`
`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. IPR2014-008271
`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 2014-00865, IPR 2014-01015, and IPR 2014-01063 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 2014-00827, 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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33-36, 39,
`
`and 43 unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to Wang (“Wang”) 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”)?
`
`
`
`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
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-008271
`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.
`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 IPR2014-00865, IPR2014-01015, and IPR2014-01063 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 an inter partes review of claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and
`43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1
`(“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 IPR2014-00865, IPR2014-01015, and
`IPR2014-01063 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 22, 23, 25, 29, 30,
`33–36, 39, and 43 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, IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`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 5.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`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 claim
`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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted ground, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`
`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. 1304) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following ground of
`unpatentability (Dec. 19):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`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); 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,”3 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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. 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. 13–14; Prelim. Resp.
`17–18. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed
`constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation. Dec. 6–8.
`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
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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 ground of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43
`Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries 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,
`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. 1302).
`GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1318) to
`support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 34–51. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Id.
`at 18–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a Declaration of
`Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not argue that elements of
`claims 30, 35, 39, or 43 are not taught or suggested by the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev, only that there is insufficient reason to combine the
`references. PO Resp. 34–51.
`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 and Kudryavtsev, address
`their combination with respect to the instant ground, and then address the
`parties’ contentions about specific claims in turn.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`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. 1302 ¶¶ 125–130; see also Pet. 41–43.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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) 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–
`24.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`Ex. 1304, 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 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`GlobalFoundries 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). GlobalFoundries also
`contends 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 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1302 ¶ 127). GlobalFoundries 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
`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.
`
`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.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 130). 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 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 and Kudryavtsev, to achieve the
`claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or predictable
`results. PO Resp. 18–34.
`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 25–34. In
`particular, 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 26–27 (citing Ex. 1304, 34)), that GlobalFoundries’
`characterization of Kudryavtsev is incorrect and cannot serve as a rationale
`to combine (id. at 27–28); 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
`dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 28–32 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 66, 67,
`89–91; Ex. 1301, 1:19–20, 4:15–17, 5:38–39, Fig. 3; Ex. 1304, 32; Ex. 1305,
`3:60–61, 4:35–37, 7:32–34, 57–61, Fig. 1; Ex. 2004, 14:37–50). Those
`arguments are not persuasive.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“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). 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.” KSR, 550
`U.S. at 420–21.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that applying
`Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior to Wang’s sputtering apparatus
`would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, 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).
`In addition, GlobalFoundries relies on Kudryavtsev for the express
`teaching of excitation of atoms. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 127–129;
`Ex. 1304, Abs.). 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 (emphasis added). Wang applies pulses that generate an
`electric field. Ex. 1305, 7:61–63; see Ex. 1302 ¶ 123. Dr. Kortshagen
`testifies 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 the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionization rate and the degree of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1302
`¶¶ 127–128.
`Zond has not explained persuasively why triggering a fast stage of
`ionization in Wang’s magnetron sputtering apparatus (e.g., resulting in
`excitation of atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma) 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. In
`fact, Mozgrin4 applied Kudryavtsev’s teachings of an “explosive increase”
`in plasma density to a magnetron sputtering system similar to Wang’s.5
`Pet. 21–26; Reply 5–6; Ex. 1303, 401. Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev and
`discloses that in “[d]esigning the unit, we took into account the dependences
`which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] of ionization relaxation on pre-
`ionization parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.” Ex. 1303,
`401. This illustrates that one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention was capable of applying the teachings of Kudryavtsev to
`magnetron sputtering systems, such as Wang’s.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that combining the
`technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev would be merely a
`
`
`4 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).
`5 GlobalFoundries indicates that “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.” Reply 6; see also
`Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (indicating the level of ordinary skill in the art
`also is reflected by the prior art of record).
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`predictable 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.”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined Wang and Kudryavtsev as indicated in the
`Petition, and we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries’ reason to combine
`Wang and Kudryavtsev is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`
`Forming a Gap Between Cathode and Adjacent Anode
`Claim 21 recites, in part, “a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the
`anode and forming a gap there between.” Zond argues that because “Wang
`does not teach that any plasma is positioned between its cathode 14 and
`grounded shield anode 24,” Wang cannot teach the claimed gap. PO Resp.
