throbber
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
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-008281
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`___________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00856, IPR2014-01070, and IPR2014-01022 have been joined
`
`with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`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 2014-00828, concerning U.S. Patent 6,805,779 (“the ’779 patent”), entered
`
`on November 3, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 30-33, 35, 37, and 40
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Iwamura, US 5,753,886 (“Iwamura”), Angelbeck, US 3,514,714
`
`(“Angelbeck”), and Pinsley, US 3,761,836 (“Pinsley”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 34 and 39 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley and Wells, PCT WO 83/01349 (“Wells”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 34 and 39 unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley and Lovelock, EP 0 242 028 A2 (“Lovelock”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
` 2
`
`

`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 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
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 51
`
`Entered: November 3, 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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-008281
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00856, IPR2014-01070, and IPR2014-01022 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`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 an inter partes review. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond,
`
`LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On
`
`November 17, 2014, we instituted the instant trial as to claims 30–37, 39,
`
`and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (Ex. 1201, “the ’779 patent”),
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). 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 IPR2014-00856, IPR2014-01070, and
`
`IPR2014-01022 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 40, “Reply”). An oral hearing2 was held on June 15, 2015, and a
`
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 50 (“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). For the reasons set forth
`
`below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has shown by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that claims 30–37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The oral arguments for this review and the following inter partes reviews
`were consolidated: IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-00917, IPR2014-01073, and
`IPR2014-01076.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices,
`
`Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.), and identify other petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to this proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`
`
`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 to metastable atom source 204 that generates
`
`metastable atoms 218 from ground state atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma
`
`202 is generated from metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at
`
`
`
`5:25–34.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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 an 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 the electron/ion
`
`absorber and is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in Figure 12B, electron/ion absorber 750ʹ includes magnets
`
`776 and 778 that generate magnetic field 780, trapping electrons 772 and
`
`ions 774 in chamber 760ʹ. Id. at 20:9–13. Excited or metastable atoms 768
`
`and ground state atoms 770 then flow through output 754ʹ. 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 and reproduced below:
`
`30. A method for generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process, the method comprising:
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`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
`
`GlobalFoundries 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, 400–09 (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. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 26):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`30–33, 35, 37, and 40
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley3
`
`34 and 39
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Wells
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`Lovelock
`
`
`
`3 Pinsley was omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability based on Iwamura, although included in the
`corresponding analysis. Pet. 41, 47, 56, 58. Therefore, we treated the
`statements of the asserted grounds as mere harmless error and presume that
`GlobalFoundries 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. Dec. 6. Zond addressed each ground
`as including Pinsley. PO Resp. 24–26.
`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); 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,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`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).
`
`
`
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`“metastable atoms” and “multi-step ionization process”
`
`With the above-stated principles in mind, we construed the following
`
`terms in the Decision on Institution: “metastable atoms” and “multi-step
`
`ionization process.” Dec. 7–10. Subsequent to institution, neither party
`
`challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these terms. PO Resp.
`
`15–16; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 14–19; see generally Reply. Upon
`
`review of the entire record before us, including the parties’ explanations and
`
`supporting evidence concerning these terms, we discern no reason to change
`
`those claim constructions for purposes of this Final Written Decision. For
`
`convenience, those claim constructions from the Decision on Institution are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`“metastable atoms”
`(claim 30)
`
`excited atoms having energy levels from which
`dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden (Dec. 7–
`8)
`
`“multi-step ionization
`process” (claim 30)
`
`an ionization process having at least two distinct
`steps (Dec. 9–10)
`
`
`
`“plasma”
`
`For this Final Written Decision, we find it necessary to construe the
`
`claim term “plasma.” Claim 30 recites “[a] method for generating a plasma
`
`with a multi-step ionization process.” Ex. 1201, 23:24–25.
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, GlobalFoundries’s expert declarant, testifies that
`
`a plasma is a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms,
`
`and metastable atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 21–27. Metastable atoms are excited
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`neutral atoms that are in a metastable state, but have not been ionized.
`
`Ex. 1201, 7:22–8:10. According to the Specification of the ’779 patent, all
`
`excited noble gases (e.g., helium and argon) have metastable states. Id. at
`
`7:37–47. As Dr. Kortshagen explains, when generating excited atoms,
`
`multiple levels of excited states are formed, and therefore, generating
`
`excited atoms means also generating metastable atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶ 26.
`
`Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the
`
`context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles
`
`(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms,
`
`excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized.
`
`Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term
`
`“plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would
`
`be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of
`
`charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that
`
`a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1201, 1:7–8,
`
`8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully
`
`ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons).
