Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED AND
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00849
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................5
`
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems ......................................................................5
`
`B. The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Plasma Source. .....................7
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................15
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................15
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized Plasma” ...........15
`
`B. Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber” ................................................17
`
`C. Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially Eliminates the
`Probability of Developing an Electrical Breakdown Condition in the
`Chamber” ....................................................................................................................18
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................20
`
`A. Defects in All Grounds: The Petition Violates Page Restrictions by
`Incorporating Over 70 Pages of Claim Charts. ..................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Defects Common to Grounds I - III: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate
`That Parent Claim 14 is Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with
`Kudryavtsev ..........................................................................................................22
`
`1. Overview of Independent Claim 14. ..................................................................22
`
`2. Legal Standards for Comparison of the Claim to the Prior Art. .....................24
`
`3. Scope and Content of Prior Art. .........................................................................25
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin ...............................................................................26
`
`Overview of Kudravtsev ..........................................................................27
`
`4. Differences Between Claim 14 and the Prior Art. .............................................31
`
`a.
`
`Differences Between Mozgrin and Claim 14 .........................................31
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Petitioner Failed to Prove Inherency ......................................................34
`
`Incompatibilities of Kudravtsev and Mozgrin .......................................36
`
`Differences Between Claim 14 and Kudravtsev ....................................39
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................39
`
`C.
`
`Defects Common to Grounds IV - VI: Petitioner Failed To
`Demonstrate That Parent Claim 14 is Obvious In view of Wang
`Combined with Kudryavtsev ...............................................................................40
`
`1. Overview of Wang. .............................................................................................40
`
`2. Differences Between Wang and the Claims......................................................42
`
`3. Differences Petitioner Failed To Prove Wang Inherently Implements
`the Claimed Type of Ionization. ...................................................................44
`
`4. Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Prevailing on Grounds IV – VI Because They Fail to shown that
`Claim 14 is Obvious in View of Wang Combined With
`Kudryavtsev. ...................................................................................................46
`
`D.
`
`Defect In Grounds II: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims
`19, 20 are Obvious In view of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev Combined
`With Lantsman .....................................................................................................46
`
`1. Overview of the Claim Features at Issue. .........................................................46
`
`2. Differences Between Mozgrin and Claims 19, 20 ............................................51
`
`3. Overview of Lantsman .......................................................................................52
`
`4. Differences Between Lantsman and Claims 19, 20 ..........................................54
`
`5. Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claims 19 and 20 are Obvious in View of Mozgrin Combined With
`Lantsman. .......................................................................................................56
`
`E.
`
`Defect In Ground V: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims
`19, 20 are Obvious In view of Wang and Kudryavtsev Combined With
`Lantsman ..............................................................................................................57
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion for joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IPR no. IPR2014-00523 in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same export declarant.”
`
`Accordingly, based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes
`
`review on the same basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no. IPR-
`
`2014-00523, which is reproduced below:
`
`The present petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`(“the ‘716 patent”) is the last of four petitions filed by Intel challenging the
`
`‘716 patent. This petition challenges six claims (19 – 24) that depend from
`
`independent claim 14, which Intel challenges in a separate petition number
`
`IPR2014-00522. Since the claims challenged here (19 – 24) all incorporate the
`
`limitations of parent claim 14, the Petition reiterates the same arguments
`
`asserted against claim 14 in the related IPR2014-00522. Since this Petition
`
`offers no new art or evidence against the elements of claim 14, the Petition
`
`should be denied on the basis of our response to IPR2014-00522, which we
`
`largely reproduce in this response.
`
`In short, parent claim 14 requires, inter alia, a multi-stage ionization
`
`process in which neutral atoms in a weakly ionized gas are first excited from
`
`the ground state before being ionized to form a strongly ionized plasma, all
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition. This is in contrast to a
`
`more conventional ionization process in which atoms are ionized directly from
`
`the ground state, without first achieving an excited state.
`
`The Petition challenges parent claim 14 based on two prior art
`
`references, Mozgrin1 and Wang,2 that were already considered by the Patent
`
`Office, combined with a prior art patent by Kudryavtsev.3 Niether Mozgrin
`
`nor Wang discuss or even hint of such an ionization process. So the Petition
`
`cites to Kudryavtsev as alleged proof that Mozgrin and Wang inherently
`
`implement the claimed multi-stage ionization. But the Petition falls far short
`
`of proving such inherency. As we will explain below, Kudryavtsev predicts
`
`that his tubular electrode structure may or may not yield multi-stage ionization
`
`depending on a variety of conditions, namely, the gas pressure p, the radius R
`
`of the tubular electrode structure, the strength of the applied electric field E,
`
`and the density of ground state argon atoms, n1. Therefore Kudryavtsev does
`
`not prove that Mozgrin’s or Wang’s radically different electrode structures and
`
`
`1 Ex. 1303, Mozgrin.
