DOCKET NO.: 34789.104
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and
`TSMC North America Corp.
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`Richard C. Kim, Reg. No. 40,046
`
`By:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. and
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR___________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 AND 46
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`V.
`
`Mandatory Notices................................................................................... - 1 -
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest..................................................................... - 1 -
`B.
`Related Matters............................................................................... - 1 -
`C.
`Counsel .......................................................................................... - 2 -
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................ - 2 -
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................ - 2 -
`II.
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 -
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications........................................ - 3 -
`B.
`Grounds for Challenge .................................................................... - 3 -
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ............................................................... - 4 -
`A.
`Plasma............................................................................................ - 4 -
`B.
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ....................................... - 5 -
`Overview of the ‘779 Patent...................................................................... - 7 -
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent............................ - 7 -
`B.
`Prosecution History....................................................................... - 10 -
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References......................................... - 12 -
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art.............................................................. - 12 -
`B.
`Overview of Mozgrin.................................................................... - 12 -
`C.
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ............................................................. - 13 -
`D.
`Overview of Iwamura ................................................................... - 14 -
`E.
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck.............................................. - 15 -
`VII. Claim Construction................................................................................. - 16 -
`A.
`“multi-step ionization” (claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46)............... - 17 -
`“means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of ground
`B.
`state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the volume of
`ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42) ........................................ - 17 -
`“means for generating a volume of metastable atoms from the volume of
`ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42) ......................................... - 18 -
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`E.
`
`B.
`
`D.
`
`“means for raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at least a
`portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized” (claims 41 and 42)- 18 -
`“means for trapping electrons and ions in the volume of metastable
`atoms” (claim 42) ......................................................................... - 19 -
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition .................................................................. - 19 -
`A.
`Ground I: Claim 41 would have been obvious in view of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley.............................................................. - 20 -
`1.
`Independent claim 41..........................................................- 20 -
`Ground II: Claims 16, 28, 42, 45 and 46 would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Iwamura..................... - 32 -
`1.
`Dependent claim 42 ............................................................- 32 -
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 45 ...............................................- 34 -
`3.
`Independent claim 18..........................................................- 39 -
`4.
`Dependent claims 16 and 28................................................- 40 -
`5.
`Independent claim 46..........................................................- 41 -
`Ground III: Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 would have been obvious
`over Iwamura and Angelbeck........................................................ - 42 -
`1.
`Independent claim 41..........................................................- 42 -
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 45 ...............................................- 53 -
`3.
`Independent claim 18..........................................................- 57 -
`4.
`Dependent claims 16, 28 and 42 ..........................................- 58 -
`Ground IV: Claims 46 is anticipated by Iwamura.......................... - 59 -
`1.
`Independent claim 46..........................................................- 59 -
`IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................. - 60 -
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ......................................................................................Cover Page
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22....................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100................................................................................................ 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104........................................................................Cover Page, 2, 19
`
`CASE LAW
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North
`
`America Corp. are the real parties-in-interest (“Petitioner”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1301) against
`
`numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v.
`
`Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v.
`
`Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-
`
`cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`
`Fujitsu, et al.); 1 and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.). Petitioner has filed
`
`Petition Nos. IPR2014-00598, IPR2014-00686, and IPR2014-00765 for other claims
`
`of the 779 Patent; and is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in this
`
`and several patents with the same named inventor as the ‘779 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘142 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed May 27, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00820.
`
`Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`1 The Petitioner is a co-defendant with Fujitsu in this lawsuit.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David M. O’Dell
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone: 972-739-8635
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references, and others listed in the Table of Exhibits, are
`
`pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability explained below, and are each prior art
`
`under 102(b): 2
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol.
`
`21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1303)).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1304)).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1305)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1306)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1307)).
`
`Of these, only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`2 The ’779 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46 (hereinafter
`
`“challenged claims”) of the ‘779 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`103. 3 This Petition, supported by the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`(“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1302)) filed herewith, 4 demonstrates that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged
`
`3 The terms “challenged claims” as used herein refers to Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45
`
`and 46 of the ‘779 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining claims of the
`
`‘779 Patent in separate petitions. Moreover, independent claims 1 and 18 are
`
`addressed herein to demonstrate the invalidity of claims that depend from claims 1
`
`and 18. They are addressed in in a separate petition IPR2014-00598.
`
`4 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by TSMC. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1302 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00820, discussed
`
`above.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no
`
`overall electrical charge. Id. (Ex. 1302). The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex. 1302).5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302). For example, sputtering is an
`
`industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a
`
`surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing
`
`operation). Id. (Ex. 1302). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection
`
`of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1302). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1302). If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground
`
`state.” Id. (Ex. 1302).
`
`5 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN1 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`On the other hand, 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.” Id.
