`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00275US2
`(cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,808,184, CLAIMS 6-10 AND 16-20
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`FILED: APR. 18, 2006
`
`ISSUED: OCT. 5, 2010
`
`TITLE: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING STRONGLY-
`IONIZED PLASMAS WITH IONIZATIONAL INSTABILITIES
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD DEVITO, REGARDING
`CLAIMS 6-10 AND 16-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`
`I, Richard DeVito, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Richard DeVito.
`
`I received my B.S. in Physics from Suffolk University, cum laude in
`
`1982. I received my M.S. in Experimental Solid State Physics from Syracuse
`
`University in 1986.
`
`1
`
`TSMC-1102
`TSMC v. Zond, Inc.
`Page 1 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`3.
`
`I am the Founder and President of VAECO Inc. I have been the
`
`Director at the “Kostas” Facility for Microfabrication and Nanotechnology at
`
`Northeastern University, since October 2005. Between March 2004 and October
`
`2005, I was a Principal Process Development Fab Engineer at Aegis
`
`Semiconductor. Between October 2003 and March 2004, I was a consultant at
`
`Fluens Corp. I am also a co-founder of Fluens Corp. Between August 2002 and
`
`October 2003, I was a Process Manager at NEXX SYSTEMS. Between 2001 and
`
`2002, I was a Director of thin film processing at UNAXIS CORPORATION.
`
`Between 2000 and 2001, I was a Director of thin film processing at OPNETICS
`
`CORPORATION. Between 1997 and 2000, I was a Sr. Project Engineer at
`
`CORNING/OCA/NETOPTIX. Between 1995 and 1997, I was a Project / Process
`
`Engineer 1995 -1997 at THE GILLETTE COMPANY. Between 1994 and 1995, I
`
`was a Senior Process Engineer at THE GILLETTE COMPANY. Between 1989
`
`and 1994, I was a Senior Physical Scientist at LITTON-ITEK OPTICAL
`
`SYSTEMS. Between 1987 and 1989, I was a Physical Scientist at LITTON-ITEK
`
`OPTICAL SYSTEMS.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`For the last fifteen years, the principal focus of my research has been
`
`the use of plasma to deposit thin films.
`
`2
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 2 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184 (the “(cid:1932)184 patent”) (Ex. 1101). I understand that the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23)
`
`patent was filed on September 30, 2002, and is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,095,179, which was filed on February 22, 2004. I understand that, for purposes
`
`determining whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the
`
`(cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) patent could be entitled to is February 22, 2004.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1103)).
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1104)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1105)).
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1106). Exhibit 1106 is a
`
`certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached as
`
`3
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 3 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`Exhibit 1107. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the
`
`Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1108.
`
`8.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`9.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the (cid:1932)184 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the (cid:1932)184 patent would have found
`
`the (cid:1932)184 invalid.
`
`10.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am working as an independent
`
`consultant in this matter and am being compensated at my normal consulting rate
`
`of $250.00/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way
`
`affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) patent.
`
`4
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 4 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`12.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`13.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B.
`
`15.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`5
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 5 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`(cid:120) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`(cid:120) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(cid:120) what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`6
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 6 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`(cid:120) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(cid:120) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`(cid:120) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`(cid:120) whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`7
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 7 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`II.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`20. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`The negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are present in
`
`roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole has no overall electrical
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.1
`
`21.
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the (cid:1932)184 Patent was filed. 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). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`1 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters.
`
`8
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 8 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`22. Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of droplets from the
`
`target that can splatter on the substrate. The need to avoid arcing while sputtering
`
`was known long before the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) patent was filed.
`
`B.
`
`Ions and excited atoms
`
`23. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`24. On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state
`
`that is higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited
`
`atom.” Excited atoms are electrically neutral—they have equal numbers of
`
`electrons and protons.
`
`25. A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to
`
`an excited atom. For example, the (cid:1932)184 Patent uses the following equation to
`
`describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon
`
`atom, Ar. See (cid:1932)184 Patent at 10:40 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar* + e-
`
`26. An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of
`
`its electrons. A collision between a free, high energy, electron and a ground state
`
`9
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 9 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon atom,
`
`Ar*. See (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) Patent at 10:42 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar* + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`27.
