Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`North America Corporation (collectively “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,853,142 B2 (“the ’142 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of TSMC’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail
`in challenging claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted as to claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 of the ’142 Patent.
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`TSMC indicates that the ’142 Patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Fujitsu, No.1:13-cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.), in which TSMC is a co-
`defendant. Pet. 1. TSMC also identifies other matters where Zond asserted
`the claims of the ’142 Patent against third parties, as well as other Petitions
`for inter partes review that are related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating high-
`density plasma. Ex. 1101, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was
`a well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates.
`Id. at 1:24–25. The ’142 Patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization (the
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address
`these problems, the ’142 Patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`between the target and anode can increase the uniformity and density in the
`plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However, increasing the power also “can increase
`the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, all are dependent and all depend from one
`of claims 1 or 10. Claims 10 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`10. A method for generating a strongly-ionized plasma in a
`chamber, the method comprising:
`ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma that
`reduces the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber;
`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 plasma; and
`diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with additional feed
`gas thereby allowing the strongly-ionized plasma to absorb
`additional energy from the power supply.
`
`11. The method of claim 10 wherein the applying the
`electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized plasma excites atoms
`the weakly-ionized plasma and generates secondary
`in
`electrons, the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms,
`thereby creating a strongly-ionized plasma.
`Ex. 1101, 21:13–31 (emphases added).
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1103) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin”).
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1106) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1119) (hereinafter
`“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`14
`13 and 14
`2 and 11
`2 and 11
`13 and 16
`16
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`Wang and Lantsman
`Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev
`Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev
`Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Mozgrin Thesis
`Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. The citations to the
`Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by TSMC (Ex. 1118).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Printed Publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`As an initial matter, we address the issue of whether the Mozgrin
`Thesis is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the purposes of this
`decision. In its Petition, TSMC asserts that the Mozgrin Thesis is a doctoral
`thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, published in 1994, and it is
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4. As support, TSMC proffers a
`copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State
`Library. Ex. 1120.
`Zond responds that TSMC fails to demonstrate the Mozgrin Thesis is
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Prelim. Resp. 56–58. Specifically, Zond
`contends that the 2002 date printed below the catalog entry does not
`establish that the Mozgrin Thesis was available publicly prior to the critical
`date (i.e., November 4, 2002—the filing date of the application that issued as
`the ’142 Patent). Id. at 57–58. Zond also alleges that TSMC “did not
`provide any explanation of the meaning of that date, such as whether or not
`it is the date on which the Mozgrin Thesis became accessible to interested
`persons.” Id.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments, as they are predicated on
`the incorrect assumption that the 2002 date is the publication date of the
`Mozgrin Thesis. As shown in the catalog entry, the 2002 date appears to be
`a claim of copyright in the Ex Libris database from which the catalogue
`entry was retrieved. Ex. 1120, 2. More importantly, the catalog entry
`clearly shows a publication date of 1994 (“Imprint Moscow 1994”). Id. The
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`certified English-language translation of the catalog entry is reproduced
`below (Ex. 1120, 1 (annotation added)):
`
`
`Zond does not address why the 1994 imprint date on the catalog entry
`at the Russian State Library is insufficient to establish that the Mozgrin
`Thesis was accessible publicly before the critical date. See In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897, 899–900 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding a dissertation shelved in
`the stacks and indexed in the catalog at a university library is a printed
`publication under § 102). To the contrary, the catalog entry demonstrates
`that the Mozgrin Thesis was made available to interested persons by virtue
`of its title and “Subject” characterization.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`shown sufficiently that the Mozgrin Thesis is a “printed publication” within
`the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, the Mozgrin Thesis is
`available as prior art for the purposes of this decision to demonstrate that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`two claim terms. Pet. 13–15; Prelim. Resp. 19-22. We address the claim
`terms identified by the parties below.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Independent claim 1 recites “the electrical pulse having a magnitude
`and a rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-ionized
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 10
`reciting a similar limitation. All of the challenged claims depend from
`claims 1 or 10.
