throbber
Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00272US3
`’759 PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,147,759, CLAIMS 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED: SEP. 30, 2002
`
` ISSUED: DEC. 12, 2006
`
`TITLE: HIGH-POWER PULSED MAGNETRON SPUTTERING
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`1
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202
`TSMC v. Zond, Inc.
`Page 1 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`industry.
`
`
`
`2
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 2 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, and claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759 (the “‘759 patent”) (Ex. 1201). I understand that the ’759
`
`patent was filed on September 30, 2002. I understand that, for purposes
`
`determining whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the
`
`’759 patent could be entitled to is September 30, 2002.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
` 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. 1203)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev and Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys.
`
`28(1), pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1204)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1205)).
`
` D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at
`
`Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis”
`
`3
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 3 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`(Ex. 1217)). The certified English translation, original Mozgrin
`
`Thesis, and affidavit as to its public availability are attached hereto
`
`as Exhibits 1217-19, respectively.
`
` Li et al, Low-temperature magnetron sputter-deposition, hardness,
`
`and electrical resistivity of amorphous and crystalline alumina thin
`
`films, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 18(5), pp. 2333-2338, 2000 (“Li”
`
`(Ex. 1220)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,247,531 (“Muller-Horsche” (Ex. 1221)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,968,327 (“Kobayashi” (Ex. 1222)).
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘759 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘759 patent would have found
`
`the ‘759 invalid.
`
`
`
`4
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 4 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’759 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’759 patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`14.
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`
`
`5
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 5 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was
`
`filed;
`
`6
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 6 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would
`
`yield predictable results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`
`
`7
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 7 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason
`
`to combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to
`
`make the modification or combination of elements claimed in the
`
`patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been
`
`used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`21. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are present in
`
`roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no overall electrical
`
`
`
`8
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 8 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.1
`
`22.
`
` Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘759 patent was filed. For example, sputtering is an industrial
`
`process that uses plasma to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a surface
`
`called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing
`
`operation). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`23. Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of droplets from the
`
`target that can splatter on the substrate. The need to avoid arcing while sputtering
`
`was known long before the ‘759 patent was filed.
`
`
` 1
`
` The term “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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 9 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`B.
`Ions and excited atoms
`24. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`25. 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.” Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal numbers of
`
`electrons and protons. A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground
`
`state atom to an excited atom. For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state
`
`argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`26. 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
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘759 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 ‘759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex.
`
`1201).
`
`
`
`10
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 10 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`27. The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the ‘759 patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent
`28. The ’759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a
`
`so called strongly-ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing.
`
`29. More specifically, the claims of the ’759 Patent are directed to an
`
`ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. A
`
`power supply then applies a specific, high-voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi-
`
`step ionization process” in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state
`
`before becoming ionized. The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc discharge.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 11 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`1.
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`reference
`
`30.
`
`I understand that during prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that
`
`Mozgrin failed to teach the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation.
`
`However, that assertion is incorrect. Mozgrin teaches all limitations of the
`
`challenged claims – including “without forming an arc discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`discusses arcs but does so in the context of providing a recipe for avoiding them.
`
`2.
`Addition of the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`allowance
`
`31.
`
`I understand that before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to
`
`require “without forming an arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three
`
`separate times, that other limitations such as “multi-step ionization” made the
`
`claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04 Resp at 12 (Ex. 1207); 02/24/05 Resp at
`
`15 (Ex. 1209); and 10/27/05 RCE at 14 (Ex. 1211). I further understand that the
`
`Examiner was not persuaded by those arguments, correctly noted that Mozgrin
`
`teaches multi-step ionization, and consistently rejected the claims over Mozgrin
`
`even after they had been amended to require “multi-step ionization.” 01/11/06
`
`Office Action at 12 (“…Mozgrin does teach a power supply that generates a pulse
`
`
`
`12
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 12 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`that allows the plasma to go through a multi-step ionization.”) (Ex. 1212). See also
`
`08/30/04 Office Action (Ex. 1208) and 05/27/05 Office Action (Ex. 1210).
`
`32.
`
`I understand that in an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the
`
`Patent Owner repeated its previously unsuccessful multi-step ionization argument,
`
`the only substantive difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” and the argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation.
`
`05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1213). I further understand that after that
`
`amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed the challenged claims. 2
`
`10/11/2006 Allowance at 2-3 (Ex. 1215).
`
`33. However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Patent Owner’s argument, Mozgrin provides a recipe for avoiding arcing.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` After “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the claims, I understand
`
`that the only remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal
`
`disclaimer. 08/28/2006 Response at 2-3 (Ex. 1214).
`
`
`
`13
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 13 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the prior art
`34. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘759 Patent.
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin3
`35. Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.”
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`36. Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` As noted in the prosecution history section, the Patent Office used Mozgrin to
`
`reject claims that eventually issued in the’759 Patent.
`
`14
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 14 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`
`37. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`38. 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. 1203).
`
`39. 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. 1203). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. 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. 1203).
`
`40. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (Ex. 1203).
`
`
`
`15
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 15 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. 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. 1203).
`
`41. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…” (Ex.
`
`1203). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.4
`
`
`
` 4
`
` As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillogram shown in Mozgrin’s
`
`Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to region 3 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7,
`
`i.e., Fig 3 represents currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in region
`
`3. Further, as one of ordinary skill would understand, an oscillogram
`
`corresponding to region 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., stable operation in
`
`region 2) would have a different shape, e.g., the voltage would not drop as low as
`
`shown in Fig. 3b and the current would be lower than what is shown in Fig. 3a.
