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
`________________
`
`IPR2014-008281
`Patent 6,085,779 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 30-37, 39, and 40
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-00917, IPR2014-01073, and IPR2014-01076
`have been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`________________
`
`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
`________________
`
`IPR2014-008281
`Patent 6,085,779 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 30-37, 39, and 40
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-00917, IPR2014-01073, and IPR2014-01076
`have been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL ......... 2
`
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings ..................................................... 2
`
`B. Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck .................. 4
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Pinsley and Angelbeck ......................................................................... 9
`
`D. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Wells ................................................................................................... 12
`
`III. CLAIMS 30, 32-35, AND 37-40 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`CITED PRIOR ART ................................................................................................ 14
`
`A. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches generating a
`volume of metastable atoms from ground state atoms as claimed by
`claims 30 and 40. ........................................................................................ 14
`
`B. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches raising the energy
`of the metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process as claimed by claims 30 and 40. ................................... 17
`
`C. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches generating a
`volume of metastable atoms via an excitation discharge as claimed in
`claim 32. ..................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`D. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches generating a
`magnetic field to increase the excitation rate of excited atoms as
`claimed in claim 33. .................................................................................... 18
`
`E. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “generating an
`electron beam that excites . . . ground state atoms to a metastable state”
`as recited in claim 34 and “exposing the metastable atoms to an
`electron source” as recited in claim 39. ...................................................... 20
`
`F. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “exposing the
`metastable atoms to an electric field” as recited by claim 35 and
`“exposing the metastable atoms to a plasma” as recited in claim 37. ........ 21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........... 4
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 27, 2015
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1201 U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“’779 Patent”)
`
`1202 Kortshagen Declaration (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`1203 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, 1995 (“Mozgrin”)
`
`1204 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”)
`
`1205 U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley”)
`
`1206 U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck”)
`
`1207 U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Office Action dated
`February 11, 2004 (“02/11/04 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Response dated May 6, 2004
`(“05/06/04 Response”)
`
`European Patent Application No. 1614136, Response dated July 24,
`2007 (07/24/07 Response in EP 1614136)
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. I: Formulation and basic data, J. Phys.
`D: Appl. Phys. 22 (1989) pp. 623-631, Printed in the UK
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. II: Application to low-pressure, hollow-
`cathode arc and low-pressure glow discharges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
`
`v
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`22 (1989) pp. 632-643, Printed in the UK
`
`1213 U.S. Patent No. 6,661,178 (“Bertrand”)
`
`1214
`
`1215
`
`PCT Pat. Pub. No. WO 83/01349 (“Wells”)
`
`European Pat. Pub. No. EP 0 242 028 (“Lovelock”)
`
`1216 G. Gousset et al., “Electron and heavy-particle kinetics in the low
`pressure oxygen positive column,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. Vol. 24
`(1991) pp. 290-300 (“Gousset”)
`
`1217 Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`1218
`
`Stipulation of Dismissals
`
`1219 CONFIDENTIAL BOARD ONLY – Zond TSMC Settlement
`Agreement
`
`1220 Affidavit of Brett C. Rismiller in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`1221
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Supp. Kortshagen
`Decl.”)
`
`1222 R. F. Post, Proc. of Second U.N. Int’l. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of
`Atomic Energy, Vol. 32 at p. 245 (Geneva, 1958) (“Post”)
`
`1223 Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`(“Hartsough Depo.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board recognized that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 30-37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 Patent are
`
`unpatentable. DI at pp. 30-31 (Paper No. 9).
`
`Of the challenged claims, Zond and Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, failed
`
`to address individual elements of claims 31 and 36, effectively conceding that
`
`these claim elements are unpatentable with a combination of the cited references.
`
`Of the remaining challenged claims (claims 30, 32-35, 37, 39, and 40), Zond’s
`
`Patent Owner Response offers flawed interpretations of the prior art and well-
`
`understood technical terms (e.g., plasma), and in some cases mischaracterizes
`
`Petitioner’s argument, in a vain attempt to distinguish the cited prior art.