`
`Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1113),
`
`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 (cid:1932)759 Patent at 3:58 (Ex. 1113).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`28.
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) Patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) PATENT
`
`A.
`
`29.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) Patent
`
`The (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a voltage
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly avoids arcing.
`
`30. More specifically, the claims of the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) 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-
`
`10
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 10 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`called “strongly-ionized plasma.” The strongly-ionized plasma is generated
`
`“without forming an arc.”
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I understand that 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. 1109). The Patent Owner traversed the double patenting rejection by filing a
`
`terminal disclaimer. See 06/03/10 Response and accompanying Terminal
`
`Disclaimer (Ex. 1110). The claims were then allowed. See 06/28/10 Notice of
`
`Allowance (Ex. 1111).
`
`33.
`
`I understand that 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
`
`11
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 11 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`so as to result in a rapid increase in electron density.” 06/28/10 Notice of
`
`Allowance at 2 (Ex. 1111).
`
`34. 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.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`Overview of Mozgrin2
`35. Mozgrin teaches forming a strongly-ionized plasma “without forming
`
`A.
`
`an arc.” Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`36. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`2 Mozgrin is art of record for the (cid:1932)184 Patent. However, Mozgrin was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the (cid:1932)184 Patent.
`
`12
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 12 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`37. Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2
`
`(“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary
`
`discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`38. Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1103). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for
`
`sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an
`
`intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`39. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is
`
`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`40. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`13
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 13 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`1103). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.3
`
`41. Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev4
`42. 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. 1104).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`3 As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillogram shown in Mozgrin’s
`
`Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to region 3 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7,
`
`i.e., Fig. 3 represents currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in region
`
`3. Further, as one of ordinary skill would understand, an oscillogram
`
`corresponding to region 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., stable operation in
`
`region 2) would have a different shape, e.g., the voltage would not drop as low as
`
`shown in Fig. 3b and the current would be lower than what is shown in Fig. 3a.
`
`4 Kudryavtsev is art of record for the (cid:1932)184 Patent. However, Kudryavtsev was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the (cid:1932)184 Patent.
`
`14
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 14 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1104). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1104).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1104).
`
`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. 1103).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Wang5
`43. 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. 1105). 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
`
`5 Wang is art of record for the (cid:1932)184 Patent. However, Wang was not substantively
`
`applied during prosecution of the (cid:1932)184 Patent.
`
`15
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 15 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1105). 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. 1105). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`44.
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`16
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 16 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`45. 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.
`
`46.
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. With reference to Fig.
`
`4, the (cid:1932)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. (cid:1932)184 Patent at 7:29-46; 8:41-60 (Ex. 1101). The (cid:1932)184
`
`17
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 17 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-
`
`ionized plasmas. See (cid:1932)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. 1101).
`
`47.
`
`Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
`(cid:120) “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
`(cid:120) “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`
`48.
`
`The constructions proposed above are consistent with the position the
`
`Patent Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner,
`
`when faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1117).
`
`18
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 18 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`VI.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`
`49.
`
`The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 6-10 and 16-20 of the (cid:1932)184 Patent, and how
`
`those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`50.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1119-1122), showing
`
`that each limitation in the foregoing claims is taught in the art. I understand these
`
`claim charts were submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner. Those charts present in summary form the analysis below and I
`
`agree with them.
`
`Ground I: Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are obvious in view of the
`A.
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`51.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1119), showing that
`
`claims 6-10 and 16-20 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev. I understand this claim chart was submitted in an ongoing litigation
`
`involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner. This chart presents in summary
`
`form the analysis below and I agree with it.
`
`19
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 19 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 16
`a)
`The preamble
`52. Claim 1 begins, “[a] method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`(cid:120) Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.7
`
`(cid:120) Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.8
`
`(cid:120) Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.9
`
`6 I have been informed and understand that petitioner establishes the invalidity of
`
`independent claims 1 and 11 in a separate petition. Claims 1 and 11 are addressed
`
`herein to demonstrate the invalidity of claims that depend from claims 1 and 11.
`
`7 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`8 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. 1103).
`
`9 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni (cid:35) 1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1103).