`
`Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17.
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma”
`
`as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and
`
`metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be
`
`“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559,
`
`562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding
`
`that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`art” in the context of the ’779 patent,5 we are mindful that the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also 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 instituted grounds of unpatentability with the
`
`above-stated principled in mind.
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness over, in Whole or in Part, the Combination of
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`GlobalFoundries 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. GlobalFoundries also asserts
`
`that claim 36 is unpatentable over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley, and Lovelock (id. at 58–60), and that dependent claims 34 and 39
`
`are unpatentable over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`
`Wells (id. at 57–58). In support of these asserted grounds of unpatentability,
`
`GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`
`limitation is met by the combinations of the references and rationales for
`
`combining the references. Id. at 41–60. GlobalFoundries also proffers a
`
`
`
`5 “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’779
`Patent [is] someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`physics, material science, or electrical/computer engineering with at least
`two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of development of
`plasma-based processing equipment.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 12.
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1202) to support its Petition, and a
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1221) to support its Reply.
`
`In its Response, Zond counters that the combinations of the cited prior
`
`art do not disclose every claim limitation. PO Resp. 27–50. Zond also
`
`argues that GlobalFoundries has not articulated a sufficient rationale to
`
`combine any of the references. Id. at 18–27. As support, Zond directs our
`
`attention to a Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion below with a brief summary of Iwamura, and then we address
`
`the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`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.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma chamber 10 is coupled to
`
`the gas supply pipe (shown as items 20a and 20b). Gas supply 20 supplies a
`
`gas capable of plasma discharge (e.g., helium or argon, a noble gas) 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 and generating excited and metastable atoms from ground state atoms.
`
`Id. at 7:55–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated from the gas 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 inside the plasma chamber. Id. at 8:32–37.
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of the semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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.” Ex. 1201, 23:31–
`
`34 (emphasis added). Independent claim 40 recites a similar limitation. Id.
`
`at 24:6–9. Claim 35 depends from claim 30, and further recites “the raising
`
`the energy of the metastable atoms comprises exposing the metastable atoms
`
`to an electric field.” Id. at 23:52–54. Claim 37, which also depends from
`
`claim 30, further recites “the raising the energy of the metastable atoms
`
`comprises exposing the metastable atoms to a plasma.” Id. at 23:58–60.
`
`As we discussed above in the Claim Construction Section of this
`
`Decision, metastable atoms are excited neutral atoms that are in a metastable
`
`state, but have not been ionized, and all excited noble gases (such as helium
`
`and argon) have metastable states. And we construe the claim term
`
`“plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with term’s ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent. Furthermore, we
`
`construe the claim term “multi-step ionization process” broadly, but
`
`reasonably, as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps,” in
`
`light of the Specification.
`
`GlobalFoundries takes the position that Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit is an energy source that ionizes at least a portion of the
`
`excited or metastable atoms inside a chamber, generating a plasma with a
`
`multi-step ionization process. Pet. 41–47, 50–52, 55–57. As
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`GlobalFoundries points out, for the first step, Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit
`
`and/or first plasma generation unit raise the excitation level of the gas,
`
`generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms. Id.;
`
`Ex. 1207, 7:55–60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. And for the second step, Iwamura’s
`
`second plasma generation unit ionizes at least a portion of the excited or
`
`metastable atoms, generating a plasma inside the chamber. Ex. 1207, 8:32–
`
`46, 9:8–12, Figs. 1, 2.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit does not
`
`ionize excited atoms, as required by claims 30, 35, 37, and 40, because the
`
`atoms already are ionized before they enter the chamber. PO Resp. 35–37,
`
`44–47. As support, Dr. Hartsough testifies that “the atoms entering
`
`Iwamura’s chamber are not excited, but rather activated (i.e., a plasma).”
`
`Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 204, 225.
`
`Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are
`
`predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited
`
`or metastable atoms, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation
`
`unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma
`
`generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit
`
`activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1207, 2:61–65
`
`(emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the
`
`gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39
`
`(“[T]he gas reaching the downstream plasma generation position maintains
`
`the ionized or near-ionized state, formed by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high, due to the upstream plasma
`
`preactivation.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s
`
`second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to
`
`have a second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma
`
`generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary,
`
`Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of
`
`the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that
`
`the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the
`
`density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a
`
`plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1.
`
`In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges,
`
`and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second
`
`plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1223,
`
`42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 25–33, 89.
`
`Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited
`
`or metastable atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the term “plasma”—namely, “a collection of ions, electrons,
`
`ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms.” As discussed
`
`above, both Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition.
