Paper 9
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45, and 46 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (“the ’779 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of TSMC’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail
`
`in challenging claim 46 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), and claims
`
`16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to be instituted
`
`as to claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45, and 46 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`TSMC indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu Corp., No. 1:13-
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. TSMC also identifies other Petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to the instant proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`B. The ’779 patent
`
`The ’779 patent relates to a method and a system for generating a
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process. Ex. 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 (e.g., ground state argon atoms) to metastable atom
`
`source 204 that generates excited or metastable atoms 218 from ground state
`
`atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma 202 is generated from the excited or
`
`metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at 5:25–34.
`
`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, TSMC is not challenging independent claims 1 and
`
`18 in the instant proceeding.1 Of the challenged claims, 41, 45, and 46 are
`
`the only independent claims. Claim 42 depends from claim 41.
`
`
`
`1 Independent claims 1 and 18 are being challenged in
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01073
`(Paper 2).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Claim 46 is illustrative:
`
`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
`
`TSMC 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, 400–409 (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. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`46
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Iwamura
`
`16, 28, 41, 42, 45 § 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley2
`
`41
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`16, 28, 42, 45, 46 § 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`
`
`
`2 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from the statement of this asserted ground
`of unpatentability, although included in the corresponding analysis. See
`Pet. 42, 44. Therefore, we treat the statement as harmless error and presume
`that TSMC 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`We construe the claim terms below in accordance with the above-
`
`stated principles.
`
`
`
`Claim Terms
`
`1. “excited atoms”
`
`Claim 16 depends from claim 1, which recites “the excited atom
`
`source generating excited atoms from the ground state atoms.” TSMC’s
`
`declarant, Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, testifies that “[i]f all of an atom’s electrons
`
`are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the ‘ground
`
`state,’” and that “if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an ‘excited
`
`atom.’” Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 24–25 (emphases added). In the context of the
`
`Specification, we therefore construe the claim term “excited atoms” broadly,
`
`but reasonably as “atoms that have one or more electrons in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state.”
`
`
`
`2. “metastable atoms”
`
`Claim 46 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” TSMC submits that the claim term
`
`“metastable atoms” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as
`
`“excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`theoretically forbidden.” Pet. 6 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1301, 7:22–
`
`25). We agree the term is defined in the Specification.
`
`In that regard, Dr. Kortshagen further explains that a “metastable atom
`
`is a type of excited atom that is relatively long-lived, because it cannot
`
`transition into the ground state through dipole radiation, i.e., through the
`
`emission of electromagnetic radiation.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1301,
`
`7:22–25). According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon atoms
`
`means also generating metastable atoms because, when generating excited
`
`argon atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed, and some of the
`
`lowest states are metastable. Id. (citing Exs. 1311–1312).3 The
`
`Specification also provides that all noble gases, including argon, have
`
`metastable states. Ex. 1301, 7:37–39.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “metastable
`
`atoms,” consistent with the Specification, as “excited atoms having energy
`
`levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden,” and observe
`
`that exciting noble gas atoms would generate metastable atoms.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. I: Formulation and Basic Data, 22 J.
`PHYS. D: APPL. PHYS. 623–631 (1989) (Ex. 1311).
`
`J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. II: Application to Low-Pressure, Hollow-
`Cathode Arc and Low-Pressure Glow Discharges, 22 J. PHYS. D: APPL.
`PHYS. 632–643 (1989) (Ex. 1312).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`3. “multi-step ionization process”
`
`
`
`Claim 46 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.”
