`
`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
`________________
`
`IPR2014-008271
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR 2014-00865, IPR 2014-01015, and IPR 2014-01063 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`
`A. “Weakly-Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly-Ionized Plasma” ......................... 1
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ......................................................................... 2
`
`A. Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang. ........................... 2
`
`B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang and
`Kudryavtsev. ................................................................................................. 3
`
`C. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a cathode that is positioned
`adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between” recited in claim
`21. ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “the power supply generates a
`constant power” recited in claim 22, “applying the electric field at a
`constant power” recited in claim 33, and “the power supply generates a
`constant voltage” recited in claims 23 and 34. ............................................. 9
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a pulsed electric field” recited
`in claim 25. ................................................................................................. 11
`
`F. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “the ionization source is chosen
`from the group comprising an electrode coupled to a DC power supply”
`recited in claim 29. ..................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`G. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev 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 36. ..... 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 16, 2015
`
`Exhibit
`1301
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“’142 Patent”)
`
`1302
`
`1303
`
`1304
`
`1305
`
`1306
`
`1307
`
`1308
`
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`
`1312
`
`Kortshagen Declaration (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics
`Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin”)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1),
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Office Action dated October 7,
`2003 (“10/07/03 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Response dated March 8, 2004
`(“03/08/04 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142, Notice of Allowance dated
`March 29, 2004 (“03/29/04 Allowance”)
`
`04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response dated May 2, 2006
`(“05/02/06 Response of ‘759 Patent File History”)
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm, Academic
`Press (1989) (“Manos”)
`
`1313
`
`The Materials Science of Thin Films, by Ohring M., Academic Press
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`(1992) (“Ohring”)
`
`1314
`
`1315
`
`1316
`
`1317
`
`1318
`
`1319
`
`1320
`
`1321
`
`
`Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Claim Chart Based on Wang and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Rismiller Declaration ISO Motion for PHV Admission of Brett C
`Rismiller
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lawrence J. Overzet (“Overzet Decl.”)
`
`Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 in response to Zond’s
`
`Response to Petition filed on January 2, 2015 (“Response,” Paper No. 26). The
`
`evidence and arguments in this reply confirm the Board’s initial determination that
`
`claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33-36, 39, and 43 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. 1319 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. 1318, ¶¶ 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. 1318, ¶¶ 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
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`ionized plasma or a strongly ionized plasma.” Ex. 1321 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. 1318, ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1305, Figs 4 and 6 (annotated); Ex. 1318, ¶ 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. 1305 at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are illustrated in
`
`the figures reproduced above. Further, Dr. Overzet provides a chart summarizing
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`the difference between these two embodiments, including the portion cited below.
`
`Ex. 1318, ¶¶ 54-58.
`
`
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`Internal
`impedance
`
`“[C]hamber impedance
`dramatically changes.” Wang
`at 5:29-30, 52-53.
`
`“[C]hamber impedance changes
`relatively little ….” Wang at 7:49-
`51.
`
`Power
`Pulse or
`Voltage
`Pulse
`
`Arcing
`
`“Where chamber impedance
`is changing, the power pulse
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang
`at 5:52-54.
`
`Where chamber impedance changes
`“relatively little,” there is no
`preference to specify power pulse
`over current or voltage pulse. See
`Wang at 7:49-51.
`
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: See Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`B. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Wang
`and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Wang and Kudryavtsev. Response at 25-34. 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). And Zond’s declarant, Dr.
`
`Hartsough, concedes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood how physical differences (such as pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`
`dimensions, magnetic field) would affect a system and understood how to adjust
`
`for such differences. Ex. 1319 at 75:24-80:2. As further discussed below, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be encouraged to combine the teachings of the
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev. See also Ex. 2011 at 171:14-21.
`
`Kudryavtsev is a study of the behavior of plasma, and modeling such
`
`behavior, which is general in its application. Ex. 1318, ¶ 61. Kudryavtsev applies
`
`its theory to an experimental embodiment. Id.; see also Ex. 1304, 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. 1318, ¶ 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. 1304 at Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (emphasis added).
