Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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
`________________
`
`IPR2014-008211
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00863, IPR 2014-01013, and IPR 2014-01057 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` 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
`Lantsman. ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang and
`Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................. 4
`
`D. Mozgrin Thesis is Prior Art .......................................................................... 6
`
`E. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “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” recited in
`claim 1 and similarly in recited in claim 10. ................................................ 7
`
`F. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “an 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” recited
`in claim 1 and similarly in claim 10. .......................................................... 10
`
`G. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “applying the electrical pulse
`comprises applying a quasi-static electric field” recited in claim 13. ........ 11
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`H. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “selecting at least one of a pulse
`amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to increase
`an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma” recited in claim 14. ..... 13
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` 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
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 16, 2015
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“’142 Patent”)
`
`1102 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, 1995 (“Mozgrin”)
`
`1103
`
`1104 U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman”)
`
`1105 U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`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”)
`
`10/07/03 Office Action
`
`03/08/04 Response
`
`03/29/04 Allowance
`
`04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111 U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”)
`
`1112
`
`05/02/06 Response of ‘759 Patent File History
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm, Academic
`Press (1989) (“Manos”)
`
`The Materials Science of Thin Films, by Ohring M., Academic Press
`(1992) (“Ohring”)
`
`iv
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Exhibit Description
`Thin-Film Deposition: Principles & Practice by Smith, D.L., McGraw
`Hill (1995) (“Smith”)
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`Gas Discharge Physics, by Raizer, Table of Contents, pp. 1-35, Springer
`1997 (“Raizer”)
`
`1117 U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu”)
`
`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”)
`
`1118
`
`1119 Mozgrin Thesis (Original Russian)
`
`1120 Catalogue Entry at the Russian State Library for the Mozgrin Thesis
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin and Lantsman used in 1:13-cv-11570-
`RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin and Lantsman”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Wang and Lantsman used in 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`(“Claim Chart based on Wang and Lantsman”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev used in
`1:13-cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin, Lantsman and
`Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Wang, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev used in 1:13-
`cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang, Lantsman and
`Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin, Lantsman and Mozgrin Thesis used in
`1:13-cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin, Lantsman and
`1125
`Mozgrin Thesis”)
`1126 Claim Chart Based on Wang, Lantsman and Mozgrin Thesis used in
`1:13-cv-11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang, Lantsman and
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Exhibit Description
`Mozgrin Thesis”)
`
`1127
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`1128 Rismiller Declaration ISO Motion for PHV Admission of Brett C
`Rismiller
`
`1129 Declaration of Dr. Lawrence J. Overzet (“Overzet Decl.”)
`
`1130 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`1131 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`1132 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`1133 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 8,125,155
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 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. 1130 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. 1129, ¶¶ 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. 1129, ¶¶ 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
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionized plasma or a strongly ionized plasma.” Ex. 1132 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. 1129, ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1105, Figs 4 and 6 (annotated); Ex. 1129, ¶ 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. 1105 at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are illustrated in
`
`the figures reproduced above. Further, Dr. Overzet provides a chart summarizing
`
`the difference between these two embodiments. Ex. 1129, ¶¶ 54-58.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang
`and Lantsman.
`
`Zond argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine
`
`Wang and Lantsman because each reference allegedly discloses very different
`
`structures and processes. Response at 28-33. These arguments improperly require
`
`physically incorporating Lantsman into Wang. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness …does
`
`not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”).
`
`Further, Zond’s argument is incorrect and shows a clear misunderstanding of
`
`the ordinary level of skill in the art. Ex. 1129, ¶ 66. Whether Wang and Lantsman
`
`teach different processing conditions is beside the point; these conditions are
`
`determined by external factors such as process flow and recipes, which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been accustomed to working with on a regular
`
`basis. A skilled artisan would consider it routine to make any necessary changes to
`
`accommodate any and all such factors. Ex. 1129, ¶¶ 67-68. And Zond’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Hartsough, concedes that notwithstanding physical differences, Lantsman’s
`
`teachings are applicable to any plasma process, including Wang’s magnetron
`
`sputtering process. Ex. 1130 at 65:2-15; Ex. 1104 at 6:14-17.
`
`Further still, and contrary to Zond’s arguments, Wang and Lantsman are
`
`strikingly similar, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be encouraged to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`combine the teachings of the two references. Ex. 1129, ¶ 69. For instance, both
`
`Wang and Lantsman teach two stage plasma sputtering systems. See Ex. 1105 at
`
`7:28-30 (“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.