`
`
`
`16
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 16 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`42. Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`43. As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily
`
`applied, and current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the
`
`arc discharge (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma
`
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching).
`
`44. Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including
`
`the arc discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s
`
`discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s
`
`explanation of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for
`
`avoiding arcs. Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be avoided. See Mozgrin at
`
`400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron systems of various geometry
`
`showed that discharge regimes which do not transit to arcs can be obtained even at
`
`high currents.”) (Ex. 1203). One of ordinary skill would understand that the arc
`
`discharge region should be avoided during an industrial application, such as
`
`sputtering. For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm
`
`(“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`
`
`17
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 17 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`1989, over a decade before the ‘759 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a
`
`problem…” Manos at 231 (Ex. 1206).
`
`45. One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc
`
`region can be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See,
`
`e.g., Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents
`
`caused the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`parameters of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the
`
`condition of its transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given
`
`set of the discharge parameters.”); and 406, right col, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-
`
`ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge
`
`transferring to the arc mode increased.”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`46. Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc
`
`regime is useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to avoid arcs.
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`47. Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a
`
`plasma with voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1204).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`
`
`18
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 18 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1204). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204).
`
`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. 1203).
`
`48. Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’759
`
`Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang5
`49. Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode
`
`(24), a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in
`
`Fig. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1205). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of
`
`
` 5
`
` Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`19
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 19 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`the power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by
`
`the DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1205). Wang’s
`
`lower power level, PB, maintains the plasma after ignition and application of the
`
`higher power level, PP, raises the density of the plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The
`
`background power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to
`
`support a plasma... [T]he application of the high peak power, PP, quickly causes
`
`the already existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”)
`
`(Ex. 1205). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`50.
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`20
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 20 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`51. The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.”
`
`52. These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. With reference to Fig.
`
`4, the ‘759 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma between times t1 and
`
`t2 by application of the low power 302 and then goes on to describe forming a
`
`
`
`21
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 21 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 304. ‘759 Patent at 10:22-
`
`29; 10:66-11:4 (Ex. 1201). The ‘759 Patent also provides exemplary densities for
`
`the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘759 Patent at claim 32
`
`(“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about
`
`1012 cm˗3”); claim 33 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1201).
`
`53. Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
`
` “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`
`54. The constructions proposed above are consistent with the position the
`
`Patent Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner,
`
`when faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1224).
`
`
`
`22
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 22 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`B.
`“multi-step ionization process”
`55. A multi-step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps:
`
`(a) convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and
`
`(b) convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ‘759 Patent and its file
`
`history clearly describe this aspect of a “multi-step ionization process”: “[T]he
`
`term ‘multi-step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an
`
`ionization process that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition
`
`from the ground state to at least one intermediate excited state before being fully
`
`ionized.” See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1213). See also ‘759 patent at 9:37-51
`
`(Ex. 1201).
`
`56. Also, during prosecution the Patent Owner argued that multi-step
`
`ionization processes must produce a statistically significant amount of ions by this
`
`two-step process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1209) (“However, the Applicant
`
`submits that the ions in the [prior art] pre-ionized plasma are generated by
`
`direction ionization and any ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization
`
`process will be statistically insignificant.”). See also, e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13,
`
`14, 16, 17 (Ex. 1209); and 10/27/05 Resp. at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1211).
`
`
`
`23
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 23 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`57. Therefore, I have used the following construction: “multi-step
`
`ionization process” means “an ionization process in which a statistically significant
`
`portion of the ions are produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and
`
`then ionizing the excited atoms or molecules.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`58. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47 and 49 of the ’759
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`59.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1225-1234), showing
`
`that each limitation in the foregoing claims is taught in the art. I understand these
`
`claim charts were submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner. Those charts present in summary form the analysis below and I
`
`agree with them.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 20 and 34 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`60.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1225), showing that
`
`claims 20 and 34 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`24
`
`
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 24 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev. I understand this claim chart was submitted in an ongoing litigation
`
`involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner. This chart presents in summary
`
`form the analysis below and I agree with it.
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20
`a)
`The preamble
`61. The preamble of claim 20 reads, “A method of generating sputtering
`
`flux.” “Flux” refers to material that is sputtered from the target. Mozgrin
`
`discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2 was
`
`characterized by intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1203). Mozgrin therefore
`
`teaches the preamble of claim 20.
`
`b)
`Limitation (a)
`62. Limitation (a) of claim 20 reads, “ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the sputtering target.”
`
`63. The ‘759 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-
`
`ionized plasma” synonymously. ‘759 Patent at 6:30-32 (“The weakly-ionized
`
`plasma is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1201). Mozgrin’s power
`
`supply (shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1.
`
`Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current
`
`
`
`25
`
`TSMC-1202 / Page 25 of 74
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`
`‘759 Patent, Claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49
`
`
`
`oscillograms.… Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the
`
`stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1203). Also, the Patent Owner
`
`admitted that Mozgrin discloses a pre-ionized (i.e., a weakly-ionized) plasma. See,
`
`e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 16, ¶ 2 (“[Mozgrin’s] pre-ionization stage is generated using
`
`a high-voltage power supply unit…. However, the Applicant submits that the ions
`
`in the pre-ionized plasma are generated by direct ionization...”) (Ex. 1209).
`
`64. Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘759 Patent. ‘759 Patent
`
`at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1201); Mozgrin at 401, right c

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