`
`Wang is directed to a specific application of a plasma reactor—a pulsed
`
`sputtering reactor with a small rotating magnetron. Ex. 1305, Abstract. Like
`
`Kudryavtsev, Wang teaches a pulsed power supply. Ex. 1318, ¶ 62. During peak
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`power PP, Wang suddenly applies an electric field by way of a “negative voltage
`
`pulse” to “quickly cause[] the already existing [weakly ionized] plasma to
`
`spread and increase[] the density of the plasma.” Id.; see also Ex. 1305 at 7:29-
`
`30; 7:62 (emphasis added). In view of Wang’s application, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have looked to Kudryavtsev to understand how plasma would
`
`react to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how to achieve an explosive increase
`
`in electron density (if not already experienced) while generating strongly ionized
`
`plasma. Ex. 1318, ¶ 62. In short, Kudryavtsev is useful for describing how a
`
`voltage pulse, such as Wang’s voltage pulse, operates and how to adjust voltage
`
`amplitude and duration in order to increase the ionization rate so that a rapid
`
`increase in electron density and the formation of a strongly ionized plasma occurs,
`
`for the benefit of improved sputtering and manufacturing processing capabilities.
`
`Id.
`
`Whether there are differences in the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev is
`
`inconsequential. Ex. 1318, ¶ 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
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`to make any necessary changes to accommodate for any and all such variables. Id.;
`
`see also Ex. 1319 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. 1318, ¶ 64; Ex. 1303
`
`at p. 401 ¶ spanning left and right cols.
`
`Finally, it is not necessary to conduct actual experiments in order to
`
`conclude that Wang and Kudryavtsev are combinable. See Response at 33-34; Ex.
`
`1318, ¶ 65. While the application of Kudryavtsev’s teachings to Wang is
`
`straightforward and easily combinable for a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`conducting actual experiments may inevitably take more time, such as to carry out
`
`routine characterization of this system in order to ready it for manufacturing (e.g.,
`
`performing design of experiments (DOE)) and the like. Ex. 1318, ¶ 65; Ex. 1321 at
`
`132:5-135:23. To characterize the system of the ’142 Patent for manufacturing
`
`would take a similar amount of time (e.g., including time for performing a DOE).
`
`Ex. 1318, ¶ 65. Therefore, and contrary to Zond’s argument, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`C. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a cathode that is
`positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between”
`recited in claim 21.
`
`With regard to claim 21, Zond argues that Wang does not teach a gap.
`
`Response at 35-37. However, with regard to claim 28 (which depends from claim
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`21), Zond concedes that “Wang’s device has a gap of 14-29 cm and that longer
`
`gaps give the best distribution.” Response at 53 (IPR2014-00819). Zond then cites
`
`its own declarant for support that Wang has a gap. Id. (citing Ex. 2005, ¶ 138).
`
`Therefore, Zond agrees that Wang teaches a gap.
`
`As to a particular gap size, Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, concedes that
`
`the claims are not “limited to a gap size of .3 to 10 centimeters.” Ex. 1320 at
`
`64:17-65:15. Dr. Hartsough also indicated that “there are other distances of the …
`
`gap” and that the gap can be measured diagonally from the edge of the anode to the
`
`cathode. Ex. 1320 at 21:5-6 (and Deposition Exhibit 1028); see also Ex. 2011 at
`
`130:1-15. As such, Wang’s gap, when measured from the wall of the anode 24 to
`
`the cathode/target 14, results in a dimension less than 10cm.
`
`Zond also argues that Wang does not teach a gap because it does not teach
`
`that any plasma is positioned between its cathode and the anode. Response at 36.
`
`However, in Wang the cathode is part of the target 14 and it is separated from the
`
`anode 24 by a gap. Ex. 1318, ¶ 124. For example, Fig. 1 of Wang clearly shows
`
`that target 14 is directly connected to the pulsed DC supply 80. Ex. 1305, Fig. 1;
`
`see also Ex. 1318, ¶ 124. The DC supply 80 “biases the target 14 to between about
`
`-300 to -700VDC to support a plasma of the argon working gas.” Ex. 1305 at 4:13-
`
`15. The other electrode of Wang’s power supply 80 is connected to the anode 24,
`
`illustrated as a common ground connection in Figure 1. Ex. 1305, Fig. 1; see also
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Ex. 1318, ¶ 125. An electric field is formed between the two electrodes. Ex. 1305
`
`at 3:64–4:5; see also Ex. 1318, ¶ 125. And, the electric field forms plasma 42
`
`between the cathode and the anode.