`
`2 Ex. 1304, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`3 Ex. 1305, Kudryavtsev.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`operating conditions would inherently provide the claimed multi-stage
`
`ionization.
`
`For example, both Mozgrin and Wang use electrodes that are much
`
`more closely spaced than Kudryavtsev’s electrodes, and which were immersed
`
`in a magnetic field that can dramatically influence ion formation and ion
`
`density. Yet Kudryavtsev does not consider such a magnetic field in his
`
`mathematical model or in his experimental set up. Therefore, there is no
`
`indication in Kudryavtsev of how the presence of the magnetic field in
`
`Mozgrin and Wang would influence the type of ionization. Accordingly, the
`
`Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that parent claim 14 is
`
`unpatentable over the cited art, and therefore review of the challenged
`
`dependent claims should be categorically denied on this basis alone.
`
`With regard to dependent claims 19 and 20, the Petition repeats much of
`
`the same argument presented in IPR2014-521, wherein the Petitioner
`
`challenged related claims 12, 13. Claims 19 and 20 are directed to features
`
`similar to those recited in claims 12, 13 and therefore are patentable for the
`
`reasons we gave in response to IPR2014-521. In short, claims 19 and 20 are
`
`directed to the plasma generation method wherein a feed gas is supplied to a
`
`region where a strongly ionize plasma is formed, to thereby “transport the
`
`strongly ionized plasma by a rapid volume exchange.” But the Petition does
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`not, because it cannot, cite to any teaching in the cited references of the
`
`claimed gas flow for “transporting” the strongly ionized plasma by “a rapid
`
`volume exchange.” The Petition resorts to arguing that any gas exchange in a
`
`plasma chamber, no matter how slow and diffuse, and regardless of the
`
`location of the gas flux in the chamber relative to the location where the
`
`strongly ionized plasma is formed, will inherently “transport” the strongly
`
`ionized plasma by a “rapid volume exchange.” But the Petition cannot back
`
`this bald assertion with any teaching in the printed literature.
`
`The Petition also relies on six claim charts filed in violation of rules
`
`§42.24(a)(i) and §42.6. The claim charts total over seventy pages, thereby
`
`exceeding the page limitation when combined with the fifty-seven-page
`
`petition.4
`
`Lastly, the Petitioner once again tries to convince the Board that Zond
`
`misrepresented Mozgrin’s teachings during prosecution of Zond’s U.S. patent
`
`number 7,147,759 (“the ‘759 Patent”).5 A mere glance at the record reveals to
`
`the contrary: In the alleged misrepresentation, Zond argued that Mozgrin does
`
`
`4 Petition (57pages); Ex. 1322 (25 Pages), Ex. 1323 (10 Pages); Ex. 1324 (9
`
`pages); Ex. 1325 (15 pages); Ex. 1326 (7 pages); and Ex. 1327 (7 pages).
`
`5 Petition at p. 18, Ex. 1211, ‘759 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`not teach a process in which “ground state atoms” are excited to form “excited
`
`atoms,” and then the excited atoms are “ionizing without forming an arc.”6
`
`The Patent Owner thus argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an arc
`
`discharge during a particular multi-stage ionization process. In other words,
`
`the Petitioner mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner
`
`by truncating it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
` For all of the above reasons, the Petition should be denied because it
`
`does not precisely state the relief requested7 and fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is unpatentable.8
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems
`
`The claims at issue in this petition are all directed to a method for
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma. A “plasma” is a gaseous mixture of
`
`electrons, positive ions and neutral molecules that can be formed by applying
`
`a strong electric field to a gas.9 A simplified illustration of a plasma formed
`
`
`6 Ex. 1212, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`7 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`8 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`9 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 1, lines 8 - 15.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`between a pair of electrodes 238, 216 is shown below in figure 2B of the ‘716
`
`patent:10
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`A plasma is on average electrically neutral because there are approximately as
`
`many negative electrons in the plasma as positive ions. However, the density
`
`of charged particles can vary greatly depending on the strength of the applied
`
`electric field and the length of time it is applied.
