`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED AND
`FUJISTU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00851
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................4
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................9
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems ....................................................... 10
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Sputtering
`Source. ........................................................................................ 12
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................17
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................17
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized
`Plasma” ....................................................................................... 18
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................19
`
`A. Overview of Challenged Claims. ...................................................... 20
`
`B. All of Petition’s Obviousness Grounds Fail to Follow the Proper
`Legal Framework For an Obviousness Analysis. ............................ 21
`
`C. All Grounds Rely on Claim Charts Submitted in Violation of
`Rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) ..................................................... 22
`
`D. Defects in the Challenges to the “Group A” Claims. ......................... 23
`
`1. Defects in Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`the Group A Claims Are Obvious In View of Mozgrin and
`Kawatama ............................................................................... 25
`
`a. Mozgrin Does Not Anticipate Parent Claims 1, 34 ...... 26
`
`i. Overview of Mozgrin ............................................... 24
`
`ii. Mozgrin Does Not Teach a Sputtering Source
`Comprising a Cathode Assembly Having a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`Sputtering Target Positioned Adjacent to an
`Anode ..................................................................... 28
`
`iii. Mozgrin Does Not Describe the Claimed Pulse
`for Creating a Weak Plasma and Then a Strongly-
`Ionized Plasma From the Weak ............................... 31
`
`iv. Mozgrin Does Not Teach The Claimed
`Generation of a Pulse whose Amplitude and Rise
`Time Are Chosen to Increase Ion Density
`Without Arcing ....................................................... 32
`
`v. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a
`Reasonable Likelihood of Success that Parent
`Claims are Anticipated by Mozgrin .......................... 34
`
`b.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show a Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Group A Claims are Obvious
`in View of Mozgrin Combined with Kawamata ........... 36
`
`i. General Scope of Kawamata .................................... 36
`
`ii. Differences Between Kawamata and the Claims ........ 37
`
`iii. Claim 5 .................................................................. 39
`
`iv. Claim 36.................................................................. 41
`
`v. Conclusion: ............................................................. 43
`
`2. Defects In Ground II: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A
`Reasonable Likelihood That The Group A Claims Are
`Obvious in View of Wang Combined with Kawamata ............... 44
`
`a. Defects in Ground II: Wang Does not Anticipate
`Parent Claims 1, 17, 34 ............................................... 45
`
`i. Wang Does Not Show the Claimed Pulse for
`Creating a Weak Plasma and Then a Strongly-
`Ionized Plasma From the Weak Without An
`Occurrence of Arcing. .............................................. 45
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`ii. Wang Does Not Teach The Claimed Generation
`of a Pulse Whose Rise Time Is Chosen to
`Increase Ion Density Without Arcing. ....................... 46
`
`iii. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a
`Reasonable Likelihood of Success that Parent
`Claims 1, 21, and 34 are Anticipated by Wang as
`Required By Ground V ............................................ 47
`
`b. Defects In Ground II: The Petition Fails to Show a
`Reasonable Likelihood that The Group A Claims
`are Obvious in View of Wang Combined with
`Kawamata ................................................................. 49
`
`i. Differences Between Kawamata and the Claims ........ 49
`
`E. Defects in the Challenges to the Group B Claims. ............................. 49
`
`1. Differences Between the Claims and the Art ............................. 49
`
`2. Conclusion Regarding Group B Claims .................................... 52
`
`VI. FINAL CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion for joinder that this petition is
`
`identical to the Intel IRP (no. IRP2014-00473) in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant.
`
`Accordingly, based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes
`
`review on the same basis presented in the opposition to Intel’s request no.
`
`IRP2014-00473 which is reproduced below.
`
`The present petition is the last of three petitions filed by Intel Inc. for
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (“the ‘421 patent”). The first
`
`(IPR 2014-00468) seeks cancellation of all independent claims (1, 17, 34, 46,
`
`47, and 48), and selected dependent claims. The second petition (IPR 2014-
`
`00468) seeks cancellation of six dependent claims, and this third petition (IPR
`
`2014- 00473) seeks cancellation of the remainder.