`
`Zond additionally argues that Wang’s floating shield 26 makes the anode 24
`
`and cathode 14 not adjacent. Response at 36. However, and contrary to Zond’s
`
`argument, the vast majority of Wang’s gap between the anode 24 and cathode 14 is
`
`not blocked by the floating shield 26. And, Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough
`
`concedes that although an electrode may partially block an anode and cathode, the
`
`other portions of the anode and cathode are considered adjacent nonetheless. Ex.
`
`1320 at 75:23-76:8.
`
`Furthermore, while the target/cathode in Wang may be structurally different
`
`than the cathode in the ’142 Patent, it was commonly known to have the cathode
`
`separated from the target, as shown in the ’142 Patent. Ex. 1318, ¶ 126. Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provides examples in his earlier-filed declaration, but one simple
`
`example is the “Prior Art” Fig. 1 of the ’142 Patent, showing the gap between the
`
`anode 130 and the cathode 114. Id. It therefore would have been obvious for Wang
`
`to have a separate cathode from the target, if such is deemed to be a requirement of
`
`the claims. Id. Positioning the target (separated from the cathode) and all of the
`
`other components of Wang’s reactor, including the floating shield 26, would be a
`
`routine course of engineering for one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “the power supply
`generates a constant power” recited in claim 22, “applying the electric
`field at a constant power” recited in claim 33, and “the power supply
`generates a constant voltage” recited in claims 23 and 34.
`
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach a constant power or a constant voltage.
`
`Response at 40-46. However, Zond’s argument is contradicted by its own
`
`declarant, Dr. Hartsough, who concedes that Wang’s power supply generates a
`
`constant power: “Wang’s power supply 80 emits a series of [voltage] pulses as
`
`shown [in Fig. 7], wherein the power supplies tries to maintain a constant power
`
`level [as shown in Fig. 6].” Ex. 2005, ¶ 57. Dr. Hartsough also concedes that in
`
`systems like Wang’s where “the chamber impedance changes relatively little
`
`between,” “voltage would approach a constant value.” Ex. 1321 at 152:4-6; Ex.
`
`1305 at 7:49-51.
`
`Dr. Hartsough further concedes that the typical power supply described by
`
`Wang operates exactly as how Fig. 5 of the ’775 Patent operates. Ex. 1320 at
`
`149:17-150:20 (“…Q: So we can agree that Wang is explaining how a typical
`
`pulsed power supply operates; right? A: Yes … Q: And that’s exactly what
`
`Figure 5 of the ‘775 patent is showing; right? … A: Yes.”). Notably, Fig. 5 of
`
`the ’775 Patent is the same as Fig. 4 of the ’142 Patent, which Dr. Hartsough
`
`concedes operates in “power mode.” Ex. 1319 at 45:10-13.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`And, when discussing constant voltage or constant power, the’142 Patent
`
`refers to a subset of a voltage or power signal, as shown in Fig. 4, reproduced and
`
`annotated below. “At time t1, the current 328 and the power 330 have constant
`
`value.” Ex. 1301 at 12:64-66. Time t1 in the graphs, below, is a single point in
`
`time that is exactly aligned with the vertical axis. Ex. 1318, ¶ 115. The circled
`
`portions of the waveforms, for instance, show them being constant for a period of
`
`time.
`
`Ex. 1301, Fig. 4 (annotated); Ex. 1305, Figs. 6 and 7 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Figs. 6 and 7 of Wang, above, show similar wave forms as Fig. 4 of the ’142
`
`Patent. In fact, Wang’s wave forms, like the ’142 Patent, include portions that are
`
`of “constant power” and “constant voltage.” Ex. 1318, ¶¶ 115-117. For example,
`
`during the PB phase, shown in Figure 6, Wang states that the DC power supply
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`“supplies an essentially constant negative voltage” and during the PP phase Wang
`
`at Fig. 7 illustrates that the voltage pulses have a constant amplitude. Ex. 1305 at
`
`7:57-61; Fig. 7 (emphasis added); Ex. 1318, ¶ 117; see also Ex. 2011 at 179:12-
`
`180:2.