`
`at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). 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. (Ex. 1302). See also ‘779
`
`Patent at 7:22-25 (“The term ‘metastable atoms’ is defined herein to mean excited
`
`atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.
`
`Metastable atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared with other excited atoms.”)
`
`(Ex. 1301). “All noble gases have metastable states.” Id. at 7:37 (Ex. 1301). When
`
`generating excited atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed. Of these, some
`
`of the lowest states are metastable, and would typically be more common than the
`
`higher states, where Dr. Kortshagen provides additional support with reference to Ex.
`
`1311 and Ex. 1312. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Excited and metastable atoms are electrically neutral – they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. A collision with a low energy free electron (e-) can
`
`convert a ground state atom to an excited or metastable atom. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶
`
`26 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equation to describe
`
`production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See
`
`‘779 Patent at 8:7 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. A collision between a free, high energy electron and a ground state,
`
`excited, or metastable atom can create an ion. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1302). For
`
`example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equations to describe production of an
`
`argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*.
`
`See ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and 8:9 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1302).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`
`The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process with an excited/metastable atom source that generates excited atoms or
`
`metastable atoms, and then provides the excited/metastable atoms to a plasma
`
`chamber where the plasma is formed, thereby generating a plasma with a “multi-step
`
`ionization” process. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1302). For convenience, this section
`
`will just use the term “excited atom source.” The ‘779 Patent does not indicate any
`
`particular difference in the operation of an excited atom source when it is a metastable
`
`atom source. The specification repeatedly refers to “an excited atom source such as a
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 2:13-14, 17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1301),
`
`and says that “[i]n some embodiments, the metastable atom source 204 generates
`
`some excited atoms that are in excited states other than a metastable state.” Id. at 5:63-
`
`65 (Ex. 1301)
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a
`
`plasma chamber consisting of a magnetron sputtering system,
`
`without an excited atom source. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex.
`
`1302). It generates plasma through a process that the patent
`
`refers to as a direct ionization process. ‘779 Patent at 3:36-47
`
`(“The ionization process in known plasma sputtering apparatus is generally referred to
`
`as direct ionization…. The collision between the neutral argon atom and the ionizing
`
`electron results in an argon ion (Ar+) and two electrons.”) (Ex. 1301).
`
`As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly 114 for
`
`holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a magnetic
`
`field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. Id. at 2:46-3:18
`
`(Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The alleged invention generally relates to
`
`coupling an excited or metastable atom source to some
`
`plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`metastable atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such as
`
`the chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a commercially
`
`available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma generators can be
`
`modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization process according to the
`
`present invention.”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1302).
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators “according to
`
`the present invention” that are coupled with separate metastable atom sources
`
`(annotated in color at right). ‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204,
`
`and FIG. 3 shows metastable atom source 304 (annotated
`
`in color below). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The metastable atom sources 204 and 304
`
`“generate[] a volume of metastable atoms 218 from [a]
`
`volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the source where they are generated to the
`
`region between the cathode 114/306 and substrate support 136/352, where plasma
`
`202/302 is formed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:60-62 (Ex. 1301). Another
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., id. at 11:4-14 (“A
`
`power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable atoms 218. The
`
`power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a pulsed power supply, a
`
`RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power supply. … The power supply
`
`316 generates an electric field 322 between the cathode 306 and the anode 308 that
`
`raises the energy of the volume of metastable atoms 218 so that at least a portion of
`
`the volume of metastable atoms 218 are ionized, thereby generating the plasma 302.”)
`
`(Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted to the
`
`inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2). See, e.g.,
`
`‘779 Patent at 4:31-34 and 9:51-62 (Ex. 1301). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the specification, the
`
`“excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the excited atoms in a
`
`source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that later raise the energy
`
`of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with “multi-step ionization,” a
`
`term the ‘779 Patent defines as an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at
`
`least two distinct steps.”6 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1301).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`6 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779 Patent
`
`rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art that showed a
`
`first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second chamber for
`
`increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a plasma using multi-
`
`step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1308).
`
`The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the independent
`
`claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes “a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the ground
`
`state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex. 1309). The claims were
`
`then allowed.
`
`Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does not indicate that an
`
`excited atom source with magnets has any special significance over other energy
`
`sources for generating excited/metastable. For example, the ‘779 Patent specification
`
`indicates that there were approximately twelve (12) different ways to generate excited
`
`atoms – see ‘779 Patent at 19:1-10 (Ex. 1301) - and shows multiple embodiments –
`
`e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11—without the magnets that were required for the claims to
`
`be allowed. The “magnet” of the source chamber recited in the claims refers
`
`particularly to the embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7 and 10, and specifically to magnets
`
`504a, 504b, 506a and 506b in FIG. 6; magnets 566a-d and 570a-d in FIG. 7; and
`
`magnets 712 and 714 in FIG. 10. ‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6 and 7; 14:46-15:4516:12-20
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1301).
