`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`Case No. IPR2014-008211
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00863, IPR 2014-01013, and IPR 2014-01057 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00821, concerning U.S. Patent 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”), entered
`
`on September 25, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to
`
`Wang (“Wang”) and U.S. Pat. 6,190,512 to Lantsman (“Lantsman”)
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 2 and 11 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Lantsman, and 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) (“Kudryavetsev”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 16 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang, Lantsman, and D.V.
`
`Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Physics Institute (1994) (“Mozgrin Thesis”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 47
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-008211
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge Turner.
`Opinion Dissenting-in-Part filed by Administrative Patent Judge Stephens.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00863, IPR2014-01013, and IPR2014-01057 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 an inter partes review of claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 20, 2014,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00863, IPR2014-01013, and
`IPR2014-01057 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 32). Zond filed a
`Response (Paper 26 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`(Paper 39 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 12, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 46 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16
`of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00818, IPR2014-
`00819, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
`
`proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
`11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
`Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
`11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 4.
`
`
`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 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization (the
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address
`these problems, the ’142 Patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`between the target and anode can increase the uniformity and density in the
`plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However, increasing the power also “can increase
`the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, all are dependent and all depend from one
`of claim 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).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted grounds, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1104)
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`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”).3
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 32):
`
`Claims
`
`13 and 14
`2 and 11
`16
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
`§ 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`
`3 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. The citations to the
`Mozgrin Thesis are to the certified English-language translation submitted
`by GlobalFoundries (Ex. 1118).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`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
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 10
`reciting a similar limitation. All of the challenged claims depend from claim
`1 or 10. During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties submitted
`their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and “a
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 20–22. In our Decision
`on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light of the
`Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 8–10.
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
`of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
`with a relatively low peak density of ions,” the claim term “a strongly-
`ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In
`that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`504 F.3d at 1259. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16—Obviousness over Wang and Lantsman,
`or Wang, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev, or
`Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`GlobalFoundries 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. GlobalFoundries also asserts that claims 2 and 11 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev, and that claim 16 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman,
`and Mozgrin Thesis. Pet. 52–55, 58–60. As support, GlobalFoundries
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`references and rationales for combining the references, as well as a
`declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1102). GlobalFoundries also submitted a
`Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1129) to support its Reply to Zond’s Patent
`Owner Response.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 41–53. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Lantsman, and
`Kudryavtsev. Id. at 19–41. Zond also argues that GlobalFoundries has
`failed to demonstrate that Mozgrin Thesis was available prior to the filing
`date of the ’142 Patent. Id. at 53–55. To support its contentions, Zond
`proffers a Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not
`argue that elements of claims 2, 11, or 16 are not taught or suggested by the
`combinations of Wang, Lantsman, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin Thesis, only
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the references, and that Mozgrin
`Thesis has not been shown to be prior art. PO Resp. 41–55.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev,
`address their combination with respect to the instant grounds, and then we
`address the parties’ contentions about specific claims in turn.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 123–127, 129; see Pet. 31–32.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes.
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1106, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added) illustrates the atomic
`energy levels during the slow and fast stages of ionization. Annotated
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-
`step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 137–138;
`Pet. 47–48.
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`Ex. 1106, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine References
`GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious to have
`combined Wang and Lantsman to render the claims obvious. Pet. 38–40
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113–115). GlobalFoundries discusses the suggestion of
`continuing to supply the feed gas in the process of Wang, and argues that
`this continuance is likely to occur during that disclosed process, although not
`expressly recited. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1102 ¶ 111. GlobalFoundries also argues
`that even if Wang does not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases,
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“[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. GlobalFoundries
`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 Lantsman are concerned with
`generating plasma while avoiding arcing. Id. GlobalFoundries also cites to
`the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen that the continuous flow of gas would allow
`for diffusion of the strongly-ionized plasma and allow for additional power
`to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at 39–40; Ex. 1102 ¶ 114.
`Additionally, with respect to Kudryavtsev, GlobalFoundries asserts
`that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 52–55 (citing Ex. 1102
`¶¶ 134–145). GlobalFoundries contends that Kudryavtsev teaches that
`ionization proceeds in a slow stage followed by a fast stage and that excited
`atoms are produced in both stages, such that excited atoms would be
`produced in Wang’s weakly-ionized plasma in response to the applied
`electrical pulse. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 149). GlobalFoundries also
`submits that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
`to adjust Wang’s operating parameters (e.g., to increase the pulse length of
`the power and/or the pressure of the gas inside the chamber) to trigger a fast
`stage of ionization. Id. at 53. According to GlobalFoundries, triggering
`such a fast stage of ionization in Wang’s apparatus would increase plasma
`density and, thereby, would increase the sputtering rate, and reduce the time
`required to reach a given plasma density. Id. at 54.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, GlobalFoundries notes that the ’142 Patent admits
`that secondary electrons are produced in a sputtering process by
`collisions between ions and the cathode and those secondary electrons
`form ions. Id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 154–155). As such,
`GlobalFoundries argues, the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`teaches the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma,
`and the production of secondary electrons.
