Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 30–37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,805,779 B2 (“the ’779 patent”).1 Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that 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 30–37, 39, and 40 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 30–37, 39, and 40 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`1 In its statement of relief and conclusion, TSMC indicates that it also is
`challenging claim 38. See, e.g., Pet. 2, 60. TSMC, however, fails to present
`any specific ground of unpatentability or analysis as to claim 38. Pet. 20–
`59. As such, we presume that TSMC does not intend to challenge claim 38
`in the instant proceeding. We note that claim 38 is being challenged in
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. v. Zond, Case IPR2014-00917 (Paper 2).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`TSMC indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu Corp., No. 1:13-
`
`cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. TSMC also identifies other Petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to the instant proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`B. The ’779 patent
`
`The ’779 patent relates to a method and a system for generating a
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process. Ex. 1201, Abs. For instance,
`
`Figure 2 of the ’779 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional
`
`view of a plasma generating apparatus:
`
`In the embodiment shown in Figure 2, feed gas source 206 supplies
`
`ground state atoms 208 (e.g., ground state argon atoms) to metastable atom
`
`source 204 that generates excited or metastable atoms 218 from ground state
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma 202 is generated from the excited or
`
`metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at 5:25–34.
`
`Electrons and ions are formed in metastable atom source 204 along
`
`with excited or metastable atoms 218. Id. at 8:20–23. In another
`
`embodiment, the ions and electrons are separated from excited or metastable
`
`atoms 218 and trapped in electron/ion absorber before excited or metastable
`
`atoms 218 are injected into plasma chamber 230. Id. at 8:23–26, 18:62–67,
`
`Fig. 10. Figure 12B of the ’779 patent illustrates an electron/ion absorber
`
`and is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in Figure 12B, electron/ion absorber 750’ includes magnets
`
`776 and 778 that generate magnetic field 780, trapping electrons 772 and
`
`ions 774 in chamber 760’. Id. at 20:9–13. Excited or metastable atoms 768
`
`and ground state atoms 770 then flow through output 754’. Id. at 20:19–21.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 30 and 40 are the only independent
`
`claims. Claims 31–37 and 39 depend directly from claim 30.
`
`Claims 30 and 40 are illustrative:
`
`30. A method for generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process, the method comprising:
`
`generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to
`the volume of ground state atoms;
`
`generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`volume of ground state atoms; and
`
`raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at least
`a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.
`
`Ex. 1201, 23:24–34 (emphases added).
`
`40. A method for generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process, the method comprising:
`
`generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`ground state molecules to substantially trap electrons
`proximate to the volume of ground state molecules;
`
`generating a volume of metastable molecules from the
`volume of ground state molecules; and
`
`raising an energy of the metastable molecules so that at
`least a portion of the volume of metastable molecules is
`thereby generating a plasma with a multistep
`ionized,
`ionization process.
`
`Id. at 23:66–24:9 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`
`Wells
`Lovelock
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`US 3,514,714
`US 5,753,886
`
`Sept. 25, 1973
`May 26, 1970
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1205)
`(Ex. 1206)
`(Ex. 1207)
`
`PCT WO 83/01349
`EP 0 242 028 A2
`
`
`Apr. 14, 1983
`Oct. 21, 1987
`
`(Ex. 1214)
`(Ex. 1215)
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1203, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`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 (1983) (Ex. 1204, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, and 40
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`34 and 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Wells
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`30–33, 35, 37, and 40
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley2
`
`34 and 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`36
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Wells
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`2 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability based on Iwamura, although included in the
`corresponding analysis. See Pet. 41, 47, 56, 58. Therefore, we treat each of
`the statements as mere harmless error and presume that TSMC intended to
`assert that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a) based, in
`whole, or in part, on the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). 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).
`
`We construe the claim terms below in accordance with the above-
`
`stated principles.