`
`Figure 2D from the ‘716 patent11 below shows a “strongly ionized
`
`plasma” having a significantly higher density of charged particles than in the
`
`figure above, due in part to a stronger electric field applied across the
`
`electrodes:
`
`
`10 Ex. 1301, ’716 Patent, Fig. 2B.
`
`11 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, Fig. 2D.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`In pulsed systems, the strong electric field for generating a dense plasma is
`
`applied in short bursts or pulses that temporarily provide the field strength
`
`needed to form a dense plasma, but at a lower average power.12 The duration
`
`of these pulses can be preset “to reduce the probability of establishing electrical
`
`breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical l discharge” that can
`
`“corrupt the plasma process and can cause contamination in the vacuum
`
`chamber.”13 However, very large voltage pulses “can still result in undesirable
`
`electrical discharged regardless of their duration.”14
`
`B. The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Plasma Source.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov invented an improved plasma source that forms a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma in multiple stages: The source first ionizes a feed gas to form a
`
`
`12 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 42 - 45.
`
`13 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines45 - 50.
`
`14 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 50 - 51.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`weakly ionized plasma, and then applies an electrical pulse across the plasma
`
`that generates an electric field that provides the optimum conditions for
`
`exciting neutral atoms in the weak plasma.15 The electric field then ionizes the
`
`excited atoms to generate a strongly ionized plasma. The weakly ionized
`
`plasma and the electric pulse thus cooperate to achieve a strongly ionized
`
`plasma using a multi-stage ionization process, without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition as explained below.
`
`Dr. Chistyakov explained that forming a weakly ionized plasma having a
`
`low level of ionization with sufficient electrical conductivity through the
`
`plasma can prevent the occurrence of a breakdown condition when higher
`
`power pulses are applied:
`
`Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are
`
`applied between the cathode 204 and the anode 216. The
`
`probability of establishing a breakdown condition is substantially
`
`eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232 has a low-level
`
`of ionization that provides electrical conductivity through the
`
`plasma. This conductivity substantially prevents the setup of a
`
`
`15 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 49 – 53.
`8
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`breakdown condition, even when high power is applied to the
`
`plasma.16
`
`Dr. Chistyakov further teaches that the type of high power pulse applied to the
`
`weakly ionized plasma and the size of the gap between the electrodes can
`
`determine whether the gas atoms directly ionize from the ground state, or first
`
`enter an excited state and then ionize from the exited state. The specification of
`
`the ‘716 patent explains the two types of ionization in more detail.
`
`The “typical ionization process is referred to as ‘direct ionization’ or
`
`‘atomic ionization by electron impact’.”17 In this ionization process, a free
`
`electron collides with a neutral atom with enough energy to ionize the atom,
`
`thereby producing another free electron.18 In the multi-stage ionization process
`
`described in the ‘716 patent, the electric field applied to a weakly ionized
`
`plasma is chosen to excite atoms in the weakly ionized plasma from the
`
`ground state into an excited state. The excited atoms are then ionized from
`
`this excited state, rather than directly from the ground state.
`
`The patent teaches that this type of ionization (in which ions are first
`
`excited before being ionized), can be promoted by tailoring the parameters of
`
`16 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`
`17 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 2, liens 6 1- 63.
`
`18 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 2, line 61 – col. 4, line 4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`the electric pulse for the system’s electrode gap and other operating conditions
`
`of the plasma.
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`The dimensions of the gap 220 and the parameters or the electric
`
`field 236 are varied in order to determine the optimum condition
`
`for a relatively high rate of excitation of the atoms in the region
`
`222.
`
`***
`
`Under appropriate excitation conditions, the proportion of the
`
`energy applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232, which is
`
`transformed to the excited atoms 244, is very high for a pulsed
`
`discharge in the feed gas 22619
`
` The ‘716 patent explains the relationship between the size of the electrode gap
`
`and the applied voltage pulse, stating that they are together chosen to optimize
`
`the excitation of atoms:
`
`[T]he distance or gap between the cathode 204 and the anode 216
`
`is chosen so as to maximize the rate of excitation of the atoms.
`
`The value of the electric field 236 in the region 222 depends on
`
`the voltage level applied by the pulsed power supply 202 and the
`
`size of the gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204. In
`
`some embodiments, the strength of the electric field 236 can vary
`
`between about 2V/cm and 105 V/cm depending on various system
`
`parameters and operating conditions of the plasma system.
`
`
`19 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 49 – 52; col. 9, lines 27 - 30.