`
`This third petition relies on the same arguments and evidence presented
`
`against the parent claims in IPR 2014-00468, but for the dependent claims,
`
`adds new arguments and evidence. Therefore, this third petition should be
`
`categorically denied for the exact same reasons given by the Patent Owner in
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`response to IPR 2014-00468, which are repeated here,1 but with some
`
`supplementary arguments. Furthermore, as explained below, the dependent
`
`claims specifically addressed in the present petition are even less likely to be
`
`found un-patentable and therefore the Petition does not justify review.
`
`The present petition cites as its primary prior art, two references,
`
`Mozgrin2 and Wang,3 which were already considered by the Patent Office.4
`
`The Petitioner 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 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 On the basis of this
`
`
`1 Rule §46.6 prohibits incorporation by reference of the Patent Owner’s
`
`response from IPR 2014-000455.
`
`2 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin.
`
`3 Ex. 1104, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`4 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent, list of cited references cited.
`
`5 Petition at ps. 19 - 20, Ex. 1211, ‘759 Patent.
`
`6 Ex. 1112, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`assertion, the Petitioner accuses Zond of wrongly asserting that “Mozgrin does
`
`not teach ‘without forming an arc.’”7 The Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at
`
`that time), never argued, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were
`
`allowable solely because of the “without forming an arc” limitation; it instead
`
`argued, inter alia, that “there is no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step
`
`ionization process that first excites ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizes the excited atoms without forming an arc discharge.”8
`
`That is, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an
`
`arc discharge during a particular process that was the subject of the ‘759
`
`patent: a multi-step 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.
`
`The parent claims of the dependent claim challenged here are directed to
`
`a sputtering source for sputtering material from a sputter target, and a method
`
`for high deposition rate sputtering. The claimed source and method generate a
`
`voltage pulse for creating the ions needed for sputtering, wherein the pulse’s
`
`shape is chosen or adjusted to create a weakly ionized plasma and then a
`
`
`7 Petition at p. 18.
`
`8 Ex. 1112, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`strongly ionized plasma from the weak, but without arcing. The Petition first
`
`argues that Mozgrin anticipates these parent claims, even though Mozgrin is a
`
`research paper that does not describe a sputter source for sputtering material
`
`from a target for deposition, and never discloses any experiments that teach
`
`choosing or adjusting the pulse amplitude and rise time as claimed.
`
`The Petition next cites to Wang as anticipating the parent claims. Wang
`
`at least describes sputtering from a target, but as Petitioner acknowledges,
`
`“Wang teaches that arcing may occur during ignition” of the plasma.9 This is
`
`blatantly at odds with the claimed requirement that the generated pulse “create
`
`a weakly ionized plasma … without an occurrence of arcing.” The Petition
`
`tries to diminish the significance of this shortcoming by citing to Wang’s
`
`observation that “the initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only
`
`once.”10 But this is irrelevant.
`
`Furthermore, when the Petition resorts to its obviousness theories for the
`
`dependent claims, it never cures the shortcomings of the allegedly anticipatory
`
`references against the parent claims. In fact, it does not address these
`
`shortcomings or explicitly discuss any differences between the claims and the
`
`
`9 Petition at 36.
`
`10 Petition at page 36, quoting Ex. 1104, Wang.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`art, as required by the Supreme Court for a proper obviousness analysis. 11
`
`Several dependent claims further specify certain plasma conditions that result
`
`from properly “choosing” or “adjusting” the pulse rise time and amplitude.
`
`These dependent claims require generating a voltage pulse whose “amplitude
`
`and rise time” are “chosen” to yield a strongly ionized plasma that generates
`
`sufficient thermal energy in the surface of the sputtering target to cause
`
`sputtering yield to be related to a temperature of the sputtering target. The
`
`Petition cites to Kawatama as evidence against these claims, but Kawatama is
`
`a non-pulsed system that generates a plasma with a continuously running
`
`power source, and therefore does not address the issues of a pulsed plasma
`
`system, such as arcing in a pulsed system.