`
`
`
`1. “metastable atoms”
`
`Claim 30 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” TSMC submits that the claim term
`
`“metastable atoms” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as
`
`“excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`
`theoretically forbidden.” Pet. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1201, 7:22–
`
`25). In that regard, Dr. Uwe Kortshagen further explains that “[i]f all of an
`
`atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`be in the ‘ground state,’” and that “if one or more of an atom’s electrons is
`
`in a state that is higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to
`
`be an ‘excited atom.’” Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 24–25 (emphases added).
`
`Dr. Kortshagen testifies that a “metastable atom is a type of excited atom
`
`that is relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state
`
`through dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic
`
`radiation.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1201, 7:22–25). According to
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon atoms means also generating
`
`metastable atoms because, when generating excited argon atoms, multiple
`
`levels of excited states are formed, and some of the lowest states are
`
`metastable. Id. ¶ 26 (citing Exs. 1211–1212).3 The Specification also
`
`provides that all noble gases, including argon, have metastable states.
`
`Ex. 1201, 7:37–39.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “metastable
`
`atoms,” consistent with the Specification, as “excited atoms having energy
`
`levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden,” and observe
`
`that exciting noble gas atoms would generate metastable atoms.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. I: Formulation and Basic Data, 22 J.
`PHYS. D: APPL. PHYS. 623–631 (1989) (Ex. 1211).
`
`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, 22 J. PHYS. D: APPL.
`PHYS. 632–643 (1989) (Ex. 1212).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`2. “multi-step ionization process”
`
`
`
`Claim 30 recites “raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.”
`
`TSMC asserts that the claim term “multi-step ionization process” is
`
`defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as “an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” Pet. 19–20 (citing
`
`Ex. 1201, 6:60–63, Figs. 2, 3) (emphasis added by TSMC). Indeed, the
`
`Specification expressly provides:
`
`The term “multi-step ionization process” is defined herein to
`mean an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least
`two distinct steps. However, the term “multi-step ionization
`process” as defined herein may or may not include exciting
`ground state atoms to a metastable state. For example, one
`multi-step ionization process according to the present invention
`includes a first step where atoms are excited from a ground
`state to a metastable state and a second step where atoms in the
`metastable state are ionized. Another multi-step ionization
`process according to the present invention includes a first step
`where atoms are excited from a ground state to an excited state
`and a second step where atoms in the excited state are ionized.
`The
`term “multi-step
`ionization process” also
`includes
`ionization processes with three or more steps.
`
`Ex. 1201, 6:60–7:9 (emphases added).
`
`We observe that the Specification sets forth a definition for the claim
`
`term “multi-step ionization” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Further, that definition is
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. As such, in the context of
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the Specification, we construe the claim term “multi-step ionization” as “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`
`
`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).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record.
`
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`C. Claims 30–37, 39, and 40—Obviousness over Iwamura in
`Combination of Other Cited References
`
`TSMC asserts that claims 30–33, 35, 37, and 40 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Iwamura,
`
`Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Pet. 41–57. TSMC also asserts that dependent
`
`claims 34 and 39 are unpatentable over the combination of Iwamura,
`
`Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells (id. at 57–58), and claim 36 is unpatentable
`
`over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Lovelock (id.
`
`at 58–60). In support of those asserted grounds of unpatentability, TSMC
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`
`combination of the references and rationales for combining the references.
`
`Id. at 41–60. TSMC also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen
`
`(Ex. 1202) to support its contentions. Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond responds that the combinations of
`
`cited prior art references do not disclose every claim limitation. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 39–52. Zond also argues that TSMC has not articulated a sufficient
`
`rationale to combine the references. Id. at 35–37.
`
`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
`
`claims 30–37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable over Iwamura in combination
`
`with the other cited references. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies
`
`alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma treatment apparatus for generating a
`
`stable plasma with a multi-step ionization process, to treat a semiconductor
`
`wafer. Ex. 1207, Abs., 6:67–7:8. Figure 1 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma treatment chamber 10 is
`
`coupled to a gas supply pipe (shown as items 20a and 20b). Gas supply 20
`
`supplies a gas capable of plasma discharge (e.g., argon) through a pre-
`
`excitation unit that includes ultraviolet lamp 24, and a first plasma
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26. Ex. 1207, 6:67–7:17, 49.