`
`20
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 20 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`53. Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`The density in those regions matches the exemplary density given for a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma in the (cid:1932)184 Patent. (cid:1932)184 Patent at 7:14-17 (“[S]trongly-ionized
`
`plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are greater than about
`
`1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1101). Accordingly, Mozgrin teaches the preamble.
`
`Limitation (a)
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads, “supplying feed gas proximate to an
`
`54.
`
`anode and 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 (“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. 1113).
`
`55. Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 also shows anode “2” and cathode “1.” 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
`
`21
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 21 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`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]
`
`discharge…was adjacent to the cathode.”) (Ex. 1103). Mozgrin also discloses that
`
`its cathode includes a sputtering target. 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. 1103). One of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that the portion of the cathode at which sputtering occurs is
`
`the target.
`
`56. Mozgrin therefore teaches limitation (a).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“generating a voltage pulse between the anode and
`the cathode assembly”
`
`57. 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.
`
`1103). 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.”) (Ex. 1103). Mozgrin
`
`22
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 22 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`therefore teaches “generating a voltage pulse between the anode and the cathode
`
`assembly” as required by limitation (b) of claim 1.
`
`“the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`(2)
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`58.
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows Mozgrin’s voltage pulse, is copied
`
`below.
`
`59.
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a has a rise time that is
`
`controlled to be within 5 – 60 μs. Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[t]he power
`
`supply was able to deliver square voltage and current pulses with [rise] times
`
`(leading edge) of 5 – 60 μs ….”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`60.
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a also has a controlled
`
`amplitude. Table 1 of Mozgrin shows the parameters, including voltage, used in
`
`Mozgrin’s region 2. Mozgrin at 406, right col, ¶ 2 (“Table 1 presents parameter
`
`ranges corresponding to regime 2.”) (Ex. 1103). As shown in Mozgrin’s Table 1,
`
`the voltage in region 2 was controlled in a series of experiments to be in sub-ranges
`23
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 23 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`of 260-1100 Volts (e.g., in one experiment being controlled to 260-990 Volts).
`
`Mozgrin at 406, Table 1 (Ex. 1103).
`
`61.
`
`Therefore, Mozgrin teaches controlling both the rise time and the
`
`amplitude of its voltage pulse as required by this portion of limitation (b) of claim
`
`1.
`
`“that increases an ionization rate so that a rapid
`(3)
`increase in electron density and formation of a strongly-
`ionized plasma occurs”
`
`62.
`
`In the Section above regarding the preamble of claim 1, the plasma
`
`densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are provided and it was explained that the
`
`plasmas in Mozgrin’s regions 2 and 3 are “strongly-ionized plasmas,” because
`
`their densities are greater than the density obtained in region 1 and because they
`
`match the exemplary density for a strongly-ionized plasma given in the (cid:1932)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23)
`
`Patent. Also, Mozgrin’s density increase from 1011 in region 1 to 1013 in region 2
`
`in response to Mozgrin’s pulse shows that Mozgrin generated a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma by “increasing ionization rate” and “rapid increase in electron density” as
`
`required by limitation (b) of claim 1. Such increase in ionization rate and rapid
`
`increase in electron density upon application of a voltage pulse were well known.
`
`For example, Leipold teaches that “[a]pplication of a high voltage pulse causes a
`
`shift in the electron energy distribution function to higher energies. This causes a
`
`24
`
`TSMC-1102 / Page 24 of 63
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 6-10 and 16-20
`
`temporary increase of the ionization rate and consequently an increase of the
`
`electron density.” (Leipold at Abstract) (Ex. 1118).
`
`63.
`
`Further, the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev teaches
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma by “increasing ionization rate” and “rapid
`
`increase in electron density” as required by claim 1. As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig.
`
`3, application of the pulse converts the lower density plasma of region 1 to the
`
`strongly-ionized plasmas of regions 2 and 3. Moreover, Mozgrin explains that its
`
`pulsing was designed in view of Kudryavtsev. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and
`
`right cols (“The frequency parameters of the pulsed supply unit were chosen…
`
`Designing the [pulsed supply] unit, we took into account the dependencies which
`
`had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] of ionization relaxation on pre-ionization
`
`parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`64.
`
`Like Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev pre-ionized a gas and then applied a
`
`voltage pulse. Kudryavtsev at 32, right c