`
`The other challenged dependent claims require a gas flow controller that
`
`“controls a flow of the feed gas so that the feed gas diffuses the strongly
`
`ionized plasma.” As explained in the specification, “the strongly ionized
`
`plasma is enhanced through a rapid exchange of the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`
`11 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966);
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“[T]he [Graham] factors
`
`define the controlling inquiry”); Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-
`
`2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`with a fresh volume of feed gas 256 (step 624). …. In one embodiment the
`
`rapid exchange occurs during the duration of the high-power pulse.”12 For this
`
`claimed feature, the petition cites to Lantsman’s disclosure of a gas flow into a
`
`plasma chamber, but cites to no teaching that the rate of gas flow is controlled
`
`during the portion of a pulse that generates a strongly ionized plasma and at a
`
`rate sufficient to diffuse the strongly ionized plasma. The claims do not merely
`
`require the presence of a gas flow: They require flow control that coincides
`
`with the strongly ionized plasma and that “controls a flow in the feed gas so
`
`that the feed gas diffuses the strongly ionized plasma.”
`
`In short, the Petition does not precisely state the relief requested13 and
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.14 On the basis of the record presented in the present Petition,
`
`review should be denied.
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`The claims are directed to a “sputtering source” having a “sputtering
`
`target” and to a method of high deposition rate sputtering.” Accordingly, we
`
`begin with a brief introduction to sputtering.
`
`
`12 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent. col. 21, lines 51 – 56.
`13 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`14 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems
`
`Sputtering is a known technique for depositing a thin film of material on
`
`a substrate. Sputtering systems include a cathode assembly 114 that includes a
`
`sputtering target 116 made of a material that is desired for the thin film:
`
`
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`The sputtering source bombards the target surface 156 with ions to dislodge
`
`atoms, causing them to deposit on the substrate in a thin film.15 Positive ions
`
`154 are driven into the surface 156 of the sputtering target 116 by an electric
`
`field at an angle of incidence and with sufficient energy to knock atoms 160,
`
`170 from the target.16 The dislodged atoms “flow to a substrate where they
`
`deposit as a film of target material.”17
`
`
`15 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col 1, lines 15 – 22.
`
`16 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 5, lines 20 - 30.
`
`17 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 1, lines 20 – 21.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`To create ions for sputtering, a voltage source applies an electric field to
`
`a gas that frees some electrons from their gas molecules to form a gaseous
`
`mixture of electrons, positively charged molecules (i.e., ions) and neutral gas
`
`molecules, i.e., a “plasma.” The density of ions produced depends, inter alia,
`
`upon the strength of the applied electric field.
`
`The rate at which material sputters from the target increases with the
`
`density of ions in the plasma.18 One known way to increase the plasma density
`
`is to strengthen the ionizing electric field. But this can induce high currents
`
`that generate undesirable heating and damage to the target, as well as electrical
`
`arcing that “corrupts the sputtering process.”19 One known solution to this
`
`problem is to apply the strong electric field in short bursts that temporarily
`
`provide the desired field strength, but at a lower average power to reduce the
`
`undesirable effects.20 However, such high power pulses “can still result in
`
`undesirable electric discharges and undesirable target heating.”21 The ‘421
`
`
`18 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 3 – 7.
`
`19 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 20 – 29.
`
`20 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col 3,lines 30 - 35.
`
`21 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 36 - 38.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`patent describes an improved pulsed system for generating a strongly ionized
`
`plasma for use in sputtering material from a sputter target, but without arcing.
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Sputtering Source.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a
`
`magnetically enhanced sputtering source having a particular structure of an
`
`anode, cathode, ionization source, magnet and power supply generating a
`
`particular type of voltage pulse to perform a multi-step ionization process for
`
`sputtering, but without forming an arc discharge as illustrated in Fig. 4 of the
`
`‘421 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`As illustrated by Fig. 4, Dr. Chistyakov’s magnetically enhanced sputtering
`
`source includes an anode 238 and a cathode assembly 216 having a sputtering
`
`target 220 made of the material to be sputtered that is positioned inside the
`
`cathode 218.22 The anode 238 is positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly
`
`“so as to form a gap 244 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 245 between the
`
`anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.”23 The gap 244 and the total volume
`
`of region 245 are parameters in the ionization process.”24 The “cathode
`
`assembly 216 includes a cathode 218 and a sputtering target 220 composed of
`
`target material.”25
`
`“[T]he pulsed power supply 234 is a component in an ionization source
`
`that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.”26 “The pulsed power supply
`
`applies a voltage pulse between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`
`22 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 6, line 46 – col. 7, line 6.
`
`23 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 30 - 31.
`
`24 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 35 - 38.
`
`25 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 6, lines 47 - 49.