`
`The Petition, supported by Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration, clearly
`
`demonstrates why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`
`teachings of the cited references. In fact, the cross-examination of Dr. Hartsough
`
`demonstrates many areas of agreement between Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough
`
`and contrary to the arguments in Zond’s Patent Owner Response. Petitioner
`
`provides a supplemental declaration of Dr. Korthshagen to respond to Zond’s
`
`Patent Owner Response and the declaration by Dr. Hartsough.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings
`
`The entirety of Zond’s arguments directed to Iwamura is flawed because
`
`they are predicated upon an interpretation of the term “plasma” as containing only
`
`ions that is contrary to the understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 20-24 (Ex. 1221). Despite this, Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s
`
`declarant, concedes that the plasma generated by Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit, is a plasma that contains excited atoms including metastable
`
`atoms, in addition to ions. 2 Hartsough Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So a portion of the
`
`
`2 While Dr. Hartsough concedes that the common usage of the term plasma is a
`
`collection of ions, electrons, and ground state atoms and excited atoms,
`
`(Hartsough Depo., at 42:9-25) (Ex. 1223), he could not confirm the composition of
`
`the gases within Iwamura’s plasma chamber as he admits he is not a plasma
`
`physicist. Id. at 78:9-12 (Ex. 1223). Indeed, Dr. Hartsough repeatedly admitted
`
`this fact throughout his deposition. See e.g., Id. at 27:11-19, 28:14-18, 42:19-43:3.
`
`Instead, Dr. Hartsough relies exclusively on what the documents state. Id. at
`
`41:18-21.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`gas species flowing into plasma generation re[gion] A would form a plasma;
`
`correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that plasma contains ions? A. Yes. … A. It
`
`would contain other species, yes. … Q. Ground state atoms? A. Yes. Q. Excited
`
`atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable atoms? A. Quite possibly.”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1223).
`
`Consequently, Zond’s arguments that: (1) Iwamura’s first plasma generation
`
`unit “generates plasma (i.e., ions), not excited or metastable atoms” squarely
`
`contradicts the teachings of Iwamura, the ’779 Patent, and Zond’s own declarant.
`
`See Patent Owner’s Response (“Response”) at p. 33 (Paper No. 26). As such,
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit
`
`and the plasma generation unit, generates excited and metastable atoms. Supp.
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, who is a trained plasma physicist and teaches courses on plasma
`
`technology, (Kortshagen Decl., Appendix A) (Ex. 1202), confirms that a plasma is
`
`defined as “a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms (including
`
`various excited states)” and that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit “generates
`
`a plasma comprising a volume of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms, all of which flows into Iwamura’s treatment
`
`chamber.” Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1221).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1221).
`
`Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`B.
`Zond’s arguments that the magnetic field configurations disclosed in Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck do not “substantially trap” electrons as recited by claims 30 and 40
`
`of the ’779 Patent run afoul of the Federal Circuit’s teachings that “[a] reference
`
`must be considered for everything it teaches” and “the combined teachings of the
`
`prior art as a whole must be considered.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc.,
`
`755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); Response at pp. 27-31
`
`(Paper No. 26).
`
`In its Response, Zond narrowly focuses on a handful of lines from Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck’s disclosures, failing to take into consideration the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck as a whole to one of ordinary skill in the art. When
`
`properly considered in their entirety, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the magnetic field configurations of Pinsley and Angelbeck to
`
`“substantially trap” electrons in the same manner as the term is used in the ’779
`
`Patent. 3 Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 38-56 (Ex. 1221).
`
`
`3 Neither Zond nor Dr. Hartsough has provided a construction of the term
`
`“substantially trap,” as it is used in the ’779 Patent. Moreover, when questioned,
`
`Dr. Hartsough could not articulate any objective criteria for determining when a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Regarding Pinsley, Zond argues Pinsley’s magnetic field does not
`
`“substantially trap” electrons because the ExB force “will not maintain the
`
`electrons between the anode and cathode but will only serve to deflect their flow.”
`
`Response at p. 29 (Paper No. 26). Zond’s argument is flawed for a number of
`
`reasons. First, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough in the context of the ’779 patent
`
`teachings, whether or not the “substantially trap[ped]” electrons flow to the anode
`
`is immaterial to the teachings of the ’779 Patent. Hartsough Depo. at 139:20-24
`
`(“Q. So at some point, the electron will flow towards the anode … that’s illustrated
`
`by Figure 7A? A. Well, they can flow to the anode. In fact, most of them will”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1223).
`
`Second, Zond’s argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the force
`
`created by Pinsley’s transverse magnetic field configuration only to be in a
`
`direction opposite that of the gas flow direction. Response at p. 30 (Paper No. 26).
`
`
`
`
`magnetic field configuration would “substantially trap” electrons, only that he will
`
`know it when he sees it. Hartsough Depo., at 138:6-15, 150: 2-151:5 (Ex. 1223).
