U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR _________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 1 
`B.  Related Matters .............................................................................................. 1 
`C.  Counsel .......................................................................................................... 2 
`D.  Service Information ....................................................................................... 2 
`II.  Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 2 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 3 
`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 .................................................................................. 5 
`V.  Overview of the ‘184 Patent ................................................................................ 7 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 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 ....................................................................................... 11 
`VII. 
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma” ............................. 14 
`VIII.  Specific Ground for Petition ......................................................................... 15 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ............................................................ 15 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................. 16 
`2. 
`Independent claim 11 ................................................................................ 27 
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`3.  Dependent claims 2, 4, 5 and 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ........................................................ 30 
`B.  Ground II: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis .................................................. 33 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................. 34 
`2. 
`Independent claim 11 ................................................................................ 37 
`3.  Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 .................................................... 38 
`C.  Ground III: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Wang .......................................................................... 39 
`D.  Ground IV: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis and Wang ..................................................................... 40 
`E.  Ground V: Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev ......................................................................................... 42 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................................. 42 
`2. 
`Independent claim 11 ................................................................................ 51 
`3.  Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev ..................................................................................... 52 
`IX.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 58 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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 7,808,184
`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. 7,808,184 (“’184 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`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.) (Ex.
`
`1024). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in
`
`several patents related1 to the ‘184 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘184 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 7, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00455.
`
`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).
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.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 1-5 and 11-15 on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’184 Patent.
`
`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. 1003)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`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. 1004)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under 102(a)
`
`and (e).
`
`4.
`
`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. 1006), which is prior art under 102(b). Exhibit
`
`
`2
`The ’184 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 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1006 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached as
`
`Exhibit 1007. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian
`
`State Library is attached as Exhibit 1008.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’184 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr.
`
`Richard DeVito (“DeVito Decl.” (Ex. 1002))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. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1002). The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged
`
`ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no
`
`
`3 Dr. DeVito has been retained by Fujitsu. The attached declaration at Ex. 1002 is
`
`a copy of Dr. DeVito’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00455, discussed above.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the
`
`’184 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘184 Patent
`
`in a separate petition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or
`
`electrons that are present in a unit volume.5 DeVito Decl. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades before
`
`the ‘184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002). For example, sputtering is
`
`an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a
`
`surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing
`
`operation). DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface
`
`causing ejection of a small amount of target material. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002).
`
`The ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. DeVito Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. DeVito Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex.
`
`1002). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘184
`
`patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`5 The term “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. DeVito Decl. ¶ 20, n.1 (Ex. 1002).
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex.
`
`1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002).
`
`If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said
`
`to be in the “ground state.” DeVito Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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.”
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an
`
`excited atom. DeVito Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘184 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘184 Patent at 10:40 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. DeVito Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high energy,
`
`electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. DeVito Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex.
`
`1002). For example, the ‘184 Patent uses the following equation to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘184 Patent at
`
`10:42 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1013), which names the
`
`same inventor and is owned by a common assignee, uses the following equation to
`
`describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See
`
`‘759 Patent at 3:58 (Ex. 1013).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before the
`
`’184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘184 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 Patent
`The ‘184 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a voltage pulse in a
`
`manner that allegedly avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘184 Patent are directed to methods that
`
`supply a feed gas and apply a voltage pulse between an anode and a cathode
`
`assembly. The voltage pulse increases an ionization rate and forms a so-called
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma.” The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc.”
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further operational details, such as
`
`moving a magnet, characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur during the
`
`generation of a voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`In the first substantive office action, the only rejection was a nonstatutory
`
`obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 7,095,179 in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No 5,746,693. See 12/08/09 Office Action (Ex. 1009). The Patent Owner
`
`traversed the double patenting rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. See 06/03/10
`
`Response and accompanying Terminal Disclaimer (Ex. 1010). The claims were then
`
`allowed. See 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1011).
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner noted that the prior art of record
`
`failed to disclose “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time that increase an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in electron
`
`density…” and “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude and a
`
`controlled rise time that shifts an electron energy distribution in the plasma to higher
`
`energies that increase an ionization rate so as to result in a rapid increase in electron
`
`density.” 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance at 2 (Ex. 1011).
`
`However, as will be 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.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`UU.S. PATEENT 7,8088,184
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview
`
`
`AAs explaineed in detail below, limmitation-by--limitation, there is noothing new
`or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶ 34 (Ex.
`non-obvvious in thee challenged claims off the ‘184 PPatent. DeVVito Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1002).
`
`
`
`B. Overrview of MMozgrin6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin teaaches formiing a stronggly-ionizedd plasma “wwithout forrming an arrc.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B M
`
`
`
`Fig. 7 off Mozgrin, copied bellow, showss the currennt-voltage ccharacteristtic (“CVC””) of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a plasma dischargee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown, MMozgrin diivides this CCVC into ffour distincct regions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A M
`
`
`
`Mozgrin callls region 11 “pre-ionizzation.” Moozgrin at 4002, right cool, ¶ 2 (“Parrt 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the vooltage oscilllogram reppresents thee voltage oof the statioonary dischaarge (pre-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionizatioon stage).”” (emphasiss added)) (EEx. 1003).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DeVito DDecl. ¶ 37 (EEx. 1002).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Mozggrin is art oof record foor the ‘1844 Patent. HHowever, MMozgrin waas not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substanttively appllied duringg prosecutioon of the ‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`184 Patentt.