`
`26 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 - 15.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`238.”27 “The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode assembly 216.”28 “The peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”29
`
`The ‘421 patent describes techniques for controlling a voltage pulse to
`
`form a strongly ionized plasma that yields the desired sputtering from a
`
`sputtering target, but without arcing. The ‘421 patent proposes that if the
`
`shape of a pulse is chosen correctly, the density of ions generated by the pulse
`
`can be increased to a desired level but in a controlled manner that avoids
`
`arcing.30
`
`The patent describes several systems. In one, a shaped pulse creates a
`
`weakly ionized plasma and then transitions it into a strongly ionized
`
`condition.31 In the other system, a continuous DC power source generates and
`
`
`27 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 16 - 17.
`
`28 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 - 21.
`
`29 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 27 - 29.
`
`30 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`31 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 – 37.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`maintains a weakly ionized plasma,32 and a shaped pulse is superimposed to
`
`transition the existing weak plasma into a strongly ionized state.
`
`The first version is described in connection with the pulsed power supply
`
`234 shown in fig. 4. The pulsed supply 234 generates a pulse for creating a
`
`weakly ionized plasma:
`
`In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 is a component
`
`of an ionization source that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`The pulsed power supply applies a voltage pulse between the
`
`cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238. In one embodiment, the
`
`pulsed power supply 234 applies a negative voltage pulse to the
`
`cathode assembly 216. The amplitude and shape of the voltage
`
`pulse are such that a weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the
`
`region 246 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.33
`
`After the weakly–ionized plasma is formed, the pulsed power supply 234
`
`increases power to transition the weakly ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma:
`
`Once the weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are
`
`then generated between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`238. In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 generates
`
`the high-power pulses. The desired power level of the high-power
`
`
`32 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`33 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 – 22.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`pulse depends on several factors including the desired deposition
`
`rate, the density of the pre-ionized plasma, and the volume of the
`
`plasma, for example.34
`
`The patent explains that “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 268.35
`
`
`
`With regard to the second version referred to above, the ‘421 patent
`
`mentions that the weakly ionized plasma can instead be generated with a
`
`“direct current (DC) power supply” not shown in the patent’s figures:
`
`In one embodiment, a direct current (DC) power supply (not
`
`shown) is used to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or
`
`pre-ionized plasma. In this embodiment, the DC power supply is
`
`adapted to generate a voltage that is large enough to ignite the pre-
`
`ionized plasma.36
`
`However, the claims of the ‘421 patent are directed to the technique wherein a
`
`pulse first ignites a weakly ionized plasma without arcing, and then increases
`
`the ion density into a strongly ionized plasma. The amplitude, rise time and
`
`
`34 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 29 – 36.
`
`35 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`36 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`duration of the pulse are chosen to create a weakly ionized plasma and then
`
`transition it into a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.37
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Alleged
`Basis
`
`Art
`
`I
`II
`
`III
`IV
`V
`VI
`
`3 – 5, 36, 40, 41
`3 – 5, 18 – 20, 36,
`40, 41
`6, 31, 44, 45
`7, 18 – 20, 32
`6, 31, 44, 45
`7, 32
`
`103
`103
`
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`Mozgrin and Kawamata
`Wang and Kawamata
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`Mozgrin, Lantsman and Kawamata
`Wang and Lantsman
`Wang, Lantsman and
`Kawamata
`
`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 the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`
`37 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 9, lines 16 – 19; col. 16, lines
`
`60 – 64.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`offers no explicit construction, leaving the reader to infer the Petitioner’s
`
`“interpretation” 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
`
`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 ‘421 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`is also referred to as a “high-density plasma.”38 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.”39 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
`
`particular, the specification of the ‘421 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization”40 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.”
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`
`
`
`
`38 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 12, lines 11 - 12.
`
`39 Ex. 1112, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`40 Ex. 1101, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 24 – 25.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of Challenged Claims.
`
`All of the claims challenged in this petition are dependent claims.
`
`Several of the challenged claims (nos. 3 – 5, 18 – 20, 40, and 41) are generally
`
`directed to the sputtering source and method of their respective parent claims
`
`wherein “the density of ions in the strongly ionized plasma is enough to
`
`generate sufficient thermal energy in the surface of the sputtering target to
`
`cause sputtering yield to be related to a temperature of the sputtering target.”