`36. Zond also argues that the floating shield precludes a finding that the
`cathode is positioned adjacent to the anode, as required by claim 21. Id. at
`36–39. Zond continues that the position taken by Dr. Kortshagen relies on
`improper hindsight by asserting the obviousness of rearranging components
`in Wang and that Dr. Kortshagen took an entirely different position during
`his deposition. Id. at 38–41 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 110; Ex. 2011, 130:9–15).
`GlobalFoundries, in response, counters that the testimony of Zond’s
`expert, Dr. Hartsough, is inconsistent. Reply. 6–8. Dr. Hartsough suggests
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that because Wang teaches an intermediate feature, namely the floating
`shield, it does not disclose a gap between the anode and the cathode
`(Ex. 2005 ¶ 128). However, during his deposition testimony (Ex. 1320,
`74:7–76:8), Dr. Hartsough acknowledged that a partially introduced
`electrode between a cathode and an anode would still allow for the cathode
`and anode to meet the meaning of “adjacent,” and have a gap there between.
`Id. The modified figure presented to Dr. Hartsough, Figure 3, is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Modified Fig. 3 from Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration.
`We find that the ’142 Patent provides no specific definition for
`“adjacent.” Additionally, even if we adopt Dr. Hartsough’s definition of
`“adjacent,” we are not persuaded that the partial imposition of the grounding
`shield in Wang renders the cathode and anode non-adjacent in Wang. We
`further concur with GlobalFoundries that Wang discloses an anode and a
`cathode having a gap formed there between, that comports with claim 21.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we are persuaded that
`GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev discloses a cathode that is positioned
`adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between, per claim 21.
`
`
`Power Supply Generates Constant Power / Voltage and Appling Electric
`Field at Constant Power
`Claim 22 requires that the “power supply generates a constant power,”
`claim 33 requires application of “the electric field at a constant power,”
`claim 23 requires that the “power supply generates a constant voltage,” and
`claim 34 requires that the electric field is applied at constant power.
`GlobalFoundries asserts that “Wang’s pulsed DC power supply 80 (shown in
`Wang’s Figs. 1 and 7) generates a peak level power, PP, which is constant
`for the duration of the pulse τw, as shown in Fig. 6,” and discloses that the
`“pulsed DC power supply 80 produces a train of negative voltage pulses.”
`Pet. 51–52.
`Zond argues that because Wang’s figures are idealized, the actual
`
`power pulse applied in Wang is not constant for the duration of the pulse τw.
`
`PO Resp. 40–42 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 140, 142). Zond also argues that
`because the pulse in Wang is a power pulse, and the current in the sputtering
`system varies with the state of the plasma, the voltage varies with the current
`and is not constant. Id. at 43–46 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 144).
`GlobalFoundries responds that Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s expert,
`concedes that Wang’s power supply generates a constant power and the
`voltage from the power supply would approach a constant value. Reply 9
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1321, 152:4–6; Ex. 1305, 7:49–51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 57).
`Dr. Hartsough also concedes that typical power supplies, such as described
`by Wang, operate in the same manner as those disclosed in the ’142 Patent.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1320, 149:17–150:20, with respect to related U.S. Patent No.
`6,896,775 B2, where Fig. 5 of that patent is identical to Fig. 4 of the ’142
`Patent). Based on this, GlobalFoundries counters that Wang teaches
`applying pulses at both constant voltage and constant power, in specific
`regions. Id. at 10–11. We agree with GlobalFoundries.
`As shown in Figure 7 of Wang, pulsed DC power supply 80 produces
`a series of voltage pulses, and portions of the voltage pulses are constant.
`Ex. 1305, 7:57–61. Figure 6 of Wang depicts that portions of the power
`pulses are constant. Moreover, it is clear from Figures 6 and 7 of Wang that
`Wang’s system is designed to maintain both the amplitude of the voltage
`pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses constant during the entire
`process. Based on the evidence in this record, we are persuaded that one
`with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Wang discloses:
`(1) portions of voltage and power are constant, and (2) the amplitude of the
`voltage pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses are constant.
`In addition, Dr. Overzet notes that Figure 4 of the ’142 Patent also is
`idealized. Ex. 1318 ¶ 116. Indeed, the ’142 Patent explicitly states that
`Figures 3, 4, and 7 merely illustrate graphical representations, and not the
`actual shape of the voltage and power pulses. Ex. 1301, 1:65–2:15. As well,
`given that the instant ground purports claims to be obvious, what the
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev would have suggested to persons of
`ordinary skill in the art need to be considered, even if, arguendo, the actual
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853