`
`However, Dr. Hartsough concedes that a magnetic field configuration with
`
`converging magnetic field lines will “substantially trap” electrons. Id. at 123:4-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`As explained in detail by Dr. Kortshagen, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that, as a matter of the natural laws of physics, Pinsley’s magnetic field
`
`lines are not perfectly straight to generate a force in only one direction, but rather
`
`they are non-uniform and converge near the magnets 24 and 26. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 39-42 (Ex. 1221). The effect of the non-uniform, converging, magnetic
`
`field lines will force electrons into an E x B drift motion normal to the anode-
`
`cathode axis, impeding their flow to the anode. Id. at ¶ 47, FN. 5 (“The E x B drift
`
`motion is the dynamic path of an electron when it encounters crossed electric fields
`
`(E) and magnetic fields (B)”).
`
`Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field lines are illustrated by
`
`Dr. Kortshagen in the figures below. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`Pinsley, FIGURE (annotated) (Ex. 1205); Korshagen, FIG. 1 (Ex. 1221).
`
`Third, Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field configuration is
`
`similar to that of the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, and
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`thus “substantially trap[s]” electrons as the term is used in the ’779 Patent. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 43-46. As explained by Dr. Kortshagen, the magnetic field configurations of
`
`Pinsley and the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent are
`
`“magnetic mirrors,” which have been utilized by those skilled in the art since the
`
`1950’s and 1960’s to trap electrons. Id. at ¶¶ 43-46; see e.g., Post at p. 245 (Ex.
`
`1222).
`
`As Dr. Hartsough concedes, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (“[A.] So you get –
`
`you get electron trapping because of the configuration that’s shown in Figure 7A,
`
`where the field lines converge at – near both electrodes. They’re getting closer
`
`together, And so you get electron trapping due to the reflection of the electrons …
`
`It’s the magnetic – the convergence of the magnetic field lines that can cause
`
`the electrons to be basically oscillating back and forth inside that trap.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1223). Thus, contrary to Zond’s argument, Pinsley
`
`discloses a magnetic field configuration that will “substantially trap” electrons as
`
`the term is used in the ’779 Patent.
`
`Regarding Angelbeck, Zond argues Angelbeck’s “transverse magnetic field
`
`will result in a force directed across the flow of electrons from cathode to anode
`
`and to the tube walls, where they are removed from the plasma.” Response at p. 29
`
`(Paper No. 26). Zond’s argument, based on two lines taken out of context,
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`mischaracterizes Angelbeck’s disclosure. Id. While Angelbeck discloses the
`
`transverse magnetic field enhances the loss of electrons to the tube walls, this
`
`does not mean that all of the electrons are lost as Zond incorrectly contends.
`
`Angelbeck at 2:33-35 (Ex. 1206); Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 53-55 (Ex. 1221).
`
`Assuming Zond’s argument were true, there would be no plasma in Angelbeck’s
`
`laser tube 10. Id. However, Angelbeck unequivocally states: “[t]he current-
`
`excited discharge passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which
`
`the atoms are ionized and the electrons are freed.” Angelbeck at 2:54-56 (Ex.
`
`1206).
`
`Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as electrons are
`
`lost to the tube walls, the walls become negatively charged. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶ 54 (Ex. 1221). The negatively charged tube walls oppose the negatively
`
`charged electrons, and as a result, the majority of electrons will be “substantially
`
`trapped” within Angelbeck’s laser tube. Id. Like the magnetic fields of Pinsley
`
`and figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`Angelbeck’s magnetic field lines B will converge as they approach the pole pieces
`
`24 and 26, forming a magnetic mirror. Id. at ¶¶ 50-51.
`
`Thus, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons, and so Angelbeck “substantially traps” electrons in
`
`the same manner as the embodiment depicted in Pinsley and figures 7 and 7A of
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`the ’779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 56; Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (Ex. 1223).
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck. Response at pp. 24-
`
`27 (Paper No. 26). All of these arguments are based on nothing more than the
`
`alleged differences between the physical systems of Iwamura and
`
`Pinsley/Angelbeck, 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 require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.”). As further discussed below, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been encouraged to combine the teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck with Iwamura.
`
`Both Pinsley and Angelbeck teach the application of a transverse magnetic
`
`field increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex.
`
`1206); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1205). One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to apply the transverse magnetic field teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck to increase the efficiency of the plasma generating unit of Iwamura as it
`
`was well-known that both gas lasers and plasma generators excite gas atoms in a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`similar manner. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 57-61 (Ex. 1221). In fact,
`
`Krudryavstev teaches that excited atom generation in plasma gas lasers are
`
`analogous fields, and that effects observed in one may be equally applicable to the
`
`other, and vice-versa. Kudryavstev at 30, left col, ¶ 1; 35, right col., ¶ 4 (Ex.
`
`1204).