`
`The parties indicate that the claim term “multi-step ionization
`
`process” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as “an ionization
`
`process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 19; Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1301, 6:60–63, Figs. 2, 3) (emphasis added by
`
`TSMC). Indeed, the Specification expressly provides:
`
`The term “multi-step ionization process” is defined herein to
`mean an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least
`two distinct steps. However, the term “multi-step ionization
`process” as defined herein may or may not include exciting
`ground state atoms to a metastable state. For example, one
`multi-step ionization process according to the present invention
`includes a first step where atoms are excited from a ground
`state to a metastable state and a second step where atoms in the
`metastable state are ionized. Another multi-step ionization
`process according to the present invention includes a first step
`where atoms are excited from a ground state to an excited state
`and a second step where atoms in the excited state are ionized.
`The
`term “multi-step
`ionization process” also
`includes
`ionization processes with three or more steps.
`
`Ex. 1301, 6:60–7:9 (emphases added).
`
`We observe that the Specification sets forth a definition for the claim
`
`term “multi-step ionization” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Further, that definition is
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. As such, in the context of
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the claimed subject matter, we construe the claim term “multi-step
`
`ionization” as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`
`TSMC identifies four claim elements recited in claims 41 and 42 as
`
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.4 Pet. 17–19.
`
`Zond did not proffer any claim constructions as to those elements. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 18–19. We agree with TSMC that those claim elements are written in
`
`means-plus-function form and fall under 35 U.S.C. § 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. Personalized Media Commc’ns LLC v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim element using the
`
`term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended
`
`to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.); Sage Prods., Inc. 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.).
`
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`
`
`4 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (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 patent has a filing date before September
`16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`We have reviewed TSMC’s proposed claim constructions (Pet. 17–
`
`19) and the Specification of the ’779 patent. On the present record, we agree
`
`with TSMC that the corresponding structures for the means-plus-function
`
`elements identified by TSMC are as follows:
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Recited functions in italics Corresponding structures
`
`means for generating a
`volume of metastable atoms
`from the volume of ground
`state atoms (claim 41)
`
`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 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.
`
`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. Pet. 19;
`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
`
`such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`C. Claim 46—Anticipation by Iwamura
`
`TSMC asserts that claim 46 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`as anticipated by Iwamura. Pet. 59–60; see also id. at 42–53. In support of
`
`that asserted ground of unpatentability, TSMC provides detailed
`
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is described by Iwamura. Id.
`
`TSMC also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1302) to support
`
`its contentions. Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that Iwamura does not
`
`disclose all of the claim limitations set forth in claim 46. Prelim. Resp. 52–
`
`53. In particular, Zond argues that Iwamura does not disclose: (1) “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;” or (2) “trapping electrons and ions in the volume of
`
`metastable atoms.” Id. at 53.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence presented in the instant record, we determine that TSMC
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claim 46 is anticipated by Iwamura. Our discussion focuses on the
`
`deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`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 9 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Pre-excitation unit (not shown)
`
`First plasma generation unit,
`including ion capture electrode 80
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 9 of Iwamura, a first plasma generation unit is
`
`located downstream from a pre-excitation unit along the flow path of the
`
`gas, and the first plasma generation unit includes lower ion capture
`
`electrode 80, which is formed from a wire grid or perforated metal sheet. Id.
`
`at 11:51–55. The pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit pre-
`
`activate the gas, raising the excitation level of the ground state atoms and
`
`generating a volume of metastable atoms. Id. at 2:34–39, 2:56–58. Ion
`
`capture electrode 80 is connected to ground potential so as to trap electrons
`
`and ions in the volume of metastable atoms. Id. The second plasma
`
`generation unit, which includes electrodes 30, activates the gas to generate
`
`plasma. Id. at 2:59–61, 8:4–9, 8:32–46.
`
`According to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the gas is raised
`
`first, a uniform and stable plasma can be generated. Id. at 2:39–41 (“[T]he
`
`generation of a plasma and formulation of activated gas species in the
`
`downstream region is made easier and more uniform and stable.”), 8:32–37.
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 2:46–50,
`
`8:41–46.