`TSMC proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should
`be interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the claim term
`“strongly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density
`plasma.” Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted). Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, supporting
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`declarant for TSMC, defines the term “density” in the context of plasma as
`“the number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1102
`¶ 21.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively
`low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma”
`should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`ions.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1101, 9:43–45 (“The rapid ionization
`results in a strongly-ionized plasma 238 having a large ion density being
`formed in the area 234 proximate to the cathode 204.”)). Zond also directs
`our attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`Patent”), which is being challenged in Taiwan Semiconductor
`Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00861. Id.
`The Specification of the ’652 patent provides:
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma from the
`initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also referred
`to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-density
`plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined herein to
`mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma density. For
`example, the peak plasma density of the high-density plasma is
`greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge current that is
`formed from the high-density plasma can be on the order of
`about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the range of about
`50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of about 5 mTorr
`to 10 Torr.
`IPR2014-00861, Ex. 1101, 8:55–59.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Zond characterizes the ’652 Patent as “a related patent” (Prelim.
`Resp. 21), Zond does not explain how the ’652 Patent is related to the
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’142 Patent). In fact,
`those patents do not share the same written disclosure, nor do they derive
`from the same parent application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference between the
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 15; Ex. 1102 ¶ 21; Prelim. Resp. 21–22. More
`importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`plasma” appear to be used consistently across both the ’652 Patent and the
`’142 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 6:31–35. For this decision, 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.”
`
`
`C. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`D. Claims 13 and 14 – Obviousness over Wang and Lantsman
`TSMC asserts that claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang and Lantsman. Pet. 31–
`44. As support, TSMC provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`limitation, including those of independent claim 10 from which claims 13
`and 14 depend, is met by the references and rationales for combining the
`references, as well as a Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1102). Id.
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Lantsman does not
`disclose every claim limitation. Prelim. Resp. 45–52. Zond also argues that
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and
`Lantsman. Id. at 24–44.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang
`and Lantsman. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond
`as to the claims.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1105, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 123–127, 129; see Pet. 31–32.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`Lantsman
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1104, Abs.
`The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
`when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
`to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`and radio frequency (RF) sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also
`provides that “arcing which can be produced by overvoltages can cause local
`overheating of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target material
`into the processing chamber and causing substrate particle contamination
`and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes
`during processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
`Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
`introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
`the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
`Lantsman reproduced below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-008221
`
`
`Patennt 6,853,1442 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 6 illustrrates that thhe gas floww is initiateed, and thee gas flow aand
`for the
`
`
`
`
`
`presssure begin to ramp uppwards towward normmal process
`ing levels
`
`
`proccessing stagge. Id. at 55:39–42.
`
`
`Claimms 13 and 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With resspect to claaim 13, recciting that ““applying
`
`the electriccal pulse
`
`
`
`
`compprises appllying a quaasi-static electric fiel
`
`
`d across thhe weakly--ionized
`
`
`
`
`
`plasmma,” TSMC argues thhat the ’1442 Patent ddescribes a
`
`
`“quasi-staatic electricc
`a period o
`
`
`
`
`fieldd” as “an ellectric fieldd that is coonstant for
`
`of time ‘thaat is much
`
`
`greatter than thee collision
`
`
`
`
`time for eelectrons wwith neutrall gas particcles.’” Pet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42 (cciting Ex. 1101, 7:166–19). Bassed on a texxtbook andd another rreference
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incorrporated innto Wang, TSMC arggues that thhe longest
`
`collision tiime in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wanng is 0.188 μs, and thhat the pulsse width off the powerr peak is att least 50
`
`. Id. at 42–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`μs, ssuch that WWang’s elecctric field iis considerred to be quuasi-static
`
`
`
`44 (cciting Ex. 1102 ¶ 1277).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With resspect to claaim 14, recciting that tthe pulse aamplitude oor width is
`
`
`
`seleccted “in ordder to incr
`
`
`
`
`ease an ionnization ratte of the sttrongly-ionnized
`
`–
`
`.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`plasma,” TSMC argues that Wang’s peak power pulse increases the density
`of the plasma, forming a strongly-ionized plasma. Id. at 44. TSMC also
`argues that while the density is increasing, the ionization rate is increasing
`too. Id.; Ex. 1102 ¶ 129.
