throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 48
`
`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 IPR2014-008291
`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 IPR2014-00859, IPR2014-01072, and IPR2014-01020 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`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 16, 28, 41,
`
`42, 45, and 46 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (Ex. 1301, “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 IPR2014-00859, IPR2014-01072, and
`
`IPR2014-01020 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 30). Zond filed a
`
`Response (Paper 26, “PO Resp.”), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply (Paper
`
`37, “Reply”). An oral hearing2 was held on June 15, 2015, and a transcript
`
`of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 47 (“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 claim 46 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and that
`
`claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The oral arguments for this review and the following inter partes reviews
`were consolidated: IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00917, IPR2014-01073, and
`IPR2014-01076.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`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. 1301, 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
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`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 Claim
`
`Although claim 16 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 28
`
`depends from claim 18, GlobalFoundries is not challenging independent
`
`claims 1 and 18 in the instant proceeding.3 Of the challenged claims, 41, 45,
`
`and 46 are the only independent claims. Claim 42 depends from claim 41.
`
`
`
`3 Independent claims 1 and 18 are being challenged in Case IPR2014-01073.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Claim 46 is illustrative and reproduced below:
`
`46. A method for generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process, the method comprising:
`
`generating a volume of metastable atoms from a volume
`of ground state atoms;
`
`trapping electrons and ions in the volume of metastable
`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.
`
`Id. at 26:5–14 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`US 3,514,714
`US 5,753,886
`
`Sept. 25, 1973
`May 26, 1970
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`(Ex. 1306)
`(Ex. 1307)
`
`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. 1303, “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. 1304, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 31):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`46
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Iwamura
`
`16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley4
`
`
`
`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,”5 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`
`
`4 Pinsley was omitted inadvertently from the statement of this asserted
`ground of unpatentability, although included in the corresponding analysis.
`Pet. 42, 44. Therefore, we treated the statement of the asserted ground as
`harmless error and presume that GlobalFoundries intended to assert that
`claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 are unpatentable under § 103(a) based on the
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Dec. 6. Zond addressed
`the ground as including Pinsley. PO Resp. 23–27.
`5 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`“excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,” and “multi-step ionization process”
`
`With the above-stated principles in mind, we construed the following
`
`terms in the Decision on Institution: “exited atoms,” “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. 14–17; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1315 ¶¶ 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:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`“excited atoms”
`(claim 16)
`
`neutral atoms that have one or more electrons in a
`state that is higher than its lowest possible state
`(Dec. 7)
`
`“metastable atoms”
`(claim 46)
`
`excited atoms having energy levels from which
`dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden (Dec. 7–
`8)
`
`“multi-step ionization
`process” (claim 46)
`
`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 45 recites “[a] plasma generator that generates
`
`a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.” Ex. 1301, 25:1–3.
`
`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. 1302 ¶¶ 22–28. Metastable atoms are excited
`
`neutral atoms that are in a metastable state, but have not been ionized.
`
`Ex. 1301, 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. 1302 ¶ 25.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms,
`
`excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized.
`
`Ex. 1317, 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 includes excited atoms and metastable atoms. Ex. 1301, 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. 1317, 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.
`
`
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`
`In its Petition, GlobalFoundries identifies four claim elements recited
`
`in claims 41 and 42 as means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6, but Zond did not proffer any claim constructions as to these claim
`
`elements prior to institution of this inter partes review.6 Pet. 17–19; Prelim.
`
`
`
`6 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’779
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Resp. 18–19. We agree with GlobalFoundries that these claim elements are
`
`written in means-plus-function form and fall under § 112 ¶ 6, because:
`
`(1) each claim element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for”
`
`in each claim element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term
`
`“means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform
`
`the claimed function. See Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l
`
`Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term
`
`“means for” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter
`
`intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6); Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d
`
`1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term
`
`“means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any
`
`structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(confirming that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112,
`
`¶ 6, applies” (citing Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).
`
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`
`
`patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of § 112 in this Decision.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`
`Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, we set
`
`forth our claim constructions in the Decision on Institution for the
`
`means-plus-function elements identified by the parties. Dec. 10–12. Neither
`
`party challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these claim
`
`elements. See PO Resp. 15–16; Reply 1–2. Based on this entire record, we
`
`also discern no reason to modify our claim constructions at this juncture.
`
`For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:
`
`Means-plus-function claim
`elements with recited
`functions in italics
`
`Corresponding structures
`
`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 (claim 41)
`
`magnets—e.g., magnets 566a–d, 570a–d, 712,
`714 that generate a magnetic field as shown in
`Figures 7, 7A, and 10 of the ’779 patent. See
`Ex. 1301, 16:1–20 (“The magnets 566a–d,
`570a–d create a magnetic field 574 that
`substantially traps and accelerates electrons
`(not shown) in the chamber 554.”), 18:34–41,
`Figs. 7, 7A, 10.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Means-plus-function claim
`elements with recited
`functions in italics
`
`Corresponding structures
`
`means for generating a
`volume of metastable atoms
`from the volume of ground
`state atoms (claim 41)
`
`a metastable atom source—e.g., metastable
`atom sources 402, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650,
`700, 735 as shown in Figures 4–11 of the ’779
`patent. Ex. 1301, 14:24–26, 14:46–48, 15:46–
`67, 16:29–31, 17:27–34, 18:7–16, 19:11–12.
