Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: December 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: December 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 18–34 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of TSMC’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail
`
`in challenging claims 18–34 (“the challenged claims”) as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an
`
`inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 18–34 of the ’652 patent
`
`based on the specific grounds discussed below.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`TSMC indicates that the ’652 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Fujitsu, No.1:13-cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.), in which TSMC is a
`
`co-defendant. Pet. 1. TSMC also identifies other cases where Zond asserted
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`the claims of the ’652 patent against third parties, as well as other Petitions
`
`for inter partes review that are related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`B. The ’652 patent
`
`The ’652 patent notes several problems with known magnetron
`
`sputtering systems, such as poor target utilization resulting from a relatively
`
`high concentration of positively charged ions in the region that results in a
`
`non-uniform plasma. Ex. 1101, 4:23–28. The ’652 patent states that while
`
`increasing the power applied to the plasma may increase the uniformity and
`
`density of the plasma, doing so may significantly increase the probability of
`
`establishing an electrical breakdown condition of arcing. Id. at 4:31–37.
`
`The invention set forth in the ’652 patent, which is described as having a
`
`higher density of ions for a given input power than known plasma systems,
`
`involves a plasma generation method that provides independent control of
`
`two or more co-existing plasmas in a system. Id. at 4:62–64.
`
`One embodiment of the ’652 patent is shown in Figure 2A set forth
`
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Figure 2A, reproduced above, shows a cross-sectional view of plasma
`
`generating apparatus 200 with segmented cathode 202. Id. at 5:43–45. Such
`
`segmented cathode has inner cathode section 202a and outer cathode section
`
`202b. Id. at 5:45–47. Outer cathode 202b is coupled to first output 204 of
`
`first power supply 206, which can operate in a constant power mode or a
`
`constant voltage mode. Id. at 5:56–67. Second output 208 of first power
`
`supply 206 is coupled to first anode 210 that has insulator 211 to isolate it
`
`from outer cathode section 202b. Id. at 6:5–7.
`
`Gap 212 is formed between first anode 210 and outer cathode section
`
`202b that is sufficient to allow current to flow through region 214 within gap
`
`212. Id. at 6:34–38. Gap 212 can be a plasma generator where plasma is
`
`ignited in gap 212 from feed gas 234, such as argon, fed from gas line 230.
`
`Id. at 6:59–61; 8:1–3, 10–11. Such an ignition condition and plasma
`
`development in the gap can be optimized by crossed electric and magnetic
`
`fields in gap 212 that trap electrons and ions improving the efficiency of the
`
`ionization process. Id. at 6:61–67. Gap 212 can be configured to generate
`
`excited atoms, which can increase the density of plasma, from ground state
`
`atoms. Id. at 6:44–46. “Since excited atoms generally require less energy to
`
`ionize than ground state gas atoms, a volume of excited atoms can generate
`
`higher density plasma than a similar volume of ground state feed gas atoms
`
`for the same input energy.” Id. at 6:46–50.
`
`Gap 212 facilitates high input power by having additional feed gas
`
`supplied to gap 212 that displaces some of the already developing plasma
`
`and absorbs any excess power applied to the plasma. Id. at 7:1–6. Such
`
`absorption prevents the plasma from contracting and terminating. Id. at 7:6–
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`9. Feed gases 234, 236 are introduced into the chamber from more than one
`
`feed source, such as feed source 238, 240, through gas lines 230, 232 that
`
`may include in-line gas valves 242, 244 to control gas flow to the chamber.
`
`Id. at 8:1–5. Pulsing the feed gas can help generate excited atoms, including
`
`metastable atoms, by increasing the instantaneous pressure in gap 212, while
`
`the average pressure in the chamber is unchanged. Id. at 8:23–28.
`
`Second power supply 222 applies high power pulses between inner
`
`cathode section 202a and second anode 226 after an appropriate volume of
`
`initial plasma is present in region 252. Id. at 12:1–5. “The high-power
`
`pulses create an electric field 254 between the inner cathode section 202b
`
`and the second anode 226 that strongly-ionizes the initial plasma thereby
`
`creating a high-density plasma in the region 252.” Id. at 12:5–9. These high
`
`power pulses from second power supply 222, which add additional power to
`
`an already strongly ionized plasma, super-ionizes the high-density plasma in
`
`region 252. Id. at 11:54–57. The ’652 patent defines “super-ionized” to
`
`mean that “at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the plasma are converted to
`
`ions.” Id. at 5:8–10.
`
`Figure 2B, reproduced below, shows a more detailed cross-sectional
`
`view of the segmented cathode of Figure 2A.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Figure 2B shows that the electric fields 250, 254, which enhance the
`
`formation of ions in the plasma, can facilitate a multi-step ionization process
`
`of feed gases 234, 236, respectively, that substantially increases the rate at
`
`which the high-density plasma is formed. Id. at 12:50–56.
`
`Figure 12, set forth below with TSMC’s annotations, shows another
`
`embodiment of the ’652 patent.
`
`
`Excited atom source 732b generates an initial plasma and excited
`
`atoms, which include metastable atoms, from ground state atoms from feed
`
`gas 234. Id. at 25:35–38. Nozzle chamber 738 traps a large fraction of ions
`
`and electrons, while excited atoms and ground state atoms flow through
`
`aperture 737 of skimmer 736. Id. at 27:18–21. The ’652 patent further
`
`provides:
`
`After a sufficient volume of excited atoms including
`
`metastable atoms is present proximate to the inner cathode
`section 732a of the cathode assembly 732, the second power
`supply 222 generates an electric field (not shown) proximate to
`the volume of excited atoms between the inner cathode section
`732a and the second anode 706. The electric field super-
`ionizes the initial plasma by raising the energy of the initial
`plasma including the volume of excited atoms which causes
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`collisions between neutral atoms, electrons, and excited atoms
`including metastable atoms in the initial plasma. The high-
`density collisions generate the high-density plasma proximate
`to the inner cathode section 732a. The high-density plasma
`includes ions, excited atoms and additional metastable atoms.
`The efficiency of this multi-step ionization process increases as
`the density of excited atoms and metastable atoms increases.
`
`Id. at 27:22–37.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 18 is the only independent claim.
`
`Challenged claims 19 through 34 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 18. Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`18. A method of generating a high-density plasma, the method
`comprising:
`
`a) generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume
`of feed gas;
`
`b) transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms proximate
`to a cathode assembly; and
`
`c) super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly, thereby generating a high-density plasma.
`
`Ex. 1101, 34:45–53.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`Iwamura et al.
`
`US 5,753,886
`
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1108)
`
`Campbell et al. US 5,429,070
`
`July 4, 1995
`
`(Ex. 1114)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1103) (“Mozgrin”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V. N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1006) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`D. W. Fahey, W. F. Parks, and L. D. Schearer, High Flux Beam
`
`Source of Thermal Rare-Gas Metastable Atoms, 13 J. PHYS. E: SCI.
`INSTRUM. 381–383 (1980) (Ex. 1105) (“Fahey”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`18–30, 33, and 34
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`31 and 32
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`18–30, 33, and 34
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`31 and 32
`
`18–30
`
`31 and 32
`
`33 and 34
`
`
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Campbell
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`Campbell, and Iwamura
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin and Iwamura
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Campbell
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`In the instant proceeding, TSMC proposes a construction of the terms
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and exited atoms proximate to a cathode
`
`assembly” and “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly.” Pet. 11–12 (emphasis added). Zond offers its own construction
`
`of these two terms, in addition to a construction of a “generating an initial
`
`plasma and excited ions from a volume of feed gas.” Prelim. Resp. 8–12.
`
`We address each of the claim terms identified by the parties in turn.
`
`1. “generating an initial plasma and excited ions
`from a volume of feed gas”
`
`All claims at issue require “generating an initial plasma and excited
`
`ions from a volume of feed gas.” Ex. 1101, 34:45–36:14. TSMC does not
`
`propose an explicit construction for this claim limitation. In its Preliminary
`
`Response, Zond proposes that this claim limitation should be construed as
`
`“[g]enerating both an initial plasma and excited atoms from the same
`
`volume of feed gas, wherein a feed gas is a gas that is a flowing gas.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10.
`
`Zond asserts that the recitation of a “volume of feed gas” requires that
`
`both ionization and excitation occur in the same volume of feed gas, and that
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`“feed gas” implies a flow of gas. Prelim. Resp. 9. The recitation of “feed
`
`gas” in method claim 18 does not necessarily imply the flow of gas.
`
`Certainly, the gas is provided, but claim 18 does not recite “feeding a gas,”
`
`for example. Construing the claim limitation as Zond suggests would be
`
`equivalent to adding a method step thereto, thus changing the scope of
`
`claim 18.
`
`Also, the Specification of the ’652 patent describes the use of in-line
`
`gas valves 242, 244 that can control the flow of gas to the chamber
`
`(Ex. 1101, 8:3–5), and also describes pulsing feed gases 234, 236 to help
`
`generate excited atoms, including metastable atoms, in gap 212 (Ex. 1101,
`
`8:3–5, 8:23–25). Such control of the feed gas supports the notion that “feed
`
`gas” does not necessitate a “gas that is a flowing gas.”
`
`The Specification of the ’652 patent also states that feed gases may be
`
`introduced from multiple locations into the chamber. See id. at 8:1–3.
`
`Having multiple sources for feed gases does not support a construction that
`
`“a volume of feed gas” requires that the initial plasma and excited ions are
`
`generated from the same volume of feed gas, assuming that a particular
`
`volume of feed gas may be identified in such a process. We are not
`
`persuaded that the claim limitation “generating an initial plasma and excited
`
`ions from a volume of feed gas” needs to be explicitly construed at this stage
`
`of the proceeding.
`
`2. “transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms proximate to a
`cathode assembly”
`
`
`
`All claims at issue require “transporting the initial plasma and excited
`
`atoms proximate to a cathode assembly.” Ex. 1101, 34:45–36:14. TSMC
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`asserts that a plain reading of this limitation means “moving the initial
`
`plasma and excited atoms from where they were generated to a location near
`
`a cathode assembly.” Pet. 12. TSMC states that the Specification of the
`
`’652 patent supports this construction because initial plasma and excited
`
`atoms are generated in gap 212 or excited atom source 732b and moved to a
`
`location near inner cathode 202a or 732a, respectively. Id. (citing Ex. 1101,
`
`8:1–28, 108–17; 14:37–43; 17:63–18:9; 21:63–22:8; 27:15–20; Figs. 2, 3, 5,
`
`6, and 12). Zond asserts that this limitation should be construed to mean
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms to a region that is
`
`proximate to a cathode assembly.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11.
`
`
`
`We observe that no meaningful difference exists between the parties’
`
`constructions as each party relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the claim terms in this limitation. We are not persuaded, however, that this
`
`claim limitation needs an express construction at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`3. “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode assembly,
`thereby generating a high-density plasma”
`
`All claims at issue require “super-ionizing the initial plasma
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly, thereby generating a high-density
`
`plasma.” Ex. 1101, 34:45–36:14. TSMC notes that the Specification of the
`
`’652 patent explicitly defines “super-ionized” as “at least 75% of the neutral
`
`atoms in the plasma are converted [to ions].” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1101, 5:8–
`
`10). From this definition, TSMC concludes that the limitation should be
`
`construed as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial
`
`plasma into ions near the cathode assembly.” Id.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Zond asserts that TSMC’s construction requiring the ionization in the
`
`initial plasma makes claim 18 indistinguishable from dependent claim 24.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Zond asserts that this claim limitation should be construed
`
`to mean “ionizing the plasma that is proximate to the cathode so that at least
`
`75% of the neutrals in the original feed gas have been converted to ions.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 12.
`
`The claim limitation at issue requires “super-ionizing the initial
`
`plasma.” Ex. 1101, 8:51 (emphasis added). Zond’s construction does not
`
`reflect this claim language. Also, Zond’s construction introduces a term
`
`“original feed gas” that does not appear to be used or defined in the
`
`Specification of the ’652 patent; therefore, Zond’s construction introduces
`
`an unnecessary ambiguity into the construction. TSMC’s proposed
`
`construction reflects the explicit definition of “super-ionized” provided in
`
`the ’652 patent Specification. Therefore, we construe the claim limitation as
`
`“converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial plasma into ions
`
`near the cathode assembly.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Claims 18–30, 33, and 34 – Obviousness over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`TSMC asserts that claims 18–30, 33, and 34 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin,
`
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura. Pet. 20–41. As support, TSMC
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the
`
`references and rationales for combining the references, as well as a
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (Ex. 1102). Id. Zond responds that the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura does not
`
`disclose every claim element. Prelim. Resp. 13–25.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 18–30, 33, and 34 are unpatentable over the combination of Mozgrin,
`
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura. Our discussion focuses on the
`
`deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`Mozgrin
`
`
`
`Mozgrin discloses experimental research conducted on high-current
`
`low-pressure quasi-stationary discharge in a magnetic field. Ex. 1103, 400,
`
`Title, right col. In Mozgrin, pulse or quasi-stationary regimes are discussed
`
`in light of the need for greater discharge power and plasma density. Id.
`
`Mozgrin teaches experiments are conducted using a discharge device
`
`configuration having cathode 1, anode 2 adjacent and parallel to the cathode,
`
`and magnetic system 3, as shown in Figure 1(a). Id. at 401. The cathode,
`
`which includes a sputtering target, is placed on a cooled surface. Id. at 401,
`
`left col.; 402, right col.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Mozgrin illustrates a discharge (power) supply unit. The
`
`supply unit includes a pulsed discharge supply unit and a system for pre-
`
`ionization. Id. at 401, left col. For pre-ionization, a stationary magnetron
`
`discharge was used. Id. In this pre-ionization regime, the initial plasma
`
`density was in the 109 and 1011 cm-3. Id. Various gasses are used in the
`
`Mozgrin system in the discharge regimes. Id. at 400, right col.; 401, left col.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3(b) is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin illustrates an oscillogram of voltage of the quasi-
`
`stationary discharge over time. Id. at 402. In Figure 3(b), Part 1 represents
`
`the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage); Part 2 displays
`
`the square voltage pulse application to the gap (Part 2a), where the plasma
`
`density grows and reaches its quasi-stationary value (Part 2b); and Part 3
`
`displays the discharge current growing and attaining its quasi-stationary
`
`value. Id. at 402, right col. More specifically, the power supply generates a
`
`square voltage with rise times (leading edge) of 5–60 μs and durations of as
`
`much as 1.5 ms. Id. at 401, right col.
`
`
`
`In regime 2, the plasma density exceed 2 x 1013 cm-3 and in regime 3
`
`the plasma density produces large-volume, uniform, dense plasmas
`
`η1 ᴝ 1.5 x 1015 cm-3. Id. at 409, left col.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1106, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates the atomic energy levels during the
`
`slow and fast stages of ionization. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev is reproduced
`
`below (with annotations added by TSMC (Pet. 17)):
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs with a “slow
`
`stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During the initial slow
`
`stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to the generation
`
`of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the
`
`ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen explains that
`
`Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-step
`
`ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1102 ¶ 56; Pet. 18–19.
`
`Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1106, 31, right col., ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes
`
`that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is
`
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Fahey
`
`
`
`Fahey discloses a high-flux beam source that produces a beam of
`
`helium, neon, and argon metastable atoms. Ex. 1105, Abs. Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below, shows a beam source schematic showing Pyrex tube (A),
`
`boron nitride nozzle (B), skimmer (C), and needle or needle array (D). Id. at
`
`381, right col.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above shows a source that produces a low-voltage discharge
`
`between a sharp needle D, which is a cathode maintained at a negative
`
`potential, and cone-shaped skimmer electrode C, which is kept at ground
`
`potential. Id. at 381, right col., ¶ 4; 382, left col., ¶ 2. The skimmer piece C
`
`is attached with an aluminum gasket to a vacuum wall to allow differential
`
`pumping of the source. Id. at 382, left col., ¶ 1. For all diagnostic
`
`measurements, a set of parallel sweep plates, maintained at an adequate
`
`voltage, is mounted after the skimmer to keep the beam free of charged
`
`species. Id. at 382, left col., ¶ 5. The source can provide very stable thermal
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`energy beams of helium, neon, and argon metastable atoms. Id. at 381, right
`
`col., ¶ 3.
`
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma treatment apparatus for generating a
`
`stable plasma with a multi-step ionization process to treat a semiconductor
`
`wafer. Ex. 1108, Abs., 6:67–7:8. Figure 9 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 9 of Iwamura, a first plasma generation unit is
`
`located downstream from a pre-excitation unit along the flow path of the
`
`gas, and the first plasma generation unit includes lower ion capture
`
`electrode 80, which is formed from a wire grid or perforated metal sheet. Id.
`
`at 11:51–55. The pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit
`
`preactivate the gas, raising the excitation level of the ground state atoms and
`
`generating a volume of metastable atoms. Id. at 2:34–39, 2:56–58. Ion
`
`capture electrode 80 is connected to ground potential so as to trap electrons
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`and ions in the volume of metastable atoms. Id. The second plasma
`
`generation unit, which includes electrodes 30, activates the gas to generate
`
`plasma. Id. at 2:59–61, 8:4–9, 8:32–46.
`
`
`
`According to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the gas is raised
`
`first, a uniform and stable plasma can be generated. Id. at 2:39–41 (“[T]he
`
`generation of a plasma and formulation of activated gas species in the
`
`downstream region is made easier and more uniform and stable.”), 8:32–37.
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density, as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of semiconductor wafer, can be improved. Id. at 2:46–50,
`
`8:41–46.
`
`“Generating an Initial Plasma and Excited Ions from a Volume of Feed Gas”
`and “Transporting the Initial Plasma and Excited Atoms Proximate
`to a Cathode Assembly”
`
`
`
`Zond asserts that the mere use of four references establishes an
`
`improper hindsight analysis using claim 18 as a guide to reach an
`
`obviousness conclusion. Prelim. Resp. 26. Zond also finds deficiencies in
`
`the references for what each teaches alone (see Prelim. Resp. 27–30), but
`
`does not address what the combination teaches. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 406
`
`(stating determination of obviousness involves differences between claimed
`
`subject matter and prior art such that subject matter, as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious).
`
`
`
`Zond’s arguments concerning the teachings of Iwamura rely on
`
`Zond’s construction of the claim limitation “generating an initial plasma and
`
`excited ions from a volume of feed gas” to require generating both an initial
`
`plasma and excited atoms from the same volume of feed gas that is flowing.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 27. As we indicated in our claim construction section above,
`
`such a construction is not supported by the current record. See above at
`
`Section III(A)(1).
`
`
`
`Zond’s argument with respect to the teachings of Fahey focuses on an
`
`alleged teaching away from the limitations of “generating an initial plasma
`
`and excited ions from a volume of feed gas” and “transporting the initial
`
`plasma and excited atoms proximate to a cathode assembly” by the
`
`statement that, for diagnostic measurements, the charged species were
`
`removed from the beam after the skimmer. Prelim. Resp. 23–24, 27;
`
`Ex. 1105, 382, right col., ¶ 4. This does not teach away from the fact that
`
`Fahey’s source generates plasma containing charged species, such as
`
`electrons and ions. Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1102 ¶ 64; Ex. 1105, Introduction
`
`(describing metastable beam source, simplified by Fahey’s modifications,
`
`which design employed a “weak, high-voltage corona discharge between a
`
`sharp needle and a cone-shaped anode.”) (emphasis added). We are
`
`persuaded, on this record, that Fahey’s beam source, which has substantially
`
`the same structure as an embodiment in the ’652 patent, teaches generating
`
`an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas. See Pet. 21–
`
`23 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 64–65; Ex. 1105). Figure 12 of the ’652 patent and
`
`Figure 1 of Fahey are reproduced below.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 12 of the ’652 patent shows a cross-sectional view of the plasma
`
`generating apparatus, and Figure 1 of Fahey shows a beam source.
`
`“Super-Ionizing the Initial Plasma Proximate to the Cathode Assembly
`Thereby Generating a High-Density Plasma
`
`
`
`Zond asserts that Iwamura does not teach that the plasma in region B
`
`(see Figure 9, above, at 18) is super-ionized to generate a high-density
`
`plasma. Prelim. Resp. 30. TSMC, however, does not rely on a teaching
`
`from Iwamura for super-ionization; TSMC relies on Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev to suggest generating very high density plasma that either
`
`implicitly or obviously disclose ionizing 75% of the feed gas provided to
`
`Mozgrin. Pet. 45; see also id. at 46 (stating “Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`teach the step of super-ionizing, including teaching desirability of achieving
`
`high plasma density with multi-step ionization of a gas, such as argon, that
`
`would be considered ‘super-ionized’”). TSMC relies on Iwamura for its
`
`express statements of the desirability of providing an initial plasma with
`
`excited atoms in a first step, followed by an energy-providing second step.
`
`Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 74–86, 126), 47. We are persuaded, on this
`
`record, that Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey suggest “super-ionizing the
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`initial plasma proximate to the cathode assembly thereby generating a high-
`
`density plasma.” See Pet. 26–31; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 76–86.
`
`
`
`We are persuaded that TSMC has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 18 is unpatentable over
`
`the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`
`
`Zond specifically addresses TSMC’s arguments regarding the
`
`obviousness of dependent claims 19, 21, 25, 27–28, 33, and 34. See Prelim.
`
`Resp. 41–47. As to claim 19, Zond asserts that “Fahey applies his voltage
`
`between the needle D and skimmer C in a region with no shown boundaries
`
`or containment,” therefore, it is not clear that Fahey applies an electric field
`
`across a volume of feed gas. Prelim. Resp. 45. As we have set forth in our
`
`claim construction section above, we do not agree with Zond that “a volume
`
`of feed gas” necessarily means the same or a single volume of feed gas. See
`
`above at Sec. III(A)(1). Also, it is not clear that Fahey lacks containment of
`
`a volume of gas. Fahey discusses using a pressure gradient to maintain the
`
`discharge. Ex. 1105, 381, right col., ¶ 4. Specifically, Fahey states that
`
`[t]he skimmer piece is attached with an aluminum gasket to a
`vacuum wall to allow differential pumping of the source. Gas
`is admitted to the glass tube by a micrometer leak valve
`mounted outside of the vacuum chamber. The source region is
`contained inside a 10 cm Corning Pyrex glass cross which is
`evacuated by a 300 1 s-1 oil diffusion pump, The reaction
`region is a 97 1 stainless-steel chamber in which the pressure is
`maintained below 1.3 X 10-4 Pa (10-6 Torr).
`
`Id. at 382, left col., ¶ 1.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00861
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`As to claim 21, Zond takes issue with TSMC’s statement that
`
`“Fahey’s excited atom source produces the initial plasma and transports it to
`
`Mozgrin[’s] chamber where Mozgrin super-ionizes the initial plasma”
`
`because the combination of Fahey and Mozgrin is not an actua
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