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Lantsman
`TSMC asserts that it would have been obvious to have combined
`Wang and Lantsman to render claims 1 and 10 obvious in order to
`demonstrate the unpatentability of the challenged dependent claims. Pet.
`38–40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113–115). With regard to the claim feature of
`claim 1—a gas line that supplies feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma—
`and to the claim feature of claim 10—diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma
`with additional feed gas thereby allowing the strongly-ionized plasma to
`absorb additional energy from the power supply—TSMC discusses the
`suggestion of continuing to supply the feed gas in the process of Wang, and
`argues that it is likely to occur during that disclosed process, although not
`expressly recited. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1102 ¶ 111. TSMC also argues that even
`if Wang does not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases, “[i]t would
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to exchange the feed
`gas during Wang’s application of background power and high peak power,
`as taught by Lantsman.” Pet. 38–39. TSMC submits an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine Wang and Lantsman because
`both are directed to sputtering and both employ two power supplies, one for
`pre-ionization and the other for deposition. Id. In addition, both Wang and
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`Lantsman are concerned with generating plasma while avoiding arcing. Id.
`TSMC also cites to the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen that the continuous flow
`of gas would allow for diffusion of the strongly-ionized plasma and
`additional power to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at 39–40; Ex. 1102 ¶
`114.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Lantsman,
`arguing that Wang’s power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus differs
`significantly from Lantsman’s plasma apparatus, where the latter uses two
`power supplies and does not generate strongly-ionized plasma. Prelim.
`Resp. 34–37, 38–39. In particular, Zond argues that “Lantsman does not
`disclose a pulsed power supply, or an electrical pulse,” and would operate
`very differently than the system in Wang. Id. at 36. In addition, Zond
`argues that Lantsman does not disclose generating strongly-ionized plasma,
`or the density of the plasma formed, such that skilled artisans would have no
`reasonable expectation of success in combining Lantsman with Wang, where
`Wang “makes no mention of diffusing strongly-ionized plasma with feed
`gas.” Id. at 38–39.
`Those arguments are not persuasive on the present record. “It is well-
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
`multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
`elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
`Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion
`for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined physically,
`but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one with ordinary skill in the art is
`not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over
`the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
`Aeroquip Corp.,733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S.
`at 420-21 (A person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
`creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`Zond has not shown, based on the present record, that the sputtering
`apparatuses differ significantly from each other. Both apparatuses are used
`in sputtering and both employ two-stage plasma formation processes, as
`discussed above. Additionally, Wang and Lantsman are concerned with
`generating plasma while avoiding arcing; with such a common problem
`being solved in each, the common solutions to avoiding arcing would act as
`a tie to ordinarily skilled artisans to motivate consideration of their
`combination. On this record, Zond has not adequately demonstrated that
`Wang’s apparatus or Lantsman’s apparatus would have been beyond the
`level of ordinary skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings.
`Also, Dr. Kortshagen testifies that “Lantsman’s pre-ionization
`corresponds to Wang’s application of background power, PB, and
`Lantsman’s deposition corresponds to Wang’s application of high peak
`power, PP.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 113 (internal citations omitted). Given these
`similarities, we are persuaded that TSMC has demonstrated on the present
`record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang and
`Lantsman as identified in the Petition.