`
`1104 at 2:48-51; 4:58-61; 5:5-8 (discussing first “limited” plasma stage, and a
`
`second “substantial” plasma stage). Also, Lantsman uses a continuous flow of feed
`
`gas, and Wang uses a mass flow controller (34), which would be understood to
`
`control continuous flow of feed gas. Ex. 1129, ¶ 69; see also Ex. 1105 at 4:53.
`
`C. 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. Response at 33-41. 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. 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`dimensions, magnetic field) would affect a system and understood how to adjust
`
`for such differences. Ex. 1130 at 75:24-80:2. As further discussed below, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and been 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. 1129, ¶ 61. Kudryavtsev applies
`
`its theory to an experimental embodiment. Id.; see also Ex. 1106, 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. 1129, ¶ 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. 1106 at Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (emphasis added).
`
`Like Kudryavtsev, Wang is directed a plasma reactor with a pulsed power
`
`supply. Ex. 1105, Abstract; ¶ 62. During peak 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. 1105 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
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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, for the benefit of improved
`
`sputtering and manufacturing processing capabilities. Ex. 1129, ¶ 62.
`
`Whether there are differences in the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev is
`
`inconsequential. Ex. 1129, ¶ 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.;
`
`see also Ex. 1130 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. 1129, ¶ 64; Ex. 1103
`
`at p. 401 ¶ spanning left and right cols. Finally, and contrary to Zond’s argument,
`
`it is not necessary to conduct actual experiments in order to conclude that Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev are combinable. See Response at 40-41; Ex. 1129, ¶ 65.
`
`D. Mozgrin Thesis is Prior Art
`Zond argues that the Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art, yet provides no
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`additional evidence to support its position. Response at 53. It is clear that Mozgrin
`
`Thesis was catalogued by the Russian Library – an institution which is by
`
`definition established to share the information that it houses with any interested
`
`persons – either by the imprint date of 1994 or at least by 1995 as shown on top of
`
`the Exhibit 1014 (“Catalog of Dissertations in Russian (since 1995)”).
`
`Accordingly, the Mozgrin Thesis is a printed publication and serves as prior art.
`
`E. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “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”
`recited in claim 1 and similarly in recited in claim 10.
`
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach this limitation. Response at 1-2; 42-43.
`
`Zond attempts to support this by arguing that the feed gas in Wang enters “far from
`
`the area where plasma is generated at the top of the chamber near the cathode.” Id. at
`
`2; Ex. 2005, ¶ 96. As explained below, this argument is contrary to basic physics.
`
`As a threshold matter, it is noted that Dr. Hartsough concedes that Lantsman
`
`“indicates that the feed gas is provided throughout the sputtering process.” Ex. 1130 at
`
`66:3-5; see also Ex. 1104 at 3:9-13; 4:8-10, 36-38; 5:30-61; Ex. 1129, ¶ 80; see also
`
`Ex. 2011 at 81:14-19. Dr. Hartsough also concedes that Lantsman teaches providing
`
`the continuous feed gas to the strongly ionized plasma. Ex. 1130 at 71:1-25.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Hartsough concedes that “the gas will tend to diffuse
`
`throughout the whole volume.” Ex. 1130 at 88:22-89:2. Dr. Hartsough also
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`concedes that the continuous feed gas will diffuse (or mingle/intermingle (Ex. 1130 at
`
`87:22-88:9)) into the high-density plasma:
`
`Q. And if gas is being fed into that volume, then it will, in turn, try
`to diffuse into that area of high-density plasma; correct?
`…
`THE WITNESS: It will mingle.
`Ex. 1130 at 92:18-93:7.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Hartsough had no option but to concede this point because Zond’s
`
`argument is contrary to basic principles of gas motion. Ex. 1129, ¶ 74 and ¶¶ 77-78;
`
`see also Ex. 2011 at 74:6-14. Wang’s Fig. 1 has been reproduced and annotated below
`
`to illustrate the plasma region 42 inside the chamber, and the location where the feed
`
`gas 32, i.e., Argon (Ar), a noble gas, enters the chamber. Ex. 1129, ¶ 75.