`
`Zond argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded
`
`from combining Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura because the excited gas
`
`atoms in a gas laser “are not maintained in that state in a gas laser and instead, are
`
`used to create light,” and that “Petitioner failed to provide experimental data or
`
`other objective evidence indicating that a skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of a laser in Angelbeck or Pinsley with
`
`Iwamura’s plasma treatment system.” Response at pp. 23, 25-26 (Paper No. 26).
`
`Such statements are incorrect. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 64-67 (Ex.1221).
`
`First, Pinsley and Angelbeck expressly disclose the application of a
`
`transverse magnetic field improves the efficiency of exciting atoms. Angelbeck at
`
`1:36-41 (Ex. 1206). Whether or not Pinsley and Angelbeck allow the excited
`
`atoms to return to a ground state after excitation is immaterial to the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck of how to increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See
`
`e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex. 1206); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1205); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 64 (Ex. 1221). One of ordinary skill in the art would look to
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of
`
`exciting atoms. Id. at ¶¶ 58-59.
`
`Second, as a matter of plasma physics, excited atoms generated by plasma
`
`generators such as Iwamura’s may return to their ground state after being excited
`
`by Iwamura’s first plasma generating unit as they flow through the treatment
`
`chamber 10. Id. at ¶ 65; c.f. Iwamura at 7:55-60 (Ex. 1207); Angelbeck at 2:39-42
`
`(Ex. 1206).
`
`Third, the prior art plasma sputtering apparatus disclosed in the ’779 Patent
`
`itself confirms it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to use a
`
`magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons to improve the efficiency of
`
`exciting atoms, and provides the very objective evidence Zond claims is absent
`
`from the teachings of the prior art. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 66 (Ex. 1221); ’779
`
`Patent at 3:13-18 (Ex. 1201). Dr. Hartsough concedes that the magnetron
`
`sputtering systems dating back to the mid-1970’s used magnets for trapping
`
`electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 20:13-21:1 (Ex. 1223). Moreover, magnetic mirror
`
`electron-traps, such as the one depicted in figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, have been
`
`known in the art for half a century, since the 1950’s and 1960’s. See e.g., Post at
`
`p. 245 (Ex. 1222).
`
`Finally, Zond improperly attacks the direct substitution of elements of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura, and relies on a PTAB decision that is
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`inapplicable to the present proceedings. Response at p. 25-26 (Paper No. 26).
`
`Zond claims that one skilled in the art would be unable to incorporate Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse magnetic field to trap electrons into
`
`Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus because Pinsley and Angelbeck are gas
`
`lasers while Iwamura is a plasma generator. Id. at 26. This is the same argument
`
`Zond previously made in its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 8 at
`
`pp.35-36), and was rejected by the Board in the DI. DI at p. 22 (“It is well-
`
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple
`
`references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Paper No. 9). As the Board correctly recognized in its DI,
`
`Petitioners seek to combine Pinsley and Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse
`
`magnetic field with Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus, not actual substitution
`
`of Pinsley and Angelbeck’s gas laser. Id. at 24-25.
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply
`
`the transverse magnetic field teachings of Angelbeck and Pinsley to Iwamura’s
`
`first plasma generation unit for the density of electrons in the plasma region A
`
`between first electrodes 26a and 26b, thereby increasing the efficiency of exciting
`
`atoms flowing through plasma region A. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 67 (Ex. 1221).
`
`D. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Wells
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Zond does not dispute that exciting atoms with an electron beam from an
`
`electron gun was a well-known manner of exciting atoms, and that Wells discloses
`
`a system which produced excited atoms and metastable atoms using such an
`
`electron beam fired from an electron gun. Wells at 13:16-23 (Ex. 1214). Instead,
`
`Zond focuses on Wells’ purported lack of motivation and teaching to combine
`
`Wells’ laser system with Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus. Response at p.
`
`47-50 (Paper No. 26). Zond’s arguments are nothing more than a weak attempt to
`
`obscure the straight-forward teaching of Wells by narrowly focusing on the two
`
`gas mixture within Wells’ laser. Id.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that Wells teaches
`
`the electron gun is one mechanism for exciting atoms to a metastable state.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 132 (Ex. 1221); Wells at 13:16-32 (other mechanisms
`
`include “fast burst nuclear reactor, … electric discharge, radiation, thermal or
`
`chemical means.”) (Ex. 1214). Yet again, the fact that Wells’ uses a two gas
`
`mixture for lasing is irrelevant to Wells’ teaching of using an electron beam to
`
`excite those gases. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 132 (Ex. 1221). Notably, two of the
`
`mechanisms disclosed by Wells for exciting atoms in a gas laser, radiation and
`
`electric discharge, are employed by Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶133 (Ex. 1221); Iwamura at 7:55-59 (UV lamp 24), 7:61-63
`
`(first electrodes 26a and 26b) (Ex. 1207).