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`On this record, we also credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is
`consistent with the prior art disclosures. We also agree with Dr. Kortshagen
`that “such exchange of the feed gas into and out of Wang’s chamber would
`have both diffused the strongly-ionized plasma and allowed additional
`power from Wang’s repeating voltage pulses to be absorbed by the strongly-
`ionized plasma.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 111. The plasma physics involved with
`continuing to supply the feed gas, i.e., causing lower gas temperature and
`higher neutral gas density, resulting in higher rates of plasma generation, id.,
`are uncontroverted by Zond, inherently “allowing additional power from the
`pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma,” and
`“allowing the strongly-ionized plasma to absorb additional energy from the
`power supply,” per claims 1 and 10, respectively.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`disclosures of Wang and Lantsman is merely a predicable use of prior art
`elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`Alleged Missing Claim Elements from the Combination of Wang and
`Lantsman
`Zond also argues the claim element “diffusing the strongly-ionized
`plasma with additional feed gas thereby allowing the strongly-ionized
`plasma to absorb additional energy from the power supply,” from claim 10
`and a similar element from claim 1, are not taught or suggested by the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman. Prelim. Resp. 45–48. Zond argues
`that TSMC has attempted to demonstrate that the feed gas is supplied during
`processing, but that does not teach supplying the feed gas to the strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 46. Zond also argues that TSMC’s arguments about
`the obviousness of allowing the plasma to absorb more power is based on
`“classic hindsight” that utilizes the same reason provided in the ’142 Patent
`for including the claim limitation. Id. at 46–47. Since Wang discloses the
`formation of a strongly-ionized plasma during its process, supplying the feed
`gas for the entire process, as would have occurred in the combined processes
`of Wang and Lantsman, necessarily would involve supplying the feed gas to
`the strongly-ionized plasma. Also, as discussed above, we are persuaded
`that the ability of plasma to absorb more power based on the supply of the
`feed gas is a matter of plasma physics. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 111. We are not
`persuaded that TSMC used the ’142 Patent “as a blueprint for modifying”
`the references (Prelim. Resp. 47 (emphasis omitted)) because TSMC’s
`analysis is based on common, understood scientific principles. TSMC’s
`reliance on underlying plasma physics principles would not need to be
`guided by hindsight using the ’142 Patent.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`With respect to claim 13, Zond counters that TSMC argues Wang’s
`electric field is quasi-static because the pulse width is greater than the
`collision time for electrons with neutral gas particles, but that TSMC fails to
`make any comparison between the characteristic time of electric field
`variation and collision time. Prelim. Resp. 49–50. Rather, Zond contends,
`TSMC compares a different quantity, i.e., the pulse width of the power
`pulse, with a collision time, and thus, has not demonstrated that claim 13 is
`taught or suggested by the combination of Wang and Lantsman. Id. We do
`not agree.
`It is clear from the analysis above that an electric field is applied to
`the weakly-ionized plasma in the form of a pulse in Wang. Claim 13
`requires that the electric field applied be “quasi-static,” and the ’142 Patent
`describes a “quasi-static electric field” as an electric field that has “a
`characteristic time of electric field variation,” i.e., while it is constant for a
`period of time, that is much greater than the collision time for electrons with
`neutral gas particles. Ex. 1101, 7:16–19. It is logical to look at the width of
`a pulse to determine the duration over which the field of the pulse is applied.
`Where no pulse is applied, there would be a variation in the applied field as
`compared to when the field is applied. As such, we agree with TSMC that
`looking to a pulse width would allow ordinarily skilled artisans to determine
`if the field applied through the pulse is quasi-static. Given the collision time
`referred to in the Petition (Pet. 42), which has not yet been controverted by
`Zond, we agree that Wang provides for the application of an electric field,
`through its power pulse, that would be quasi-static compared to the collision
`time.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`With respect to claim 14, Zond argues that TSMC’s analysis is faulty.
`Prelim. Resp. 50–52. Specifically, Zond argues that it does not follow
`necessarily that the ionization rate increases when the plasma density
`increases because the rate at which ions are created does not have to increase
`with increasing density. Id. at 51. However, the ’142 Patent admits, in the
`Background of Invention section, that “the plasma is replenished by
`electron-ion pairs formed by the collision of neutral molecules with
`secondary electrons generated at the target s
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