`
`Plasma
`
`Feed gas enters here, and
`then fills the volume by
`diffusive motion
`
`Ex.1105, Fig. 1 (annotated); see also Ex. 1129, ¶ 75.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`As can be seen from Figure 1, the feed gas enters and is directed toward the
`
`curved shape of the anode 24. The gas moves throughout the region 22, including
`
`plasma region 42. See Ex. 1105 at 4:5-12. A “plasma of the argon working gas” is
`
`then formed at the plasma region 42, and the argon gas is eventually removed by a
`
`vacuum system 38. Id. at 4:5-15. Thus in the system of Wang, the Argon feed gas will
`
`diffuse into the high density plasma, thereby allowing additional power from the
`
`pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the plasma. Ex. 1129, ¶ 76.
`
`Further, Dr. Hartsough testified that to deposit TiN on a substrate, the feed gas
`
`including Nitrogen will need to be supplied continuously to the plasma chamber. Ex.
`
`1132 at 184:22-185:3. This is consistent with Dr. Overzet’s conclusion that Wang
`
`teaches a continuous supply of Argon feed gas including Nitrogen for use with a
`
`Titanium target, “to form TiN on the surface of the wafer.” Ex. 1129, ¶ 79; Ex. 1105
`
`at 4:19-23. Further still, Dr. Hartsough concedes that “providing continuous flow of
`
`gas into a chamber was well known by a person of ordinary skill.” Ex. 1130 at 32:18-
`
`33:5; see also Ex. 2011 at 81:14-19. Thus, even if Wang did not teach a continuous
`
`feed of gas during the plasma process – which it does – this was well known by a
`
`person of ordinary skill and consistent with the teachings of Lantsman. Ex. 1129, ¶
`
`80; see also Ex. 2011 at 81:14-19.
`
`Zond finally argues that Petitioners have provided no evidence “indicating that
`
`a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success of achieving a
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`system that supplies feed gas to diffuse strongly ionized plasma to allow it to absorb
`
`additional power as claimed in the ‘142 Patent by modifying Wang.” Response at 29-
`
`30. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, as discussed above, it is clear
`
`that Wang’s strongly-ionized plasma is diffused with the feed gas. Second, as also
`
`discussed above, Lantsman teaches two stages of plasma: a first “limited” plasma and
`
`a second “substantial” plasma. Ex. 1104 at 2:48-51; 4:58-61; 5:6. Since the second,
`
`substantial plasma is denser than the initial plasma, it reads on the claimed “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” per the agreed-upon construction of that term. Ex. 1129, ¶¶ 69, 82;
`
`see also Ex. 1130 at 71:1-21. Third, experiments are not necessary to prove the basic
`
`principle which skilled artisans knew; namely, that a feed gas is commonly used to
`
`diffuse a strongly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1129, ¶ 83. As stated above, both Wang and
`
`Lantsman teach such things, and as admitted by Dr. Hartsough this was a basic,
`
`common, and normal practice in the art. Id.; Ex. 1130 at 32:18-33:5.
`
`F. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “an 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” recited in
`claim 1 and similarly in claim 10.
`
`Zond argues that “Wang does not teach that the magnitude and rise time are
`
`sufficient to increase the density of weakly ionized plasma to generate strongly
`
`ionized plasma . . .” Response at 49. This argument fails as discussed below.
`
`All of the experts agree that Wang teaches a weakly and a strongly ionized
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`plasma. Ex. 1133 at 140:7-25; Ex. 1129, ¶¶ 70-72; Ex. 2011 at 151:25-152:6.
`
`Further, Wang specifically teaches that a magnitude (amplitude) is selected and
`
`delivered during the peak power pulse PP to generate a strongly ionized plasma. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1105, 7:28-30; Fig. 7; Ex. 1129, ¶ 85. This voltage amplitude is relative to
`
`the voltage during background power PB such that “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. 1105 at 7:19-22. Wang also teaches using a high-
`
`pass filter allowing a specific peak pulse width and rise time. Ex. 1105 at 7:65-8:1;
`
`Fig. 7 (see HPF 104). Dr. Hartsough concedes that a high-pass filter “could enable
`
`fast rise times.” Ex. 1132 at 181:9-17. Also, and like the ’142 Patent, Wang notes
`
`that the particular shape of the pulse depends on the design of the power supply.
`
`Ex. 1105 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. 1101 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.”).
`
`G. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “applying the electrical pulse
`comprises applying a quasi-static electric field” recited in claim 13.
`
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach this a quasi-static electric field
`
`because Petitioners have not demonstrated that the characteristic time of electric
`
`field variation is greater than the collision time in Wang’s system. Response at 49-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`51. 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. 1131 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. 1129, ¶¶109- 110; Ex. 1102, ¶ 127.
