`___________________________
`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