 80 is connected to the anode 24,
`
`illustrated as a common ground connection in Figure 1. Ex. 1205, Fig. 1; see also
`
`Ex. 1224, ¶ 125. An electric field is formed between the two electrodes. Ex. 1205
`
`at 3:64–4:5; see also Ex. 1224, ¶ 125. And, the electric field forms plasma 42
`
`between the cathode and the anode.
`
`Zond further argues that Wang’s floating shield 26 makes the anode 24 and
`
`cathode 14 not adjacent. Response at 38-39. However, and contrary to Zond’s
`
`argument, the vast majority of Wang’s gap between the anode 24 and cathode 14 is
`
`not blocked by the floating shield 26. And, Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`concedes that although an electrode may partially block an anode and cathode, the
`
`other portions of the anode and cathode are considered adjacent nonetheless. Ex.
`
`1228 at 75:23-76:8.
`
`With regard to claim 28, Zond argues that Wang does not teach the
`
`dimension of the gap to increase an ionization rate of excited atoms because the
`
`gap in the ’142 Patent is only 0.3 to 10 cm and the gap in Wang is 14-29 cm.
`
`Response at 51-53. In other words, Zond is arguing that the claim requires the gap
`
`to be 10 cm or smaller, and that Wang’s gap of 14 cm is too large to read on the
`
`limitation in claim 28. Ex. 1224, ¶ 121. As to a particular gap size, Zond’s
`
`declarant, Dr. Hartsough, concedes that the claims are not “limited to a gap size
`
`of .3 to 10 centimeters.” Ex. 1228 at 64:17-65:15. Dr. Hartsough also indicated
`
`that “there are other distances of the … gap” and that the gap can be measured
`
`diagonally from the edge of the anode to the cathode. Ex. 1228 at 21:5-6 (and
`
`Deposition Exhibit 1028); see also Ex. 2011 at 130:1-15. As such, Wang’s gap,
`
`when measured from the wall of the anode 24 to the cathode/target 14, results in a
`
`dimension less than 10 cm.
`
`Further, Wang unquestionably teaches producing a voltage pulse across its
`
`gap, and that the reactor in general, including that the dimensions of the gap
`
`between the cathode and electrode, are chosen to increase an ionization rate of the
`
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1224, ¶ 122. This understanding
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`is confirmed by Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, who concedes that Wang’s
`
`voltage pulse “increases the ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” and that “all that occurs within this apparatus … depicted in
`
`Figure 1 of Wang” “[a]nd specifically … within [the] volume between the
`
`cathode assembly and the anode.” Ex. 1229 at 116:16-118:11. It is understood that
`
`the volume in Wang’s Fig. 1 results from the gap dimensions.
`
`Furthermore, while the target/cathode in Wang may be structurally different
`
`than the cathode in the ’142 Patent, it was commonly known to have the cathode
`
`separated from the target, as shown in the ’142 Patent. Ex. 1224, ¶ 126. Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provides examples in his earlier-filed declaration, but one simple
`
`example is the “Prior Art” Fig. 1 of the ’142 Patent, showing the gap between the
`
`anode 130 and the cathode 114. Id. It therefore would have been obvious for Wang
`
`to have a separate cathode from the target, if such is deemed to be a requirement of
`
`the claims. Id. Positioning the target (separated from the cathode) and all of the
`
`other components of Wang’s reactor, including the floating shield 26, would be a
`
`routine course of engineering for one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a quasi-static electric
`field” recited in claims 24 and 32.
`
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach this a quasi-static electric field
`
`because Petitioners have not demonstrated that the characteristic time of electric
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`field variation is greater than the collision time in Wang’s system. Response at 42-
`
`44. Contrary to Zond’s argument, Wang discloses a “quasi-static electric field”
`
`because it teaches a pulse with a peak power PP width τw of 50 µs up to 1 ms,
`
`which is much greater than the collision time of 0.188 µs. Zond’s declarant Dr.
`
`Hartsough concedes that if the duration of the pulse is longer than the collision
`
`time for electrons, that would meet the patent’s definition of a quasi-static electric
`
`field. Ex. 1228 at 137:25 – 138:8. Accordingly, the calculation of the
`
`characteristic time of electric field variation using the power pulse duration, as was
`
`explained in the Petition, is correct. Ex. 1224, ¶¶ 109-110; Ex. 1202, ¶ 140.
`
`Zond tries to cloud the issue by claiming that Wang is silent with regard to
`
`pressure. Response at 43-44. But Zond fails to acknowledge that Wang expressly
`
`incorporates Fu by reference, (Ex. 1205 at 1:46-51), and Zond’s own expert
`
`recognized this by stating that “Wang’s sputtering system also uses low pressure.”
`
`Ex. 2005, ¶ 89. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that Wang would operate at low pressures taught in Fu such as, for
`
`example, from about 1 Torr to about 0.1 milliTorr. Ex. 1224, ¶ 112; see, e.g., Ex.
`
`1216, Fig. 1 (illustrating a similar device as Wang that operates at 1 Torr and
`
`another similar device that operates “even at 0.1 milliTorr,” (1:48; 5:4-5).). Wang’s
`
`pressure ranges are thus within the ’142 Patent’s ranges of 10-3 to 10 Torr. Ex.
`
`1224, ¶ 112; see also Ex. 1201 at 5:21-22. Because Wang and the ’142 Patent
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`operate at similar pressures and Wang teaches that the characteristic time of
`
`electric field variation (PP) is much greater than the collision time for electrons,
`
`Wang in view of Kudryavtsev renders this limitation obvious.
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a rise time of the electric
`field is chosen to increase an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma” recited in claim 26.
`
`Zond argues that no explanation is offered as to how Wang’s “power pulse
`
`with a rise time that varies could possibly teach or suggest a claim limitation that a
`
`rise time of an electric field is chosen.” Response at 45-46. But the actual
`
`limitation in claim 26 fails to specify how the rise time of the electric field is
`
`“chosen” other than that it increases the ionization rate of the exited atoms in the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Wang and Kudryavtsev both disclose this limitation
`
`because they both teach the rise time of an electric field that increases the
`
`ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`All of the experts agree that Wang teaches a weakly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1227
`
`at 140:7-25; Ex. 1224, ¶¶ 70-72; Ex. 2011 at 151:25-152:6. In Wang, a DC supply 80
`
`generates a train of voltages (which generate an electric field) in order to produce
`
`its desired power pulse, PP. Ex. 1224, ¶ 98; see also Ex. 1205 at 7:61-62. Wang
`
`teaches having a specific pulse width, which would include a rise time, to produce a
`
`peak power PP pulse. Ex. 1224, ¶ 85-86 and ¶ 99. Also, and like the ’142 Patent,
`
`Wang notes that the particular shape of the pulse depends on the design of the
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`power supply. Ex. 1205 at 5:25-27 (The “exact shape depends on the design of the
`
`pulsed DC power supply 80, and significant rise times . . . are expected.”); Ex.
`
`1201 at 13:66-14:5 (“The particular … shape …of the high-power pulses depend[s]
`
`on various factors including …the design of the pulsed power supply.”).
`
`The peak power PP pulse width and rise time increase the ionization rate of
`
`the excited atoms and convert the weakly-ionized plasma to strongly-ionized
`
`plasma. Ex. 1205 at 7:28-30 (“[T]he application of the high peak power PP instead
`
`quickly causes the already existing plasma to spread and increases the density
`
`of the plasma.”). Dr. Hartsough concedes that “if you have a quick increase in
`
`the plasma density, … that indicate[s] a quick increase in the rate of
`
`ionization.” Ex. 1225 at 88:22-90:3. Dr. Hartsough also concedes that Wang’s
`
`voltage pulse “increases the ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.” Ex. 1229 at 117:23-25. Thus, Wang’s voltage rise time is
`
`“chosen” specifically in order to increase an ionization rate of the excited atoms in
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`It is important to understand ionization rate. In plasma, ions and free
`
`electrons are always being both produced (at an ionization rate) and lost (at a
`
`recombination rate). That is, the negatively charged electrons and positively
`
`charged ions, even during the high density stage, continue to recombine back into
`
`neutral atoms/molecules and must be replaced by new ions and electrons through
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionization. Kudryavtsev discusses the change in electron density (dne/dt) as a
`
`function of electron production rate (“production”) minus electron loss rate
`
`(“loss”):
`
`Time rate of change in electron density = production – loss
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at p. 30, equation (1). For strongly-ionized plasma, the rate
`
`of electron production and loss are both higher, than that for weakly-ionized
`
`plasma. That is, for strongly-ionized plasma, both the ionization rate and the
`
`recombination rate will be higher, than for weakly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1224, ¶ 95.