`
`means for 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
`multistep ionization process
`(claim 41)
`
`means for trapping electrons
`and ions in the volume of
`metastable atoms (claim 42)
`
`a power supply generating an electric field
`between a cathode assembly and an anode as
`shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ’779 patent.
`Ex. 1301, 8:39–5, 11:4–14.
`
`an electron ion/absorber—e.g., electron
`ion/absorbers 536, 618, 664, 728, 750, 750',
`and 750" shown in Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, and
`12A–12C of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1301,
`14:66–15:9, 16:56–62, 17:35–42, 18:42–67,
`19:56–20:32.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net
`
`MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). “A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
`
`own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”
`
`In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal citation and
`
`emphasis omitted). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only
`
`specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
`
`in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda,
`
`401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
`
`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).
`
`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 art”
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`in the context of the ’779 patent,7 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. Anticipation by Iwamura
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claim 46 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Iwamura. Pet. 42–53, 59–60. In support of this
`
`asserted ground of unpatentability, GlobalFoundries provides detailed
`
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is described by Iwamura. Id.
`
`GlobalFoundries also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1302)
`
`to support its Petition, and a Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen
`
`(Ex. 1315) to support its Reply to Zond’s Response.
`
`In its Response, Zond counters that Iwamura does not disclose all of
`
`the claim limitations set forth in claim 46. PO Resp. 43–52, 59. As support,
`
`Zond directs our attention to a Declaration of Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`
`
`7 “[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.
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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. 1307, Abs., 6:67–7:8. Figure 1 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma 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
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26. Ex. 1307, 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.
`
`Generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process
`
`Claim 46 recites “generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization
`
`process” in the preamble, 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” in the body of the
`
`claim. Ex. 1301, 26:5–6, 26:12–16 (emphases added).
`
`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 the term’s ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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. 45–53, 59–60. As 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 the ground state atoms. Id.; Ex. 1307,
`
`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. 1307, 8:32–46, 9:8–12,
`
`Figs. 1, 2.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit does not
`
`ionize excited or metastable atoms because “the atoms are already ionized
`
`before they enter the chamber.” PO Resp. 50–52. As support,
`
`Dr. Hartsough testifies that “the atoms entering Iwamura’s chamber are not
`
`excited or metastable, but rather activated (i.e., ionized to a plasma).” Id.;
`
`Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 165–68 (emphasis added).
`
`Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are
`
`predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited
`
`or metastable atom, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation
`
`unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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. 1307, 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
`
`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. 1317,
`
`42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1315 ¶¶ 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
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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. 1302 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17. Furthermore, the Specification of
`
`the ’779 patent discloses that a plasma includes charged particles, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms. Ex. 1301, 8:43–48. More importantly, as the
`
`Specification explains, a volume of excited or metastable atoms is generated
`
`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 13:34–14:23 (“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
`
`describes “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,” as recited in claim 46.
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Generating excited or metastable atoms
`
`Claim 46 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from a
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” Ex. 1301, 26:8–9. In its Petition,
`
`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 required
`
`by claim 46. Pet. 45–48, 60.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, and not excited or metastable atoms. PO Resp. 43–47. 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 ¶ 154.
`
`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. 1302 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17;
`
`Ex. 1301, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that the
`
`gas reaching the second plasma generation unit “is not yet fully ionized.”
`
`Ex. 1307, 2:34–38 (emphasis added).
`
`We also are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that GlobalFoundries
`
`“alleged that Iwamura teaches the generation of excited atoms, instead of the
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`metastable atoms,” as recited in claim 46. PO Resp. 44 (emphases added).
`
`According to the Specification of the ’779 patent, all excited noble gases
`
`have metastable states. Ex. 1301, 7:37–47. GlobalFoundries specifically
`
`points out that Iwamura’s feed gas includes helium or argon, both of which
`
`are noble gases, and states that “the metastable atom density will often
`
`constitute a significant fraction of the total excited atom density.” Pet. 47–
`
`48 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 136; Ex. 1307, 7:48–50). Indeed, Iwamura’s gas
`
`supply introduces helium or argon into the pre-excitation unit and the first
`
`plasma generation unit. Ex. 1307, 7:48–50 (“[A]n inert gas such as helium
`
`or argon is introduced through gas supply 20 to replace the air in treatment
`
`chamber 10.”), Fig. 1. Iwamura discloses that the pre-excitation unit raises
`
`the excitation level of the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms,
`
`using either an ultraviolet lamp or a magnetron. Id. at 7:55–60, 9:38–53.
`
`Iwamura also discloses that the first plasma unit pre-activates the gas by
`
`exciting the gas to a high excitation level. Id. at 2:31–41, 2:56–58.
`
`According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon atoms means also
`
`generating metastable atoms because, when generating excited arg

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