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`As explained above in section II(C), it is well-known that both gas lasers
`
`such as Wells and plasma generators such as Iwamura excite atoms in a similar
`
`manner. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 134 (Ex. 1221). Thus, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Wells’ electron gun in place of
`
`the UV lamp 24 of Iwamura’s preexcitation unit, or the first electrodes 26a and 26b
`
`of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, as Wells discloses this is nothing more
`
`than the mere substitution of one well-known element for another known element
`
`in the field, to yield predictable results. Id. at ¶ 135 (Ex. 1221); Wells at 13:16-32
`
`(Ex. 1214).
`
`III. CLAIMS 30, 32-35, AND 37-40 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`CITED PRIOR ART
`A.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches generating a
`volume of metastable atoms from ground state atoms as claimed by
`claims 30 and 40.
`
`Zond argues that Iwamura does not teach “generating a volume of
`
`metastable atoms from the volume of ground state atoms” because “Iwamura’s first
`
`plasma generation unit generates a plasma.” Response at p. 31-35 (Paper No. 26).
`
`As discussed above, this point has been conceded by Dr. Hartsough. Hartsough
`
`Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So a portion of the gas species flowing into plasma
`
`generation re[gion] A would form a plasma; correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that
`
`plasma contains ions? A. Yes. … A. It would contain other species, yes. … Q.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Ground state atoms? A. Yes. Q. Excited atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable
`
`atoms? A. Quite possibly.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1223). Moreover, Dr.
`
`Hartsough further admits a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`term “plasma” to include excited atoms and metastable atoms. Id. at 42:9-15 (Ex.
`
`1223).
`
`Zond additionally argues that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck and
`
`Pinsley does not teach use of a magnetic field to substantially trap electrons
`
`proximate to the volume of ground state atoms. Response at p. 28-31 (Paper No.
`
`26). Zond’s first argument, that Angelbeck’s system produces “a plasma, not
`
`excited / metastable atoms as claimed,” is nonsensical. Id. at 28-29 (emphasis in
`
`original) (Paper No. 26); Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 80 (Ex. 1221). The claims
`
`recite “to substantially trap electrons proximate to the volume of ground state
`
`atoms.” Further, Zond admits excited atoms and ground state atoms are present in
`
`Angelbeck’s laser tube. Response at p. 5-6 (“The excited atoms in Angelbeck’s
`
`laser … must return to their ground state…”) (Paper No. 26). Moreover,
`
`Angelbeck expressly discloses excited atoms are generated. Angelbeck at 2:18-20
`
`(Ex. 1206). Thus, as previously explained in section II(B), the magnetic field B
`
`which traverses Angelbeck’s laser tube 10 will “substantially trap” electrons
`
`proximate both ground state atoms and excited atoms. Supp. Korshagen Decl., ¶
`
`82 (Ex. 1221).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Zond’s second argument, that “Angelbeck teaches deflecting the electrons
`
`toward the tube walls, which in a flowing feed gas, would have no trapping effect
`
`whatsoever on the electrons,” mischaracterizes Angelbeck’s teachings, as
`
`explained above in section II(B). Response at p. 43 (Paper No. 26); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 84-85 (Ex. 1221).
`
`Moreover, Zond entirely ignores the teachings of Pinsley. Notably, Pinsley
`
`discloses that the “interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result
`
`in an upstream force … [t]his force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to
`
`maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.” Pinsley at
`
`2:43-48 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1205). Thus, Pinsley squarely discredits Zond’s
`
`argument. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 86 (Ex. 1221).
`
`Both Pinsley and Angelbeck teach the application of a transverse magnetic
`
`field to “substantially trap” electrons. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 48, 56 (Ex.
`
`1221). As discussed at length, above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to apply the transverse magnetic field teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck to increase the density of electrons in the plasma region A between the
`
`first electrodes 26, thereby increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms flowing
`
`through plasma region A. Id. at ¶ 87 (Ex. 1221). Thus, the combination of
`
`Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches an excited / metastable atom source
`
`“substantially trapping” electrons proximate to ground state atoms as recited by
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00828
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`independent claims 30 and 40. Id. (Ex. 1221).
`
`B.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches raising the
`energy of the metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-
`step ionization process as claimed by claims 30 and 40.
`
`Zond again argues Iwamura does not teach raising the energy of the
`
`metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process as
`
`claimed by claims 30 and 40 because “the atoms entering Iwamura’s chambers are
`
`not excited, but are instead activated (i.e., a plasma).” Response at pp. 35-37
`
`(Paper No. 2
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