`
`***
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`The parameters of the applied electric field 266 are varied to
`
`determine the optimum condition for a relatively high rate of
`
`excitation of the atoms in the region 245.20
`
`
`
`***
`
`The shape and duration of the leading edge 356 and the trailing
`
`edge 358 of the high-power pulse 354 is chosen so as to sustain the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 while controlling the rate of ionization
`
`of the strongly-ionized plasma 268.21
`
`The patent also explains that this increased ionization efficiency can cause an
`
`“avalanche like” increase in ion density:
`
`This increased efficiency eventually results in an avalanche-like
`
`increase in the density of the strongly-ionized plasma 238.22
`
`Accordingly, to avoid an electrical breakdown in the plasma, the ‘716 patent
`
`proposes that this type of ionization be generated under certain conditions that
`
`avoid an electrical breakdown. For purposes of the claims at issue here, we
`
`note that one proposed technique is to first generate a weakly ionized plasma
`
`that is sufficiently conductive so as to inhibit a breakdown condition when a
`
`high powered pulse (chosen to promote multi-stage ionization) is applied to
`
`
`20 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 30 - 53.
`
`21 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 12, lines 23 - 28.
`
`22 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, lines 24 - 26.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`the electrodes.23 Furthermore, the patent proposes controlling the flow of gas
`
`into the plasma in a region where the strong electric field transforms the
`
`weakly ionized plasma into a strongly ionized plasma. Figure 2a below shows
`
`a pair of electrodes 216 and 204 separated by a gap 220:
`
`
`
`The strength of the electric field in the region 222 depends on the magnitude of
`
`the voltage across the electrodes and the size of the gap 220, and can be very
`
`strong due to the small size of gap 220.24
`
`
`
`Gas lines 224 provide a feed gas 226 that “is pushed through the region
`
`222” between the electrodes as shown.25 The patent explains that injecting gas
`
`into the region 222 where the electric field is strong causes a rapid exchange of
`
`the volume in region 222, and thereby allows the use of high power pulses
`
`
`23 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`
`24 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 33 – 40.
`
`25 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 27 – 28; col. 4, lines 56 – 67.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`having “a longer duration [that] results in the formation of a higher density
`
`plasma:”
`
`Directly injecting the feed gas 226 between the cathode 204 and
`
`the anode 216 can increase the flow rate of the feed gas 226. This
`
`causes a rapid volume exchange in the region 222 between the
`
`cathode 204 and the anode 216, which permits a high-power pulse
`
`having a longer duration to be applied across the gap 220. The
`
`longer duration high-power pulse results in the formation of a
`
`higher density plasma.26
`
`The patent further explains that “the level and duration of the high-powered
`
`electrical pulse is limited by the level and duration of the power that the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma can absorb before the high power discharge contracts
`
`and terminates.”27 However, if the feed gas flows through the region 222 at a
`
`sufficiently high rate, it causes a rapid volume exchange in region 222 that
`
`physically transports the strongly ionized plasma through the region 222.28
`
`This rapid volume exchange “increases the level and the duration of the power
`
`that can be applied to the strongly ionized plasma” without an electrical
`
`
`26 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 4, lines 58 - 66.
`
`27 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, lines 53 – 55.
`
`28 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, lines 2.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`breakdown condition.29 This process is depicted in figures 2C and 2D below,
`
`wherein the strongly ionized plasma that is formed in region 222 (figure 2C) is
`
`transported by the gas flow into region 234 (figure 2D):
`
`
`
`Fig. 2C
`
`Fig. 2D
`
`
`
`
`
`The claims at issue in this petition all depend from independent claim 14
`
`which is directed to a method and apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma using the multi-stage ionization and a breakdown suppression
`
`techniques described above. Dependent claims 19 and 20 add a step for
`
`supplying a feed gas to the strongly ionized plasma to transport the strongly
`
`ionized plasma by a rapid volume exchange to thereby permit additional
`
`power to be absorbed by the plasma. The Petition alleges that these claim are
`
`
`29 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 10, lines 2 – 5.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`obvious in view of the prior art references shown in the following summary of
`
`the Petitioner’s proposed grounds.
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`Art
`Ground Claims Basis
`I
`22 - 24
`103 Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`II
`III
`IV
`V
`VI
`
`19, 20
`21
`21
`19, 20
`22 - 24
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin’s Thesis
`103 Wang and Kudryavtsev
`103 Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Lantsman
`103 Wang, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim to the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`offers no explicit construction or parsing of the claim, inviting the reader to
`
`infer the Petitioner’s interpretation of the claim language from its allegations
`
`that the claimed features are taught by the prior art.