`
`
`
`Generating metastable atoms
`
`Claim 46 recites “generating a volume of metastable atoms from a
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” In its Petition, TSMC asserts that
`
`Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit, the first plasma generation unit, or the
`
`combination of the pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit,
`
`describes a metastable atom source for generating metastable atoms from
`
`ground state atoms. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 131–142, 168); see id. at 45–
`
`48. At this stage of the proceeding, Zond does not challenge that assertion.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 52–53.
`
`Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with TSMC. As
`
`discussed previously, we adopted the definition set forth in the Specification
`
`of the ’779 patent as the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim
`
`term “metastable atoms”—namely, “excited atoms having energy levels -
`
`from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.” Ex. 1301, 7:22–24
`
`(emphasis added). According to the Specification, all noble gases have
`
`metastable states. Ex. 1301, 7:37.
`
`As noted by TSMC, Iwamura’s gas supply 20 introduces a gas, such
`
`as helium or argon, into the pre-excitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1307, 7:48–50). Iwamura discloses
`
`that the pre-excitation unit raises the excitation level of the ground state
`
`atoms to generate excited atoms, using either an ultraviolet lamp or a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`magnetron, which radiates microwaves along the direction of the gas flow.
`
`Ex. 1307, 7:55–60, 9:38–53. Iwamura also discloses that the first plasma
`
`unit pre-activates the gas by exciting the gas to a high excitation level. Id. at
`
`2:31–41, 2:56–58.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen testifies a “metastable atom is a type of excited atom
`
`that is relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state
`
`through dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic
`
`radiation.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 25 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1301, 7:22–25).
`
`Indeed, the Specification notes that “[m]etastable atoms have relatively long
`
`lifetimes compared with other excited atoms,” and “in practice, there is a
`
`finite probability that the metastable atoms relax to the ground state and emit
`
`dipole radiation.” Ex. 1301, 7:24–32.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen explains that both helium and argon are noble gases.
`
`Ex. 1302 ¶ 136. According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon
`
`atoms means also generating metastable atoms because, when generating
`
`excited argon atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed, and some
`
`of the lowest states of excited argon atoms are metastable. Ex. 1302 ¶ 25
`
`(citing Exs. 1311–1312). Dr. Kortshagen testifies that it has been shown that
`
`the four lowest excited states of excited argon atoms have at least 100 times
`
`higher density than the next higher excited states. Id. On this record, we are
`
`persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would have recognized that exciting ground state argon atoms would
`
`generate excited argon atoms, including metastable atoms—excited argon
`
`atoms having two of the four lowest excited levels (levels with n=2 and n=4)
`
`from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that TSMC has
`
`established adequately that Iwamura describes “generating a volume of
`
`metastable atoms from a volume of ground state atoms,” as recited in
`
`claim 46.
`
`
`
`Ionizing metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process
`
`Claim 46 recites “raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.” TSMC maintains
`
`that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit, which includes electrodes
`
`coupled to a high-frequency power supply, provides energy to the metastable
`
`atoms and generates a plasma within the chamber. Pet. 59–60 (citing
`
`Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 125, 143–149, 169, 170); id. at 50–53. According to TSMC,
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma device that utilizes a multi-step ionization
`
`process in which a pre-excitation unit is used to excite the ground state gas
`
`into a metastable state, and a second plasma generation unit is used to ionize
`
`the metastable atoms, in two distinct steps. Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1302
`
`¶ 149).
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura does not describe the “ionization” and
`
`“multi-step ionization process” claim features. Prelim. Resp. 39–42.
