U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`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. 6,853,142
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 2, 11, 13, 14 AND 16
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`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 ............................................ - 2 - 
`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 ‘142 patent .......................................................................... - 7 - 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’142 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 ................................................................................ - 8 - 
`C.  Overview of Kudryavtsev ....................................................................... - 10 - 
`D.  Overview of Wang .................................................................................. - 11 - 
`E.  Overview of Lantsman ............................................................................ - 12 - 
`VII. 
`Claim Construction ................................................................................. - 13 - 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ....................... - 14 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition .................................................................. - 15 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`Lantsman ......................................................................................................... - 16 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................. - 16 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 10 ........................................................................... - 29 - 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B.  Ground II: Claims 13 and 14 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman ........................................................................................ - 31 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................. - 31 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 10 ........................................................................... - 40 - 
`3.  Dependent claims 13 and 14 ................................................................ - 42 - 
`C.  Ground III: Claims 2 and 11 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev .............................................................. - 44 - 
`1.  Excited atoms ...................................................................................... - 45 - 
`2.  Secondary electrons ............................................................................. - 49 - 
`D.  Ground IV: Claims 2 and 11 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev .................................................................. - 52 - 
`E.  Ground V: Claims 13 and 16 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Lantsman and the Mozgrin Thesis ................................................... - 55 - 
`F.  Ground VI: Claim 16 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang,
`Lantsman and the Mozgrin Thesis ................................................................... - 58 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 60 - 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`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 6,853,142
`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. 6,853,142 (“’142 Patent”) (Ex. 1101)
`
`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.). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related1 to the ’142 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘142 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 13, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00495. 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 6,853,142
`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 on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 2, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the ’142 Patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1103)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1104)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1105)), which is prior art under 102(a)
`
`and (e).
`
`4.
`
`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. 1106)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`5. 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. 1118)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1118 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`2 The ‘142 Patent was issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to
`
`the prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`attached as Exhibit 1119. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1120.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 2, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the ’142
`
`Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1102))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.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1102). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as
`
`
`3 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1102 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00495, discussed above.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 2, 11, 13, 14 and 16
`
`of the ‘142 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘142
`
`Patent in separate petitions.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 5 Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘142 Patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1102). 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). Id. (Ex. 1102). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface
`
`causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1102). The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. Id. at
`
`¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1102). The need
`
`to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘142 Patent was filed.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`
`5 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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21, FN1 (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1102). If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`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.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1102). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1102). A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. (Ex. 1102). For
`
`example, the ‘142 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘142 Patent at
`
`10:12 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex.
`
`1102). For example, the ‘142 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘142 Patent at 3:1 and 9:14 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before the
`
`‘142 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1102).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘142 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’142 Patent
`The ‘142 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying an electrical pulse
`
`in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing. More specifically, the
`
`claims of the ‘142 Patent are generally directed to generating a, so called, “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical pulse to increase the density of that
`
`plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`claimed to reduce the probability of forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 10/07/03 Office Action at 3 (Ex. 1107). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber”
`
`or similar limitations. See 03/08/04 Resp. (Ex. 1108).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. PAATENT 6,8533,142
`
`
`
`Pettition for Inteer Partes Reeview
`
`
`FFollowing tthat amendment, the cclaims werre allowed. The Noticce of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Allowannce expliciitly recites these limittations as thhe examineer’s reasonns for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`allowannce. 03/29//04 Allowaance at 2 (““The prior aart neither
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discloses nnor suggests
`
`
`
`
`
`… the wweakly-ionized plasmma reducingg the probabability of deeveloping aan electricaal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`breakdoown conditiion in the cchamber suuch as requuired by claaims 1, 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 43, 44…110
`
`
`
`and 33.””) (Ex. 11009). Howevver, as expplained in ddetail beloww, and conttrary to thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Examinner’s reasonns for allowwance, the pprior art adddressed heerein teachhes those annd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all otherr limitationns of the chhallenged cclaims. Koortshagen DDecl. ¶ 31 ((Ex. 1102)..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. OOVERVIEEW OF THHE PRIMAARY PRIOOR ART RREFERENNCES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Summmary of thhe Prior AArt
`
`
`
`As explaineed in detail below, limmitation-byy-limitationn, there is nnothing neww or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`A A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`non-obvvious in thee challengeed claims oof the ‘142
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent. Idd. at ¶ 32 (EEx. 1102).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B M
`
`B. Overrview of MMozgrin6
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin teaaches formming a plasmma
`
`
`
`“withouut forming an arc disccharge.” Fiig. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Mozggrin, copiedd below, shhows the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`current--voltage chharacteristicc (“CVC”)
`of a
`
`
`
`plasma discharge. As shownn, Mozgrinn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`divides this CVC iinto four diistinct regiions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Mozgrrin is art off record, buut was not substantivvely applieed during pprosecutionn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36
`
`(Ex. 1102).