`The parties’ dispute, with respect to motivation to combine, mainly
`centers on whether GlobalFoundries has articulated a reason with rational
`underpinning why one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`the prior art teachings. Zond argues that GlobalFoundries fails to
`demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev, to achieve the claimed
`invention with reasonable expectation of success or predictable results. PO
`Resp. 19–41.
`In particular, Zond contends that it would not have been obvious how
`to combine Wang and Kudryavtsev, arguing that Wang’s sputtering
`apparatus differs significantly from Kudryavtsev’s experimental apparatus.
`Id. at 33–41. Zond argues that “Kudryavtsev’s theoretical work is targeted
`for ‘emission mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks,
`etc,’” with no magnet, but Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputter
`reactor (id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1106, 34)), that GlobalFoundries’
`characterization of Kudryavtsev is incorrect and cannot serve as a rationale
`to combine (id. at 35–36), and that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 36–41 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 66, 89–91;
`Ex. 1101, 1:19–20, 4:10–12, 5:38–39; Ex. 1106, 32, Fig. 3; Ex. 1105, 3:60–
`61, 4:35–37, 7:32–34, 57–61, Fig. 1; Ex. 2004, 14:37–50).
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments apply
`statements directed to different embodiments of Wang together and attempt
`to physically incorporate Lantsman into Wang. Reply 2–4.
`GlobalFoundries also responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have viewed Lantsman’s teachings as applicable to Wang’s system, based on
`the ordinary level of skill in the art and the similarities between Wang and
`Lantsman. Id. Additionally, GlobalFoundries continues that Zond’s
`arguments with respect to the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev “focus
`on bodily incorporat[ion],” and that “[d]ifferences 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. at 4–
`6. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are persuaded by
`GlobalFoundries’ contentions.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Lantsman’s, Wang’s,
`and Kudryavtsev’s apparatuses would have been viewed as significantly
`different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Obviousness
`does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation that
`the beneficial result will be achieved. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
`1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that
`the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined
`physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the
`teachings of the prior art as a whole). In that regard, one with ordinary skill
`in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art
`reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear
`Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (stating that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many
`cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`pieces of a puzzle”).
`Dr. Overzet testifies that Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior is
`not intended to be limited to a particular type of plasma apparatus. Ex. 1129
`¶ 61. Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses a study of the ionization relaxation in
`plasma when the external electric field suddenly increases. Ex. 1106, 30.
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses that “the electron density increases
`explosively in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited
`states.” Id. at Abs. (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also describes the
`experimental results that confirm the model. Id. at 32–34. Moreover,
`Kudryavtsev expressly explains that “the effects studied in this work are
`characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`ionized gas.” Id. at 34 (emphasis added).
`Dr. Overzet also testifies that a person having 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
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00821
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in electron density” when generating a strongly-ionized plasma for
`improving sputtering and manufacturing processing. Ex. 1129 ¶ 62.
`Dr. Overzet further explains that such an artisan would have known how to
`apply Kudryavtsev’s model to Wang’s system by making any necessary
`changes to accommodate the differences through routine experimentation.
`Id. ¶¶ 63–65. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s testimony (id. ¶¶ 61–
`65) because his explanations are consistent with the prior art of record.
`As well, Dr. Overzet testifies, Lantsman states that its techniques can
`be applied to any plasma process, including DC magnetron sputtering, where
`Wang is directed to DC magnetron sputtering. Ex. 1129 ¶¶ 66–67 (citing
`Ex. 1104, 6:14–17). Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that the different
`processing conditions in Wang and Lantsman are routine variables that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would understand need to be changed to
`accommodate different systems and processing conditions. Id. ¶ 68. In
`addition, Dr. Overzet points out that both Lantsman and Wang “teach two
`stage plasma systems.” Id. ¶ 69. Indeed, Lantsman discloses both “limited”
`and “substantial” plasma stages (Ex. 1104, 2:48–51, 4:58–61, 5:6), and
`Wang discloses plasma states that vary with the application of pulses
`(Ex. 1105, 7:13–39). As noted above, Wang discloses background power PB
`of 1 kW (falling within the