`
`Specifically, Zond alleges that those claim features require more than pre-
`
`exciting the gas and activating the gas, and “Iwamura makes no mention of
`
`ionization.” Id. at 43, 45.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. Anticipation does not
`
`require the prior art reference to use the same terminology as the claims. In
`
`re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The Specification of the ’779 patent indicates that “plasma is a
`
`collection of charged particles that move in random directions.” Ex. 1301,
`
`1:7–9 (emphases added). As discussed above, the Specification of the ’779
`
`patent defines the claim term “multi-step ionization process” as “an
`
`ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”
`
`Id. at 6:60–7:9 (emphases added). The Specification also provides that a
`
`multi-step ionization process includes: (1) a first step where atoms are
`
`excited from a ground state to an excited state; and (2) a second step where
`
`atoms in the excited state are ionized, generating ions from the excited
`
`atoms. Id. The term “ionization” ordinarily is understood as a “process by
`
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`
`positive ion” (emphasis added).5
`
`As TSMC indicates in its Petition, Iwamura discloses a plasma
`
`treatment apparatus that generates a plasma with a multi-step ionization
`
`process. Pet. 50–53 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 144, 147, 149). For the first step,
`
`
`
`5 See THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 589
`(7th ed.) (2000) (Ex. 3001) (defining “ionization” as “(B) The process by
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`positive ion. Ionization is a special case of charging.”).
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit or first plasma generation unit raises the
`
`excitation level of the argon gas—i.e., generating metastable atoms from
`
`ground state argon atoms—using microwaves or ultraviolet radiation that
`
`causes photoionization. Ex. 1307, 7:55–60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. For the
`
`second step, Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit generates a plasma,
`
`which includes a collection of ions and free electrons, by using a pair of
`
`electrodes coupled to a high-frequency power supply. Id. at 7:61–63, 8:32–
`
`46, Figs. 1, 2. Therefore, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have recognized that the electrodes and power supply generate the
`
`ions and free electrons by ionizing the metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated sufficiently that Iwamura describes the “ionization” and
`
`“multi-step ionization process” claim features—“raising an energy of the
`
`metastable atoms so that at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms
`
`is ionized, thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process,”
`
`as recited in claim 46.
`
`
`
`Trapping electrons and ions
`
`Claim 46 recites “trapping electrons and ions in the volume of
`
`metastable atoms.” TSMC takes the position that Iwamura describes this
`
`limitation because Iwamura’s ion capture electrode captures electrons and
`
`ions in the volume of metastable atoms. Pet. 32–33, 58–60 (citing Ex. 1307,
`
`11:52–55). Zond disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 53.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded that the evidence sufficiently
`
`substantiates TSMC’s position. Zond does not provide any specific
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`explanation as to why Iwamura’s ion capture electrode cannot trap electrons
`
`and ions. Id. Indeed, Iwamura discloses that a first plasma generation unit
`
`includes an ion capture electrode to capture charged particles, such as
`
`electrons and ions. Ex. 1307, 11:52–55. As shown in Figure 9 of Iwamura,
`
`a first plasma generation unit is located along the flow path of the gas inside
`
`the chamber. The first plasma generation unit includes an upper electrode
`
`and lower ion capture electrode 80, which is formed from a wire grid or
`
`perforated metal sheet. Id. at 11:51–55. As discussed previously, the pre-
`
`excitation unit and first plasma generation unit pre-activate the gas, raising
`
`the excitation level of the ground state argon atoms and generating a volume
`
`of metastable atoms. Id. at 2:34–39, 2:56–58. Ion capture electrode 80 is
`
`connected to ground potential so as to trap electrons and ions in the volume
`
`of metastable atoms. Id. at 11:52–55.
`
`Given the technical disclosure of Iwamura, we determine that TSMC
`
`has demonstrated adequately that Iwamura discloses “trapping electrons and
`
`ions in the volume of metastable atoms,” as recited in claim 46.
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that TSMC has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 46 is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Iwamura.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00829
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`D. Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45—Obviousness over Iwamura,
`Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`TSMC asserts that claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Iwamura,
`
`Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Pet. 42–59. In support of the asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability, TSMC provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`
`limitation is met by the combination of the references and rationales for
`
`combining the references. Id. TSMC also directs our attention to
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s Declaration (Ex. 1302) to support its contentions. Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond responds that the combination of
`
`cited prior art references does not disclose every claim limitation. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 39–46. Spec
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