`
`Ultraviolet lamp 24 causes photoionization, raising the excitation level of the
`
`gas—in other words, generating excited atoms from ground state atoms. Id.
`
`at 7:55–60. At this pre-excitation stage, no plasma is generated from the
`
`gas. Id. at 7:59–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated from the gas, with a
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`raised excitation level, in plasma region A, between electrodes 26 (the first
`
`plasma generation unit), and a plasma also is generated in plasma region B,
`
`between electrodes 30 (the second plasma generation unit). Id. at 7:61–65,
`
`8:4–9, 8:32–46. According to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the
`
`gas is raised first, a stable plasma can be generated. Id. at 8:32–37.
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`
`
`Generating metastable atoms
`
`Claim 30 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” Claim 40 recites a similar limitation. In its
`
`Petition, TSMC takes the position that Iwamura’s disclosure regarding pre-
`
`excitation unit and first plasma generation unit (including electrodes 26)
`
`teaches or suggests generating metastable atoms from ground state argon
`
`atoms. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 123–127). At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, Zond does not challenge that assertion. See Prelim. Resp. 39–
`
`52.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we agree with TSMC. As discussed
`
`previously, we adopted the definition set forth in the Specification of the
`
`’779 patent as the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim term
`
`“metastable atoms”—namely, “excited atoms having energy levels from
`
`which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.” Ex. 1201, 7:22–24
`
`(emphasis added). The Specification also provides that all noble gases,
`
`including argon, have metastable states. Ex. 1201, 7:37.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`As noted by TSMC, Iwamura’s gas supply 20 introduces a gas, such
`
`as helium or argon, into the pre-excitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1207, 7:48–50). Iwamura discloses
`
`that the pre-excitation unit raises the excitation level of the ground state
`
`atoms to generate excited atoms, using either an ultraviolet lamp or a
`
`magnetron, which radiates microwaves along the direction of the gas flow.
`
`Ex. 1207, 7:55–60, 9:38–53. Iwamura also discloses that the first plasma
`
`unit pre-activates the gas by exciting the gas to a high excitation level. Id. at
`
`2:31–41, 2:56–58.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen explains a “metastable atom is a type of excited atom
`
`that is relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state
`
`through dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic
`
`radiation.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 25 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1201, 7:22–25).
`
`Indeed, the Specification notes that “[m]etastable atoms have relatively long
`
`lifetimes compared with other excited atoms,” and “in practice, there is a
`
`finite probability that the metastable atoms relax to the ground state and emit
`
`dipole radiation.” Ex. 1201, 7:24–32.
`
`According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon atoms means
`
`also generating metastable atoms because, when generating excited argon
`
`atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed, and some of the lowest
`
`states of excited argon atoms are metastable. Ex. 1202 ¶ 26 (citing
`
`Exs. 1211–1212). Dr. Kortshagen testifies that it has been shown that the
`
`four lowest excited states of excited argon atoms have at least 100 times
`
`higher density than the next higher excited states. Id. On this record, we are
`
`persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`would have recognized that exciting ground state argon atoms would
`
`generate excited argon atoms, including metastable atoms—excited argon
`
`atoms having two of the four lowest excited levels (levels with n=2 and n=4)
`
`from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.
`
`On this record, we determine that TSMC has established adequately
`
`that Iwamura teaches or suggests “generating a volume of metastable atoms
`
`from the volume of ground state atoms.”
`
`
`
`Ionizing metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process
`
`Claim 30 recites “raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.” Claim 40 recites
`
`a similar limitation.