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly
`Ionized Plasma”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`specification of the ‘716 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`is also referred to as a “highly-ionized plasma.”30 In addition, the proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ‘759 patent that refers to
`
`“strongly ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density.”31 The term
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`
`30 Ex. 1301, ‘716 patent, col. 7, lines 15 - 16.
`
`31 Ex. 1211, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`particular, the specification of the ‘716 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization”32 Furthermore, the
`
`specification of a related patent number 6,806,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”) states
`
`that “[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma
`
`with a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly ionized plasma depends on the properties of the specific plasma
`
`processing system.”
`
`B. Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber”
`
`The Petitioner does not construe the claimed phrase “ionizing a feed gas
`
`in a chamber,” but its comparison to the claim treats the language as if it
`
`describes any gas in a chamber regardless of whether the gas is being fed into
`
`the chamber during ionization. However, this renders superfluous the word
`
`“feed” in the expression “feed gas in a chamber” – “a methodology of claim
`
`construction that [the Federal Circuit] has denounced.”33 Even under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the claim term “feed” cannot be
`
`read out of the claim and cannot be deemed superfluous over the claimed “gas
`
`in a chamber.”
`
`
`32 Ex. 1301, ‘716 patent, col. 6, lines 22 - 24.
`
`33 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`“A feed gas,” as its name implies, is a flow of gas. As explained in the
`
`specification, the “electric field in the gap 472 between the electrode 452 and
`
`the cathode 204' is adapted to ignite the plasma from the feed gas 226 flowing
`
`through the gap 472.”34 The claimed step thus requires ionization of gas in the
`
`chamber that is being fed into the chamber. Accordingly the claimed step of
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber” refers ionization of a gas in a chamber as that
`
`gas is being fed into the chamber:
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber”
`
`ionization of a gas in a chamber
`while that gas is being fed into the
`chamber
`
`
`
`C. Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially
`Eliminates the Probability of Developing an Electrical
`Breakdown Condition in the Chamber”
`
`The Petitioner does not offer an interpretation of the claim language – “a
`
`weakly ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” However, in
`
`its comparison to the prior art, the Petition treats the language as
`
`encompassing any pre-ionized plasma to which an electric pulse is applied.
`
`However, this interpretation renders superfluous the claimed requirement that
`
`
`34 Ex. 1301, ‘716 Patent, col. 18, lines 9 – 12.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`the weakly ionize plasma “substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”35
`
`The claim language requires the weakly-ionized plasma to provide a
`
`specified plasma condition. In the context of the other claim language, this
`
`language requires the weak plasma to substantially eliminate the probability of
`
`developing a breakdown condition, not only when the weak plasma is formed,
`
`but also when the claimed electrical pulse is applied across the weak plasma
`
`that excites atoms and forms a strongly ionized plasma (see claim step b).
`
`The specification identifies the characteristics of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that achieve the claimed property of substantially eliminating the
`
`probability of an electrical breakdown condition in the plasma: The
`
`specification states that the plasma must have a low level of ionization that
`
`provides sufficient conductivity to prevent the setup of a breakdown condition
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma:
`
`The probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical
`
`conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity substantially
`
`
`35 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-00849
`
`
`
`
`prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even when high
`
`power is applied to the plasma.36
`
`Thus, the claimed ionization step forms a low-level of ionization from the feed
`
`gas that substantially eliminates the probability of breakdown. Furthermore,
`
`when an electrical pulse is applied to that plasma to excite neutral atoms in the
`
`weak plasma to thereby generate a strongly ionized plasma, the weakly ionized
`
`plasma has enough conductivity to prevent an electrical breakdown.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`a weakly ionized plasma
`that substantially eliminates
`the probability of
`developing an electrical
`breakdown condition in the
`chamber
`
`plasma having a level of ionization that is low
`enough and sufficiently conductive to
`substantially eliminate the setup of a
`breakdown condition when the weakly ionized
`plasma is formed and when an electrical pulse
`is applied across the plasma to excite neutral
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma to thereby
`generate a strongly ionized plasma
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`
`A. Defects in All Grounds: The Petition Violates Page
`Restrictions by Incorporating Over 70 Pages of Claim
`Charts.
`
`The Petition relies on six claim charts filed in violation of rules
`
`§42.24(a)(i) and §42.6. The claim charts total over seventy pages, thereby
`
`exceeding the Patent Office’s page li