`
`Zond tries to cloud the issue by claiming that Wang is silent with regard to
`
`pressure. Response at 50-51. But Zond fails to acknowledge that Wang expressly
`
`incorporates Fu by reference, (Ex. 1105 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. 1129, ¶ 112; see, e.g., Ex.
`
`1117, 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.
`
`1129, ¶ 112; see also Ex. 1101 at 5:21-22. Because Wang and the ’142 Patent
`
`operate at similar pressures and Wang teaches that the characteristic time of
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`electric field variation (PP) is much greater than the collision time for electrons,
`
`Wang in view of Kudryavtsev renders this limitation obvious.
`
`H. Wang in view of Lantsman teaches “selecting at least one of a
`pulse amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to
`increase an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma” recited in
`claim 14.
`
`Zond argues that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev does not teach this claimed
`
`feature. See Response at 51-53; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 125-126. Zond is incorrect because
`
`Wang is specifically directed to obtaining a target power of its pulses to increase
`
`the ionization rate of its strongly-ionized plasma. A power pulse, which is an
`
`electrical pulse, will have a corresponding voltage pulse with an amplitude and a
`
`width. Ex. 1129, ¶ 90.
`
`Wang teaches selecting and delivering a voltage pulse corresponding to a
`
`power pulse PP that is to be provided by a power supply 80. Ex. 1129, ¶ 91. The
`
`shape of the power pulse PP is controlled in two ways. First, Wang teaches using a
`
`voltage with a magnitude (amplitude) that is selected and delivered during the
`
`peak power pulse PP, as compared to the background pulse PB. See e.g., id.; Ex.
`
`1105 at 9:38-40 and Fig. 7. This voltage amplitude PP “is at least 10 times the
`
`background power PB, … and most preferably 1000 times . . . .” Ex. 1105 at 7:19-
`
`22; see also Ex. 1129, ¶ 91. Second, Wang teaches that “[t]he choice of pulse
`
`widths τw is dictated by considerations of both power supply design, radio
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`interference, and sputtering process conditions. Typically, it should be at least 50
`
`µs . . . but it is anticipated that for most applications it will be less than 1 ms.” Ex.
`
`1105 at 5:43-48. A representation of the pulse width τw is represented in Figures 6
`
`and 7 of Wang. Ex. 1105 at Figs. 6 and 7; Ex. 1129, ¶ 92.
`
`Wang selects the voltage amplitude and chooses the pulse width for the
`
`specific purpose of increasing an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Ex. 1129, ¶ 93. In fact, Wang specifically teaches that “a very high plasma density
`
`is produced during the pulse,” (Ex. 1105 at Abstract), and that “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. 1105 at 7:28-30; see also
`
`5:78. 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. 1132
`
`at 88:22-90:3. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`
`that Wang is choosing the voltage pulse amplitude and width to increase the
`
`ionization rate of its strongly-ionized plasma. Ex. 1129, ¶ 93.
`
`This operation of providing a voltage pulse (as shown in Wang Fig. 7) is
`
`also discussed in Kudryavtsev. Kudryavtsev teaches to choose a voltage pulse
`
`with an amplitude and a width such that at a time tS after the voltage pulse,
`
`current increases along with the ionization rate of the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00821
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1106 at p. 31, Fig. 2 (reproduced and discussed above); see also Fig.
`
`1; Abstract (“the electron density increases explosively in time.”); Ex. 1129, ¶ 94.
`
`The ionization rate for the strongly-ionized plasma is higher than the
`
`ionization rate for the weakly-ionized plasma. As Kudryavtsev explains, the ion
`
`density (dne/dt) is a function of ionization production minus ionization loss. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1106 at p. 30, equation (1); Ex. 1129, ¶ 95. For high-density plasma, the
`
`rate of ion production (ionization rate) will be greater than the rate of ion
`
`production for low-density plasma. Ex. 1129, ¶ 95. Combining the teachings of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev is discussed in the original declaration of Dr. Kortshagen
`
`as well as the declaration of Dr. Overzet. Ex. 1129, ¶ 94.
`
`It is noted that Zond made an analogy comparing ionization rate to flowing
`
`water through a hose into a bucket. Response at p. 52. This is a bad analogy
`
`because it does not account for ionization loss. See Ex. 1129, ¶ 95 (footnote 2).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16
`
`of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Tennant
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GlobalFoundries
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2015
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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 1129 - 1133; 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