`
`Moreover, Zond’s assertion that Wang’s pulse is a full width at half
`
`maximum does not mean that the power is always changing. Ex. 1318, ¶ 118. In
`
`fact, for a majority of time (except for transitions between background power PB
`
`and peak power PP, where the state of the plasma changes), Wang’s power and
`
`voltage will be constant. Ex. 1318, ¶ 119.
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “a pulsed electric field”
`recited in claim 25.
`
`Zond argues that “absent from the Petition is any explanation as to how
`
`Wang’s disclosure of a voltage pulse could possibly teach or suggest a claim
`
`limitation requiring a pulsed electric field.” Response at 46. It appears that Zond
`
`admits that Wang produces voltage pulses, but argues that voltage pulses do not
`
`result in a pulsed electric field. Ex. 1318, ¶ 113. Notably, Zond’s declarant, Dr.
`
`Hartsough, does not support this position and concedes that “if the voltage is
`
`pulsed, then the electric field will be pulsed.” Ex. 1319 at 101:3-6. Thus, it is a
`
`basic principle of physics, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`understood, that voltage pulses (like Wang’s “train of negative voltage pulses,” see
`
`Ex. 1305 at 7:61-63) generate a pulsed electric field. Ex. 1318, ¶ 113.
`
`F. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches “the ionization source is
`chosen from the group comprising an electrode coupled to a DC power
`supply” recited in claim 29.
`
`Zond argues that an anode and cathode are not electrodes and that the
`
`claimed electrode is a “filament.” Response at 47-49. Zond’s argument is
`
`contradicted by its declarant, Dr. Hartsough, who concedes that under the
`
`“broadest possible interpretation, ‘electrode’ would include . . . other electrodes
`
`in the system” including “the anode and the cathode.” Ex. 1319 at 98:17-99:15.
`
`Dr. Overzet confirms this understanding. Ex. 1318, ¶ 128.
`
`G. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev 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 36.
`
`Zond argues that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev does not teach this claimed
`
`feature. See Response at 50-51; Ex. 2005, ¶ 150. 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.
`
`1318, ¶ 90.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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. 1318, ¶ 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.
`
`1305 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. 1305 at 7:19-
`
`22; see also Ex. 1318, ¶ 91. Second, Wang teaches that “[t]he choice of pulse
`
`widths τw is dictated by considerations of both power supply design, radio
`
`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.
`
`1305 at 5:43-48. A representation of the pulse width τw is represented in Figures 6
`
`and 7 of Wang:
`
`Id. at Figs. 6 and 7; Ex. 1318, ¶ 92.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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. 1318, ¶ 93. In fact, Wang specifically teaches that “a very high plasma density
`
`is produced during the pulse,” (Ex. 1305 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. 1305 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. 1321
`
`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. 1318, ¶ 93.
`
`This operation of providing a voltage pulse (as shown in Wang Fig. 7) is
`
`also discussed in Kudryavtsev. The shape of the voltage pulse will directly impact
`
`the shape of the resulting current. Specifically, 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. See, e.g., Ex. 1304 at p. 31, Fig. 2 (reproduced and discussed
`
`above); see also Fig. 1; Abstract (“the electron density increases explosively in
`
`time.”); Ex. 1318, ¶ 94.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00827
` Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`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. 1304 at p. 30, equation (1); Ex. 1318, ¶ 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. 1318, ¶ 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. 1318, ¶ 94.
`
`It is noted that Zond made an analogy comparing ionization rate to flowing
`
`water through a hose into a bucket. IPR2014-00821, Response at p. 52 (Paper No.
`
`26). This is a bad analogy because it does not account for ionization loss. See Ex.
`
`1318, ¶ 95 (footnote 2).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30,
`
`33-36, 39, and 43, of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Tennant
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GlobalFoundries
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1318 - 1321; and
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List of April 16, 2015
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