`
`Additionally, Kudryavtsev discloses a rise time of an electric field that
`
`increases an ionization rate of a weakly-ionized plasma because Kudryavtsev
`
`teaches that it selects a high-voltage pulse to have a “rise time ~ 10-7s without
`
`appreciable distortion.” Ex. 1204 at p. 32, right col, ¶ 6. This high-voltage pulse is
`
`applied to a weakly-ionized plasma (including excited atoms). See id., Figs. 1 and
`
`2; p. 34, left col. ¶ 5. After this high-voltage pulse is applied, “the discharge
`
`current rises very slowly for times t < τS and the tube voltage remains almost
`
`constant.” Id. at p. 33, left col, ¶ 2. The slow rise in discharge current for times t <
`
`τS indicates that the ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma is increasing. This understanding is confirmed by Dr. Hartsough’s noting
`
`that in Kudryavtsev, “[d]uring the slow ionization phase (denoted by tS) . . . the
`
`ionization of the [weakly ionized] plasma is increasing by less than 100 times.” Ex.
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`2005, ¶ 70(c). Combining the teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev is discussed in
`
`the original declaration of Dr. Kortshagen, and is also discussed above. See Ex.
`
`1224, ¶ 102.
`
`F. Wang in view Kudryavtsev teaches “selecting at least one of a
`pulse amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to
`cause the strongly-ionized plasma to be substantially uniform in an area
`adjacent to a surface of the cathode” recited in claim 37 and “the
`strongly ionized plasma is substantially uniform proximate to the
`cathode” recited in claims 27 and 38.
`
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach that the “plasma is substantially uniform
`
`proximate to the cathode” because in Wang’s system, the plasma region “is not
`
`uniform across Wang’s cathode.” Response at 46-47; Ex. 2005, ¶ 105 (Ex. 2005)
`
`(“Wang [] teaches that the uniformity of its plasma is limited to the area beneath the
`
`rotating magnet.”). Zond’s argument reads a limitation into the claims that simply
`
`does not exist since these claims only require that the plasma is “substantially uniform
`
`proximate to [or in an area adjacent to the surface of] the cathode” not uniform across
`
`the entire cathode at a single point in time. Ex. 1224, ¶ 104. As explained below,
`
`Wang teaches generating substantially uniform plasma as recited in these claims.
`
`First, Wang teaches a pulse amplitude for forming the strongly-ionized plasma:
`
`“the peak power PP is at least 10 times the background power PB, … and most
`
`preferably 1000 times to achieve the greatest effect of the invention.” Ex. 1205 at
`
`7:19-22; Ex. 1224, ¶ 105. Second, Wang teaches that the pulse amplitude makes the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`strongly-ionized plasma substantially uniform: “the application of the high peak
`
`power PP instead quickly causes the already existing plasma to spread and
`
`increases the density of the plasma.” Ex. 1205 at 7:28-30; Ex. 1224, ¶ 105. Dr.
`
`Hartsough concedes that “as the density increases, it will tend to spread; and in a
`
`magnetron, it would tend to become more uniform.” Ex. 1229 at 87:3-5. Third,
`
`Wang also teaches that “[t]he choice of pulse width τw is dictated by
`
`considerations of … sputtering process conditions…. for achieving the
`
`greatest effect.” See Ex. 1205 at 5:43-49; Figs. 6 and 7. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that in Wang the greatest sputtering effect is
`
`attained when plasma is uniform. Ex. 1224, ¶ 106.
`
`Wang also describes that the rotation of the magnet moves the substantially
`
`uniform strongly-ionized plasma to provide a resulting electric field and plasma
`
`that are uniform over the entire surface of the cathode/target. Ex. 1224, ¶ 107. Dr.
`
`Hartsough concedes that the rotation causes a more uniform erosion of the target
`
`over time. Ex. 1228at 128:14-22. Further, Dr. Hartsough concedes that Wang
`
`teaches the formation of a uniform plasma over time. Ex. 1228 at 130:11-20.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, challenged claims of the
`
`’142 Patent are unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00819
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Tennant
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GlobalFoundries
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2015
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, that
`
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service April 16, 2015
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response;
`
`Exhibits 1224 - 1229; and
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List of April 16, 2015
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`/s/ Anna Goodall
`
`
`
`
`
`Anna Goodall
`White & Case LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 213-0367
`Email: agoodall@whitecase.com
`
`17