`
`In its Petition, TSMC maintains that Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes coupled to a high-frequency power
`
`supply provides energy to the metastable atoms and generates a plasma
`
`within the chamber. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1207, 7:44–46, 8:4–7, 9:8–12,
`
`9:24–29). According to TSMC, the power supply and electrodes raise the
`
`energy of excited atoms and ionizes them. Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 129).
`
`Zond counters that the combination of Iwamura and Angelbeck does
`
`not describe the “ionization” and “multi-step ionization process” claim
`
`features. Prelim. Resp. 39–42. Specifically, Zond alleges that those claim
`
`features require more than pre-exciting the gas and activating the gas, and
`
`“Iwamura makes no mention of ionization.” Id. at 40, 42.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`However, obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. Rather, 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). 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. “A person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
`
`The Specification of the ’779 patent indicates that “plasma is a
`
`collection of charged particles that move in random directions.” Ex. 1201,
`
`1:7–9 (emphases added). As discussed above, the Specification of the ’779
`
`patent defines the claim term “multi-step ionization process” as “an
`
`ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”
`
`Id. at 6:60–7:9 (emphases added). The Specification also provides that a
`
`multi-step ionization process includes: (1) a first step where atoms are
`
`excited from a ground state to an excited state; and (2) a second step where
`
`atoms in the excited state are ionized, generating ions from the excited
`
`atoms. Id. The term “ionization” ordinarily is understood as a “process by
`
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`
`positive ion” (emphasis added).4
`
`
`
`4 See THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 589
`(7th ed.) (2000) (Ex. 3001) (defining “ionization” as “(B) The process by
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`As TSMC indicates in its Petition, Iwamura, in fact, discloses a
`
`plasma treatment apparatus that generates a plasma with a multi-step
`
`ionization process. Pet. 41–49 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 110–121). For the first
`
`step, Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit raises the excitation level of the argon
`
`gas—i.e., generating metastable atoms from ground state argon atoms—
`
`using microwaves or ultraviolet radiation that causes photoionization.
`
`Ex. 1207, 7:55–60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. For the second step, Iwamura’s
`
`plasma treatment apparatus includes a pair of electrodes coupled to a high-
`
`frequency power supply that generates a plasma, which includes a collection
`
`of ions and free electrons. Id. at 7:61–63, 8:32–46, Figs. 1, 2. Therefore,
`
`we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`
`that the electrodes and power supply generate the ions and free electrons by
`
`ionizing the metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley teaches or suggests the “ionization” and “multi-step ionization
`
`process” claim features—“raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that
`
`at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`positive ion. Ionization is a special case of charging.”).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Generating a magnetic field for trapping electrons
`
`
`
`Claim 30 recites “generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume
`
`of ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the volume
`
`of ground state atoms.” Claim 40 recites a similar limitation.
`
`In its Petition, TSMC relies upon the combination of Angelbeck’s
`
`transverse magnetic field with Iwamura’s disclosure, regarding the
`
`pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit, to disclose or suggest the
`
`“magnetic field” claim limitations. Pet. 47–49. TSMC maintains that it was
`
`well known in the art at the time of the invention to use a magnet for
`
`generating a magnetic field in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons, as
`
`evidenced by Angelbeck and Pinsley. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1206, 1:36–
`
`41, 2:18–20, 2:50–51, 2:66–67, Fig. 1; Ex. 1205, 2:43–60). Dr. Kortshagen
`
`testifies that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located
`
`proximate to the ground state atoms source, gas supply 20—for trapping
`
`electrons, to increase the efficiency of excitation. Ex. 1202 ¶ 120.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that the combination of
`
`the cited prior art references does not teach or suggest the “magnetic field”
`
`claim limitations. Prelim. Resp. 40–41. In particular, Zond argues that
`
`Iwamura does not have a magnet, and Angelbeck does not trap electrons
`
`near the ground state atoms. Id.