`
`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. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex.
`
`1102). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition
`
`from region 1 to 2. Id. (Ex. 1102). 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). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1102). Increasing the current
`
`applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to
`
`transition to region 3. Id. (Ex. 1102). 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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`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. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1102). Further increasing the
`
`applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge”
`
`region 4. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at ¶ 40 (Ex. 1102).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`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. 1106). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how
`
`ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes. 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. 1106). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex.
`
`1102). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1106). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions
`
`multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1106). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1106).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang7
`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). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102). 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 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`7:56-64 (Ex. 1105); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102). 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). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102). Wang applies the teachings of
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102).
`
`E. Overview of Lantsman
`Like Mozgrin and Wang, Lantsman relates to plasma sputtering systems.
`
`Lantsman at Title (“Soft Plasma Ignition in Plasma Processing Chambers”) (Ex.
`
`1104); 1:6-8 (“This invention relates to reduction of device damage in plasma
`
`processes, including DC (magnetron or non-magnetron) sputtering, and RF
`
`sputtering.”) (Ex. 1104). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102). Also like
`
`Mozgrin and Wang, Lantsman is concerned with generating a plasma while avoiding
`
`arcing. Lantsman at 1:51-59 (“Furthermore, arcing which can be produced by
`
`overvoltages can cause local overheating of the target, leading to evaporation or
`
`flaking of target material into the processing chamber and causing substrate particle
`
`contamination and device damage…. Thus, it is advantageous to avoid voltage
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`spikes during processing whenever possible.”) (Ex. 1104). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Lantsman also teaches supplying the feed gas during the entirety of the
`
`plasma processing. Lantsman at 3:9-13 (“[A]t the beginning of processing, this
`
`switch is closed and gas is introduced into the chamber. When the plasma process is
`
`completed, the gas flow is stopped….”) (Ex. 1104); 4:36-38 (“To end processing,
`
`primary supply 10 is disabled, reducing the plasma current and deposition on the
`
`wafer. Then, gas flow is terminated….”) (Ex. 1104). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`45 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Lantsman was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.8 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
`
`8 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 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to
`
`seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this
`
`proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48
`
`(Ex. 1102). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘142 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and then
`
`goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher
`
`power 304. ‘142 Patent at 11:32-38; 12:9-16 (Ex. 1101). The ‘142 Patent also
`
`provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas.
`
`See ‘142 Patent at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 18 (“wherein the peak plasma density of
`
`the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1101).
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`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. 1110).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1102), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 2, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the ’142 Patent, and how
`
`those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`The claim charts that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable, are submitted hereto as Exhibits 1121-1126 (Exs. 1121-
`
`1126). Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed the claim charts and agrees with them.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52, 53, 92, 130, 145, 157 and 166 (Ex. 1102).
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground I: Claim 14 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Lantsman9
`1.
`Independent claim 1
`a)
`Claim 1 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma in a
`
`The preamble
`
`chamber.” As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of
`
`devices: a planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow
`
`electrodes.” Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1102). The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized
`
`below.
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.10
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.11
`
`
`9 The invalidity of claims 1 and 10 are established in another petition. Claims 1
`
`and 10 are addressed herein for the purpose of demonstrating invalidity of claims
`
`that depend from claims 1 and 10.
`
`10 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization…the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering…plasma density (exceeding 2x10-3
`
`cm-3).”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.12
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1102). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘142 Patent. ‘142
`
`Patent at claim 18 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1101). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in a chamber. For
`
`example, Mozgrin states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume was pumped out;
`
`minimal residual gas pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.” Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 3
`
`(Ex. 1103). That is, Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a desired base pressure
`
`within the chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex. 1103). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1102).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`(1)
`“an ionization source that generates a weakly-
`ionized plasma from a feed gas”
`
`
`12 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni  1.5x1015 cm-3…”)
`
`(Ex. 1103).
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ‘142 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘142 Patent at 5:18-19 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is also
`
`referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1101). Mozgrin’s power supply (shown
`
`in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin at 402,
`
`right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.… Part I in
`
`the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘142 Patent. ‘142 Patent
`
`at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1101); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2
`
`(“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; … provided the
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1103) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”) (emphasis added); 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,
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1102).
`
`(2)
`“the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1103). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces