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 IPR2014-00827
`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 IPR2014-00827
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and
`43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (“the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1 (“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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36,
`39, and 43 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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating high-
`density plasma. Ex. 1301, 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
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, all are dependent and all depend from one
`of claims 21 or 31. Claims 21 and 22, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`21. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma,
`the apparatus comprising:
`an anode;
`a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and
`forming a gap there between;
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition
`between the anode and the cathode; and
`a power supply that produces an electric field across the gap,
`the electric field generating excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma and generating secondary electrons from the cathode,
`the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby
`creating the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`22. The apparatus of claim 21 wherein the power supply
`generates a constant power.
`Ex. 1301, 21:61–22:11.
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1303) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1304) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 § 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 § 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`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). 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).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`two claim terms. Pet. 12–14; Prelim. Resp. 16–18. We address the claim
`terms identified by the parties below.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Independent claim 21 recites “the electric field generating excited
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and generating secondary electrons
`from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms,
`thereby creating the strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 31
`reciting a similar limitation. All of the challenged claims depend from
`claims 21 or 31.
`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. 13 (emphasis omitted). Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, supporting
`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. 1302
`¶ 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. 17 (citing Ex. 1301, 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
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`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
`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. 18), 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. 14; Ex. 1302 ¶ 21; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. More
`importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`plasma” appear to be used consistently across both the ’652 Patent and the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`’142 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1301, 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.”
`
`
`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
`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,
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43
`– Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`TSMC asserts that claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 39–57. As support, TSMC 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. 1302). Id.
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`not disclose every claim limitation. Prelim. Resp. 35–42. Zond also argues
`that there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang
`and Kudryavtsev. Id. at 20–35.
`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 22,
`23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Our discussion focuses on the
`deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1305, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`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
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`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.
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 117–119; see Pet. 41–42.
`
`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. 1304, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added by TSMC (Pet. 24))
`illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages of
`ionization. Annotated Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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. 1302 ¶¶ 70–72; Pet. 22–
`25.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`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. 1304, 31, right col, ¶ 6 (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.
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev
`TSMC asserts that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches
`the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 45–47
`(citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 127–129). TSMC 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 45–47 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 127). TSMC 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. According to TSMC, 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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`In addition, TSMC 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 47-48 (citing
`Ex. 1302 ¶ 130). As such, TSMC argues, the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma, and the production of secondary electrons.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev,
`arguing that Wang’s power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus differs
`significantly from Kudryavtsev’s plasma apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 29–35.
`In particular, Zond argues that Kudryavtsev’s plasma apparatus uses
`electrodes and a cylindrical tube, and does not use magnets or magnetic
`fields, whereas Wang’s system includes a magnetron, which is small and
`unbalanced. Id. at 30–32. Zond continues that the electron fluxes for the
`slow and fast stages of Kudryavtsev’s system “would be substantially
`different in a system that uses magnets and magnetic fields like . . . Wang’s
`system.” Id. at 32. Zond also points out differences in electrode spacing and
`the application of the voltage between the systems of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev. Id. at 33–34.
`Those arguments are not persuasive. “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
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`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 (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 explained adequately why triggering a fast stage of
`ionization in Wang’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.
`Kudryavtsev states that because “the effects studied in this work are
`characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`ionized gas, they must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms
`in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1304, 34, right
`col. (emphasis added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate
`an electric field. Ex. 1305, 7:61–63; see Ex. 1302 ¶ 127. More importantly,
`Wang discloses background power PB of 1 kW (falling within the range of
`0.1–100 kW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for generating a weakly-ionized
`plasma), and pulse peak power PP of 1 MW (falling within the range of
`1kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for generating a strongly-
`ionized plasma). Ex. 1305, 7:19–25; Ex. 1301, 11:32–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 4.
`Dr. Kortshagen testifies that “[b]ecause Wang’s power levels fall within the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`ranges disclosed by the ’142 Patent, Wang is as likely as is the ’142 Patent
`to excite atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 126.
`On this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is
`consistent with the prior art disclosures. We also agree with Dr. Kortshagen
`that performing a fast stage of ionization (as disclosed by Kudryavtsev) in
`Wang’s apparatus would have been a combination of known techniques
`yielding the predictable results of increasing plasma density and the degree
`of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1302 ¶ 127.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev 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.”).
`
`Alleged Missing Claim Elements from the Combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev
`With respect to claim 22, Zond argues that Mozgrin fails to teach “the
`power supply generates a constant power” (Prelim. Resp. 36–38, emphasis
`omitted); however, the instant ground relies on Wang and Kudryavtsev. As
`such, we find such an argument inapposite to the instant ground. As
`discussed above, Figure 6 of Wang illustrates that during and between
`pulses, a constant power is generated.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`With respect to claim 33, Zond argues that TSMC fails to “present
`any explanation as to how a pulsed DC power supply [of Wang] would
`necessarily apply an electric field at a constant power,” per that claim.
`Prelim. Resp. 38–39. Wang, however, discloses that its pulsed DC power
`supply produces a train of voltage pulses (Ex. 1305, Fig. 6), where the power
`is constant for the duration of the pulse. Pet. 51–52. TSMC details that
`when one of Wang’s voltage pulses is applied, an electric field is produced
`between the cathode and the anode. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 123). Thus,
`we are not persuaded that TSMC has failed to explain the teaching in Wang
`that Wang’s power supply would apply an electric field at a constant power,
`per claim 33.
`With respect to claim 25, Zond argues that TSMC’s conclusory
`statements about a voltage pulse causing an electric field to be pulsed should
`be entitled to little or no weight, and that TSMC fails to discuss other factors
`that determine the characteristics of an electric field. Prelim. Resp. 40–42.
`As discussed above, we are persuaded that TSMC has demonstrated
`adequately that the application of a power pulse would produce a pulsed
`electric field. Pet. 44–45. While other factors certainly can affect the
`electric field applied, physics mandates that the electric field strength is
`equal to the voltage over the distance measured, for a constant electrical
`field. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the constant
`voltage of the pulse would produce a constant electric field during that pulse.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that TSMC has demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 22, 23, 25,
`29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 are unpatentable over the combination of Wang
`and Kudryavtsev.
`
`
`D. Other Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC also asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 § 103(a) Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`The Board’s rules for inter partes review proceedings, including those
`pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for inter partes review proceedings take into
`account “the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability of the
`Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise
`our discretion and do not institute a review based on the other asserted
`ground for reasons of administrative necessity to ensure timely completion
`of the instituted proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`TSMC would prevail in challenging claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`and 43 of the ’142 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). At this
`stage in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect
`to the patentability of the challenged claims, including the claim
`construction.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 § 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David M. O’Dell
`David L. McCombs
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Richard C. Kim
`Duane Morris, LLP
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`The Gonsalves Law firm
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
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