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1002). Application of a
`
`high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex.
`
`1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). Increasing the current applied to the “high-
`
`current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002). Further increasing the applied current
`
`causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002).
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. DeVito Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev7
`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. 1004). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). The second process is multi-step
`
`ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at
`
`Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002). Kudryavtsev notes
`
`that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization
`
`process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`42 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when
`
`designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols.
`
`(“Designing the unit, we took into account the dependences which had been obtained
`
`in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`D. Overview of Wang8
`
`7 Kudryavtsev is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Kudryavtsev was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1005). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the power
`
`Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the DC
`
`power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is generated by the
`
`pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1005); see also DeVito Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1002). 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. 1005). DeVito Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`8 Wang is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Wang was not substantively
`
`applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in Inter Partes Review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim
`
`term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.9 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
`
`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
`
`9 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 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to
`
`seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`All challenged claims require generation of a “strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Additionally, some of the dependent claims further require the creation of a “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” before generating the “strongly-ionized plasma.” See Claims 4 and
`
`14.
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. DeVito Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘184 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`by application of the low power stage 258 and then forming a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`by application of higher voltage and power. ‘184 Patent at 7:29-46; 8:41-60 (Ex.
`
`1001). The ‘184 Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and
`
`strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘184 Patent at 7:14-17 (“Weakly-ionized plasmas are
`
`generally plasmas having plasma densities that are less than about 1012 – 1013 cm-3 and
`
`strongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are
`
`greater than about 1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`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. 1017).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUND FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 49- 154 (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the 184 Patent, and how those
`
`claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view
`of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing litigation
`
`involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11,
`
`12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev,
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`are being submitted hereto as Exhibit 1019 (Ex. 1019). Mr. DeVito has reviewed the
`
`claim chart and agrees with it. See DeVito Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1002).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`a)
`Claim 1 begins, “[a] method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma.” The
`
`The preamble
`
`densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.10
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.11
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.12
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3. DeVito
`
`Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1002). The density in those regions matches the exemplary density
`
`given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘184 Patent. ‘184 Patent at 7:14-17
`
`10 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density
`
`in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`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. 1003).
`
`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. 1003).
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(“[S]trongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are
`
`greater than about 1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex.
`
`1002). Accordingly, Mozgrin teaches the preamble. DeVito Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1002).
`
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads, “supplying feed gas proximate to an anode and
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`a cathode assembly.”
`
`In the commonly owned, and previously filed, ‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner
`
`admitted that this limitation was known. ‘759 Patent at 3:19-21 [describing prior art
`
`Fig. 1] (“A feed gas source 109…is introduced into the vacuum chamber…”); 3:23-
`
`24 (“The magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a cathode assembly
`
`114…”); 3:40-41 (“An anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber 104 proximate
`
`to the cathode assembly 114.”) (Ex. 1013). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 also shows anode “2” and cathode “1.” DeVito Decl. ¶ 55
`
`(Ex. 1002). Mozgrin discloses filling the space between the anode and cathode with a
`
`feed gas such as Argon. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“…the discharge gap which
`
`was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”); 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We
`
`investigated the discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”); 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, and H2)
`
`or their mixtures of various composition…”); 401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma]
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`discharge…was adjacent to the cathode.”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 55
`
`(Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also discloses that its cathode includes a sputtering target.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002). Specifically, Mozgrin discusses sputtering that occurs
`
`in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col., ¶4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an
`
`intense cathode sputtering….”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches limitation (a). DeVito Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1002).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“generating a voltage pulse between the anode and
`the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin generates the voltage pulse shown in Fig. 3(b). Mozgrin at 402, Fig. 3
`
`caption (“Fig. 3. Oscillograms of (a) current and (b) voltage…”) (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin applies that voltage pulse between Mozgrin’s
`
`anode and cathode. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“It was possible to form the high-
`
`current quasi-stationary regime by applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge
`
`gap which was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”) (emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin therefore teaches
`
`“generating a voltage pulse between the anode and the cathode assembly” as required
`
`by limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002).
`
`(2)
`“the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled
`amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows Mozgrin’s voltage pulse, is copied below.
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`UU.S. PATEENT 7,8088,184
`
`
`
`Petitionn for Inter PPartes Revview
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe voltagee pulse in MMozgrin’s reegion 2a haas a rise timme that is ccontrolled too be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within 55 – 60 µs. MMozgrin att 401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[[t]he poweer supply wwas able to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`deliver ssquare volttage and cuurrent pulsees with [risee] times (leeading edgee) of 5 – 600 µs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`….”) (EEx. 1003). SSee also DeVito Decll. ¶ 59 (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1002).
`
`
`
`TThe voltagee pulse in MMozgrin’s reegion 2a allso has a coontrolled ammplitude.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1002)). Table 1 of Mozgrinn shows thee parameteers, includinng
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`voltage,, used in MMozgrin’s reegion 2. MMozgrin at 4406, right cool, ¶ 2 (“Taable 1 preseents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’s
`parametter ranges ccorrespondiing to regimme 2.”) (Exx. 1003). AAs shown inn Mozgrin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 1,, the voltagge in regionn 2 was conntrolled in aa series of eexperimentts to be in ssub-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ranges oof 260-11000 Volts (e.gg., in one eexperiment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`