`
`The Petition challenges these claims in two obviousness grounds (I, II), which
`
`we will address as a group below (the “Group A Claims”).
`
`
`
`The other challenged claims (nos. 6, 7, 31, 32, 45) are generally directed
`
`to the sputtering source and method of their respective parent claims wherein a
`
`gas flow controller “controls a flow of the feed gas so that the feed gas diffuses
`
`the strongly ionized plasma.”41 The Petition challenges these claims in four
`
`obviousness grounds (II, III, IV, and VI), which we will address as “Group B”
`
`below.
`
`
`41 Dependent claim 44 is similar, but requires that the gas flow be controlled to
`
`diffuse the weakly ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`B. All of Petition’s Obviousness Grounds Fail to Follow the
`Proper Legal Framework For an Obviousness Analysis.
`
`All of the Grounds are based on theories of obviousness. The Graham
`
`framework for an obviousness analysis requires consideration of the following
`
`factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art.
`
`The Board has previously warned that failure to identify differences between
`
`the cited art and the claims is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 42
`
`As will be explained below, all Grounds neglect to explicitly identify the
`
`differences between the claims and the cited references, and do not propose
`
`any findings for the level of skill in the art. On this basis alone, inter partes
`
`review based on all obviousness grounds should be denied.43
`
`
`42 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`43 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3;
`
`paper 8 at 14-15.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`C. All Grounds Rely on Claim Charts Submitted in Violation of
`Rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3)
`
`
`
` The Petition attaches six sets of claim charts as exhibits 1118 – 1123,
`
`thereby exceeding the page limits of rule 42.24(a)(i). Petitioner incorporates
`
`each chart into its petition with a single sentence, asserting that its expert
`
`witness, Dr. Kortshagen, “has reviewed the claim chart and agrees with
`
`them.”44 But this technique violates rule 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition against
`
`incorporating documents by reference.
`
`Petitioner mentions that these claim charts were served on the Patent
`
`Owner in a related litigation, apparently in the hope that this will provide an
`
`exception to the rule.45 The Patent Office Trial Guide advises:
`
`Claim charts submitted as part of a petition … count towards
`
`applicable page limits …. A claim chart from another proceeding
`
`that is submitted as an exhibit however, will not count towards
`
`page limits. 46
`
`However, the trial guide’s reference to claim charts from other proceedings
`
`should not be construed to include charts exchanged between litigants. If
`
`claim charts exchanged in a related litigation can be attached to a petition
`
`44 Petition at 13.
`
`45 Petition at 15, 33, 36, 41, 42, 56.
`
`46 Trial Guide at 48764.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`without counting against page limits, then rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) will
`
`be rendered meaningless when the challenged patent is in litigation: Under
`
`this procedure, litigants would be allowed to supplement their IPR petitions
`
`with any number of claims charts of any size, so long as they first serve them
`
`on opposing counsel.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, review should be denied on all grounds that rely upon
`
`evidence and arguments presented in such claim charts submitted in violation
`
`of rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3).
`
`D. Defects in the Challenges to the “Group A” Claims.
`
`The Group A claims (3-5, 18-20, 40, 41) are generally directed to the
`
`sputtering source and sputter deposition method of their respective parent
`
`claims, wherein “the density of ions in the strongly ionized plasma is enough
`
`to generate sufficient thermal energy in the surface of the sputtering target to
`
`cause sputtering yield to be related to a temperature of the sputtering target.”47
`
`The specification explains that “a higher deposition rate can be achieved
`
`according to the present invention by using a thermal sputtering process.”48 In
`
`
`47 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent, claims 3, 18, 40.
`
`48 Ex. 1101, ‘421 Patent, col. 19, lines 50 – 51.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`figure 8, the patent shows the relationship between the deposition rate (or
`
`sputtering yield “Y”) and the temperature of the sputter target:
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00851
`
`
`
`
`As shown, the yield barely increases for temperatures below T0 in the region
`
`labeled 502.49 But when the sputter target’s temperature exceeds T0, the yield
`
`increases sharply and non-linearly with temperature.50
`
`
`
`The ‘421 patent explains that the target temperature, and as a result the
`
`sputter yield, can be controlled by proper choice of the high power pulses used
`
`to transition a weakly ionized plasma to a strongly ionized plasma:
`
`When high power pulses having the appropriate power l