`
`European Counterpart. The applicant had also identified these magnets,
`
`located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in
`
`counterpart claims in Europe. Those claims read in part “characterised [sic] in that
`
`the excited atom source (204) comprises a magnet (504, 506) that is arranged to
`
`generate a magnetic field (508) that traps electrons proximate to the ground state
`
`atoms.” (24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136) (Ex. 1310).
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s reasons
`
`for allowance, the prior art addressed in this Petition teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`42 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new or
`
`non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the
`
`current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`discharge generated by Mozgrin. As shown, Mozgrin
`
`divides this CVC into four distinct regions. Id. at ¶ 44 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1
`
`in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime
`
`2)…”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1302). Application of a high
`
`voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Id. (Ex.
`
`1302). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right
`
`col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex.
`
`1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1303). Increasing
`
`the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the
`
`plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin also
`
`teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface.
`
`Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful
`
`… Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1303). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1302).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1304). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes.
`
`The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are converted
`
`directly to ions. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). The second process is
`
`multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See, e.g., id. (Ex.
`
`1304). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be
`
`the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1304). Mozgrin took into account
`
`the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶
`
`spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]….”) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1302).
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Iwamura
`
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1307). “A first plasma generation unit for
`
`preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned upstream along the flow path
`
`of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma generation unit for activating the gas
`
`to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas in the gas supply is
`
`also provided. Thus, the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the
`
`second plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas species.
`
`Then, the activated gas species formed by the second plasma generation unit treat the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex. 1307); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49
`
`(Ex. 1302).
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable atoms, and
`
`discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by a further
`
`energy providing step, and also claims such a system.
`
`Iwamura at 2:1-50, claim 1
`
`(Ex. 1307); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1302).
`
`E.
`
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing gas
`
`laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented transversely
`
`with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a magnetic field which
`
`is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the electric field to overcome
`
`the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1305). The transverse magnetic field traps
`
`electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the interaction between the current and
`
`the magnetic field will result in an upstream force as indicated by the force vector 32.
`
`This force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to maintain the electrons in an area
`
`between the anode and cathode.”) (Ex. 1305); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic field
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to “maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated and
`
`pass through. Id. at ¶ 52 (Ex. 1302). The Angelbeck patent (with a lead inventor who
`
`is also a co-inventor on the Pinsley patent) makes clear that gas lasers of the type
`
`disclosed by Pinsley generate excited atoms as part of their operation. Angelbeck at
`
`1:21-25 (“This invention relates to gas lasers, and particularly to a method and
`
`apparatus for increasing and controlling the light output of a gas laser by applying a
`
`transverse magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20 (“A high gas pressure P is
`
`advantageous, however, for creating a high density of excited atoms in the laser.”)
`
`(Ex. 1303); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.”7 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation. In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The following
`
`discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those terms. Any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`7 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A.
`
`“multi-step ionization” (claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46)
`
`Each of the independent claims in the ‘779 Patent recite the term “multi-step
`
`ionization.” The ‘779 Patent defines this term “to mean an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex.
`
`1301). This is consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the
`
`specification, which generate the excited atoms in a source that is distinct from, and
`
`coupled to, the components that later raise the energy of the excited or metastable
`
`atoms to generate a plasma. Thus, the proposed construction for “multi-step
`
`ionization” is “an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct
`
`steps.”
`
`B.
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the
`volume of ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42)
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume
`
`of ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the volume of
`
`ground state atoms.” The claimed function is: “generating a magnetic field in a
`
`volume of ground state atoms separate from the plasma chamber to trap electrons.”
`
`The ‘779 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for the
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” limitation of claim 41: magnets (556a-d,
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`570a-d, 712, 714) that generate a magnetic field as described in the text of ‘779 Patent
`
`at 16:1-20 and 18:34-41, and as shown in FIGS. 7, 7A and 10. (Ex. 1301)
`
`C.
`
`“means for generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`volume of ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42)
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” The claimed function is: “creating a volume of atoms
`
`comprising a majority of metastable atoms .”
`
`The ‘779 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for the
`
`“means for generating a volume of metastable atoms…” limitation of claim 41: Any
`
`of the separate metastable atom sources (402, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 735)
`
`disclosed in FIGS. 4-11 and as described in the text of the ‘779 Patent at 14:24-26,
`
`14:46-48, 15:46-67, 16:29-31, 17:27-34, 18:7-16 and 19:11-12. (Ex. 1301).
`
`D.
`
`“means for raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized” (claims
`41 and 42)
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized.” The claimed function
`
`is: “raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at least a portion of the volume
`
`of metastable atoms is ionized.”
`
`The ‘779 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for the
`
`“means for raising an energy of the metastable atoms…” limitation of claim 41:
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`power supply 201