`
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. Furthermore, the Specification of
`
`the ’779 patent discloses that a plasma includes charged particles, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms. Ex. 1201, 8:43–48. More importantly, as the
`
`Specification explains, a volume of excited or metastable atoms is generated
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`when “a discharge is created in a discharge region” between a pair of
`
`electrodes, similar to Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, energizing and
`
`ionizing a portion of ground state atoms. Id. at 14:4–14:23 (“Some of the
`
`ground state atoms 208 are directly ionized, which releases ions 424 and
`
`electrons 426 into the stream of metastable atoms 218. . . . The metastable
`
`atoms 218, the free ions 424 and electrons 426 then pass through the output
`
`423 of the metastable atom source 402.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, even
`
`in the embodiment in which Iwamura’s first generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, one with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`plasma reaching Iwamura’s second generation unit includes a volume of
`
`excited and metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Iwamura
`
`discloses an energy source that raises “an energy of excited atoms in the
`
`volume of excited atoms so that at least a portion of the excited atoms in the
`
`volume of excited is ionized, thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step
`
`ionization process,” as required by claims 30, 35, 37, and 40.
`
`Generating excited or metastable atoms
`
`Claim 30 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” Ex. 1201, 23:29–30. Claim 40 recites a
`
`similar limitation. Id. at 24:4–6. Claim 32 depends from claim 30, and
`
`further recites that “the generating the volume of metastable atoms
`
`comprises generating a discharge that excites at least a portion of the ground
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`state atoms in the volume of ground state atoms to a metastable state.” Id. at
`
`23:3–41.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and/or the
`
`first plasma generation unit describe an excited or metastable atom source
`
`for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms, as
`
`recited in claims 30, 32, and 40. Pet. 49–50, 52–53.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, and not excited or metastable atoms. PO Resp. 31–35, 37–41. As
`
`support, Dr. Hartsough testifies that “Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit
`
`generates ionized atoms, i.e., a plasma or ‘activated gas’ per Iwamura’s
`
`teaching.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 207.
`
`Once again, Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony are
`
`predicated improperly on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing
`
`no excited or metastable atom, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit. As we discussed above, that premise contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “plasma,”
`
`which includes excited and metastable atoms. Both Dr. Kortshagen and
`
`Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition, which also is consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17;
`
`Ex. 1201, 8:43–48. Notably, Iwamura explicitly explains that the gas
`
`reaching the second plasma generation unit “is not yet fully ionized.”
`
`Ex. 1207, 2:34–38 (emphasis added).
`
`Furthermore, we do not share Zond’s view that Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`cross-examination testimony—plasma density is not equivalent to the
`
`density of excited atoms—supports Zond’s argument that Iwamura’s gas
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`reaching the second plasma generation unit does not contain excited or
`
`metastable atoms. PO Resp. 34–35 (citing Ex. 2004, 232:5–9). One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that, in a unit volume of gas
`
`containing charged particles and excited atoms, the plasma density refers to
`
`the number of ions or electrons, whereas the density of excited atoms refers
`
`to the number of excited atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 22–28. It is irrelevant that the
`
`plasma density is not equivalent to the density of excited atoms, in that
`
`Iwamura’s gas could have more excited atoms than ions or electrons.
`
`Therefore, Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony does not
`
`undermine GlobalFoundries’s evidence, showing that Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and the first plasma generation unit, either alone or in
`
`combination, generate a volume of excited or metastable atoms (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1207, 2:61–65, 2:31–65; Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 25–33, 89; Ex. 1223, 42:9–25,
`
`74:2–76:4).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley discloses exciting at least a portion of the
`
`ground state atoms from a gas supply and generating a volume of metastable
`
`atoms, as required by claims 30, 32, and 40.
`
`Magnetic field
`
`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.” Ex. 1201, 23:26–28. Claim 40 recites a similar
`
`limitation. Id. at 24:1–3. Claim 33 depends from claim 30, and further
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00828
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`requires the magnetic field increases excitation of at least a portion of the
`
`ground state atoms to a metastable state. Id. at 23:42–46.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`and Pinsley renders obvious the aforementioned limitations. Pet. 47–49, 52,
`
`54–55. GlobalFoundries acknowledges that Iwamura does not disclose a
`
`magnet for generating a magnetic field. Id. Nevertheless, GlobalFoundries
`
`maintains that it was well-known in the art at the time of the invention to use
`
`a magnet for generating a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons
`
`in a plasma generating apparatus, as evidenced by Pinsley and Angelbeck.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1205, 2:4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket