DOCKET NO.: 52055.2
`Filed on behalf of: Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`America, Inc.
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`Richard C. Kim, Reg. No. 40,046
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED AND
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC..
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR _____
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 19-24
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ - 1 - 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... - 1 - 
`B.  Related Matters ......................................................................................... - 1 - 
`C.  Counsel ..................................................................................................... - 1 - 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. - 2 - 
`II.  Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... - 2 - 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 - 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................... - 3 - 
`B.  Grounds for Challenge ............................................................................. - 4 - 
`IV.  Brief Description of Technology ................................................................. - 4 - 
`A.  Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 4 - 
`B. 
`Ions and Excited Atoms ........................................................................... - 6 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘716 Patent ......................................................................... - 7 - 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent .................................. - 7 - 
`B.  Prosecution History .................................................................................. - 7 - 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... - 8 - 
`A.  Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................... - 8 - 
`B.  Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 9 - 
`C.  Overview of Kudryavtsev ...................................................................... - 11 - 
`D.  Overview of Wang ................................................................................. - 12 - 
`VII.  Claim Construction ................................................................................. - 13 - 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................... - 14 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 15 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 22-24 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ............................................................................... - 16 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin
`and Kudryavtsev ......................................................................................... - 16 - 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`2.  Dependent claims 22-24 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ........................................................................... - 28 - 
`B.  Ground II: Claims 19 and 20 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of
`Kudryavtsev and Lantsman ............................................................................. - 29 - 
`C.  Ground III: Claim 21 is obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev and
`Mozgrin Thesis ............................................................................................... - 37 - 
`D.  Ground IV: Claim 21 is obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev .. - 39 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev ................................................................................................ - 39 - 
`2.  Dependent claim 21 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev ................................................................................................ - 47 - 
`E.  Ground V: Claims 19 and 20 are obvious over Wang in view of
`Kudryavtsev and Lantsman ............................................................................. - 48 - 
`F.  Ground VI: Claims 22-24 are obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev
`and Mozgrin .................................................................................................... - 53 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 57 - 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest (“Petitioner”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 (“’716 Patent”) (Ex. 1301)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette,
`
`Co.). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related1 to the ’716 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘716 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 27, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00523. Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`C. Counsel
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David M. O’Dell
`
`
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`
`
`
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`
`
`
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone: 972-739-8635
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 19-24 of the ’716 Patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 2
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1303)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1304)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`3.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. 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. 1305)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1306)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`5. 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” (Ex. 1307)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2 The ‘716 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Exhibit 1307 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1308. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1309.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 19-24 of the ’716 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1302))3 filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`patentable.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1302). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`
`3 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1302 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00523, discussed
`
`above.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 19-24 of the ‘716
`
`Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘716 Patent in
`
`separate petitions.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`21 (Ex. 1302).5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). 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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`
`5 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21, FN 1 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1302). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1302). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state,
`
`the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1302).
`
`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.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at 9:7 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1302). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equations
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or
`
`an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘716 Patent at 2:65 and 9:9 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1302).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘716 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent
`The ‘716 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a electrical pulse
`
`in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28
`
`(Ex. 1302).
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘716 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1302). The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`claimed to reduce the probability of forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘716 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/065,629 (now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142) (Ex. 1310). See ‘716 Patent at Certificate of Correction
`
`(Ex. 1301).
`
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1311). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “substantially eliminating the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” and
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” or similar
`
`limitations. See 09/24/08 Resp. (Ex. 1312).
`
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of
`
`Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance. 06/11/09 Allowance at 2 (“The closest prior art of record Kouznetsov
`
`WO 98/40532 fails to teach the claimed elements including ‘substantially
`
`eliminating the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber’ and ‘without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber.”) (Ex. 1313). However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. PAATENT 7,6044,716
`
`
`
`Pettition for Inteer Partes Reeview
`AAs explaineed in detaill below, limmitation-byy-limitatio
`n, there is
`
`nothing neew
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or non-oobvious in
`
`
`
`(Ex. 13002).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the challenged claimms of the ‘7716 Patent
`
`
`
`. Kortshaggen Decl. ¶¶ 34
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Overrview of MMozgrin6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin teaaches formming a plasmma “withoout formingg an arc disscharge.”
`
`B M
`
`
`
`Kortshaagen Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1302). Figg. 7 of Mozzgrin, copiied below,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shows thee
`
`
`
`current--voltage chharacteristiic (“CVC”)) of a plasmma discharrge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`402, right
`
`
`
`col, ¶ 2 (““Part
`
`
`
`As showwn, Mozgrrin divides this CVC into four ddistinct reggions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MMozgrin caalls region 1 “pre-ioniization.” MMozgrin at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 in the voltage osscillogram representss the voltagge of the sttationary ddischarge (ppre-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionizatiion stage).”” (emphasiis added)) (Ex. 1303)). Kortshaagen Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Mozgrrin is art off record, buut was not substantivvely applieed during pprosecutionn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1302). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the
`
`transition from region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin teaches
`
`that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2
`
`was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1303). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1302). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3
`
`is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 40 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1302). Further
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`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. 1305). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302). In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how
`
`ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1302). The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1305). See
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302). The second process is multi-step
`
`ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at
`
`Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1305). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1305).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302). 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
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1303). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘716 Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang7
`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. 1304). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302). Fig. 6 (annotated and
`
`reproduced below) shows a graph of the power Wang applies to the plasma.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302). 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. 1304); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302). 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. 1304). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and
`
`7 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302).
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.8 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`
`8 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1302). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘716 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 strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304. ‘716 Patent at 11:24-30; 11:66-12:6 (Ex. 1301). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1302). The ‘716 Patent also provides exemplary
`
`densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘716 Patent at
`
`claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is 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. 1314).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1302), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 19-24 of the ’716 Patent, and how
`
`those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground I: Claims 22-24 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev9
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 22-24
`
`are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1322 (Ex. 1322). Dr. Kortshagen reviewed that chart and agrees
`
`with it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1302).
`
`1.
`Independent claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`a)
`Claim 14 begins, “[a] method for generating a strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The preamble
`
` As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of
`
`devices: a planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow
`
`electrodes.” Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1303). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1302). The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are
`
`summarized below.
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.10
`
`
`9 Petitioner establishes invalidity of claim 14 in another petition. Claim 14 is
`
`addressed herein for the purpose of demonstrating invalidity of claims that depend
`
`from claim 14.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.11
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015 cm-3.12
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1302). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716
`
`Patent at claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`55 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55
`
`(Ex. 1302).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`(1)
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`
`10 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density
`
`in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1303).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1303).
`
`12 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni  1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1303).
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘716 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘716 Patent at 5:14-15 (“The weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1302). 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 oscillograms.… Part 1 in the voltage
`
`oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization
`
`stage).”) (Ex. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent
`
`at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1301); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2
`
`(“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; … provided the
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1303) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”) (emphasis added); 402, ¶
`
`spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges
`
`of discharge current…and operating pressure…using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6,
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”) (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma was generated between the anode
`
`and cathode, both of which reside within a chamber. See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`59 (Ex. 1302). For example, Mozgrin states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume
`
`was pumped out; minimal residual gas pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.” Mozgrin
`
`at 401, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1303). That is, Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a
`
`desired pressure within the chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex. 1303).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1302).
`
`(2)
`“that substantially eliminates the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`col, ¶3 (Ex. 1303). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1301) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1315) name the same
`
`inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in
`
`related litigation identified in Section I.B. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent,
`
`the Patent Owner argued tha