`
`Zond’s arguments, however, do not address what is taught or
`
`suggested by the combination of cited prior art references. Nonobviousness
`
`cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination
`
`of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the
`
`test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a
`
`whole, would have suggested the patentees’ invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, TSMC relies upon the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley to disclose or suggest the “magnetic field”
`
`claim limitations. Pet. 47–49. As such, we are not persuaded by Zond’s
`
`arguments.
`
`In addition, Zond does not dispute that it was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to use a magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping
`
`electrons. Indeed, the admitted prior art, Figure 1 of the ’779 patent,
`
`describes magnet 130 that generates magnetic field 132 to trap electrons.
`
`Ex. 1201, 3:13–15. As TSMC points out, Pinsley and Angelbeck confirm
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a
`
`transverse magnetic field in a plasma apparatus would trap electrons.
`
`Pet. 47–49 (citing Ex. 1205, 2:43–60; Ex. 1206, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:50–51,
`
`2:66–67, Fig. 1).
`
`Notably, Pinsley discloses a plasma generating apparatus having a
`
`magnetic field for trapping electrons. Ex. 1205, 1:51–54, 2:43–47.
`
`Pinsley’s sole Figure, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating
`
`apparatus with magnets.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Pinsley’s sole Figure, conduit 10 includes anode 18 and
`
`cathode 19, for establishing an electric discharge plasma, as well as magnets
`
`24 and 26, for generating a magnetic field. Id. at 2:27–42. According to
`
`Pinsley, “the interaction between the current and the magnetic field will
`
`result in an upstream force as indicated by the force vector 32.” Id. at 2:43–
`
`45. “This force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to maintain the
`
`electrons in an area between the anode and cathode,” trapping the electrons.
`
`Id. at 2:45–47 (emphasis added).
`
`More importantly, Angelbeck discloses applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field in a plasma generating apparatus for creating a high density
`
`of excited atoms. Ex. 1206, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33. Figure 1 of
`
`Angelbeck, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating apparatus with
`
`a magnet.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Angelbeck, the current-excited discharge
`
`passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which the atoms
`
`are ionized and electrons are freed. Id. at 2:55–57. Transverse magnetic
`
`field B is applied by a magnet with pole pieces 24 and 26 for trapping
`
`electrons to the tube walls. Id. at 2:45–54, 2:57–59. According to
`
`Angelbeck, such a transverse magnetic field creates a high density of excited
`
`atoms and increases the efficiency of excitation. Id. at 1:36–41 (“It has been
`
`found that a transverse magnetic field applied to a DC discharge gas laser
`
`increases the electron temperature and hence the efficiency of excitation
`
`. . . .”), 2:18–20 (“A high gas pressure P is advantageous . . . for creating a
`
`high density of excited atoms in the laser.”), 2:29–33 (“This invention . . .
`
`produces the same temperature at a higher pressure by applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field.”).
`
`On the present record, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony
`
`(Ex. 1202 ¶ 120) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to combine Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located
`
`proximate to the ground state atoms source, gas supply 20—for trapping
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`electrons, to increase the efficiency of excitation, as Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`testimony is consistent with the prior art references cited by TSMC. Given
`
`the evidence before us, we conclude that TSMC has demonstrated
`
`sufficiently that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley would
`
`have rendered the “magnetic field” limitations obvious.
`
`
`
`Reasons to combine the prior art references
`
`
`
`Zond further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been dissuaded from using the gas laser of Angelbeck or Pinsley to achieve
`
`the claimed plasma generation apparatus of the ’779 patent. Prelim. Resp.
`
`29–30, 35–36. In particular, Zond alleges that the excited atoms in
`
`Angelbeck’s laser must return to their ground state to release energy so that
`
`the laser will operate according to its intended purpose—namely, to emit
`
`light. Id. at 35–36, 41. Zond further argues TSMC fails “to provide
`
`experimental data or other objective evidence indicating that the structure
`
`and process of Iwamura would produce the particular plasma generator of
`
`the ’779 patent.” Id. at 36.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we are not persuaded by Zond’s
`
`arguments. “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based
`
`on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`subs
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
