U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00269 US5
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
` Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00913
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, AND 44
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`Mandatory Notices ...................................................................................... - 1 - 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ....................................................................... - 1 - 
`B. 
`Related Matters ................................................................................. - 1 - 
`C. 
`Counsel ............................................................................................. - 1 - 
`D. 
`Service Information .......................................................................... - 1 - 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................ - 2 - 
`II. 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 - 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................... - 2 - 
`B. 
`Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................... - 3 - 
`IV.  Brief Description of Technology ................................................................ - 3 - 
`A. 
`Plasma............................................................................................... - 3 - 
`B. 
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ...................................... - 3 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘779 Patent ....................................................................... - 5 - 
`A. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent .......................... - 5 - 
`B. 
`Prosecution History .......................................................................... - 9 - 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................ - 10 - 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................... - 10 - 
`B. 
`Overview of Mozgrin ..................................................................... - 11 - 
`C. 
`Overview of Kudryavtsev .............................................................. - 12 - 
`D.  Overview of Iwamura ..................................................................... - 12 - 
`E. 
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck .............................................. - 13 - 
`VII.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... - 14 - 
`A. 
`“multi-step ionization” ................................................................... - 15 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................... - 15 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 9, 21 and 44 would have been obvious in view
`of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Gruber .............................. - 16 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................. - 16 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 29 - 
`
`i
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`Dependent claims 9 and 21 .................................................. - 32 - 
`3. 
`Independent claim 44 ........................................................... - 34 - 
`4. 
`Ground II: Claims 7 and 20 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells .................................... - 36 - 
`Ground III: Claim 9, 21 and 44 would have been obvious over
`Iwamura, Angelbeck and Gruber ................................................... - 38 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................. - 38 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 50 - 
`3. 
`Dependent claims 9 and 21 .................................................. - 52 - 
`4. 
`Independent claim 44 ........................................................... - 54 - 
`D.  Ground IV: Claims 7 and 20 would have been obvious in view
`of the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Wells ................ - 55 - 
`Ground V: Claim 38 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Iwamura ............................... - 57 - 
`Ground VI: Claim 38 would have been obvious in view of the
`Iwamura and Angelbeck ................................................................. - 59 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................ - 60 - 
`
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312………………………………………………………....Cover Page
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22……………………………………………………….…………2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100…………………………………………………………...14, 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104…………………………………….……........Cover page, 2, 16
`
`CASE LAW
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)……...15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1401)
`
`against 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 has
`
`filed Petition Nos. IPR2014-00598, IPR2014-00686, IPR2014-00765, IPR2014-
`
`00820 for claims 1-6, 8, 10-19, 22-37, 39-43, 45 and 46 of the ‘779 patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Yung-Hoon Ha (Registration No. 56,368)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references, and others listed in the Table of Exhibits, are
`
`pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability explained below, and are each prior art
`
`under (pre-AIA) 102(b):
`
`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. 1403)).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1404)).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1405)).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1406)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1407)).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`EPO Patent Publication No. EP 0 146 509 (“Gruber” (Ex. 1413)).
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO 83/01349 (“Wells” (Ex. 1414)).
`
`Of these, only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 (hereinafter
`
`“challenged claims”) of the ‘779 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`(“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1402)) 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. 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. Dr.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. provides some general background on plasma and their use in
`
`sputtering at Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21-22 (Ex. 1402). The “density” of a plasma
`
`refers to the number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23
`
`(Ex. 1402). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1402). If all of
`
`an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`in the “ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`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 ¶ 24 (Ex. 1402). A metastable atom is a type of excited atom that is
`
`relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state through
`
`dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Id. (Ex.
`
`1402). See also ‘779 Patent at 7:22-25 (“The term ‘metastable atoms’ is defined
`
`herein to mean excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`
`theoretically forbidden. Metastable atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared
`
`with other excited atoms.”) (Ex. 1401). “All noble gases have metastable states.”
`
`‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1401). When generating excited atoms, multiple levels of
`
`excited states are formed. Of these, some of the lowest states are metastable, and
`
`would typically be more common than the higher states. Id. (Ex. 1402), where Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provides additional support with reference to Exs. 1411 and 1412.
`
`Excited and metastable atoms are electrically neutral – they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1402). A collision
`
`with a low energy free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`or metastable atom. Id. (Ex. 1402). For example, the ‘779 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘779 Patent at 8:7 (Ex. 1401).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1402). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy electron and a ground state, excited, or metastable atom can create an ion.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1402). For example, the ‘779 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 ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and 8:9 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process with an excited/metastable atom/molecule source that generates excited
`
`atoms, or metastable atoms or molecules, and then provides the excited/metastable
`
`atoms or molecules to a plasma chamber where the plasma is formed, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a “multi-step ionization” process. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28
`
`(Ex. 1402). For convenience, this section will just use the term “excited atom
`
`source.” In any event, there appears to be no substantial difference between
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`excited and metastable sources. Id. (Ex. 1402). The ‘779 Patent does not indicate
`
`any particular difference in the operation of an excited atom source when it is a
`
`metastable atom source. Id. (Ex. 1402). The specification repeatedly refers to “an
`
`excited atom source such as a metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at
`
`2:13-14, 17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1401), and says that “[i]n some embodiments, the
`
`metastable atom source 204 generates some excited atoms that are in excited states
`
`other than a metastable state.” Id. at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1401)
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a plasma chamber
`
`consisting of a magnetron sputtering system, without an excited atom source.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1402). It generates plasma through a process that the
`
`patent refers to as a direct ionization process. ‘779 Patent at 3:36-47 (“The
`
`ionization process in known plasma sputtering apparatus is generally referred to as
`
`direct ionization…. The collision between the neutral argon atom and the ionizing
`
`electron results in an argon ion (Ar+) and two electrons.”) (Ex. 1401).
`
`As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly 114 for
`
`holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a
`
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. Id. at
`
`2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1401). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1402).
`
`The alleged invention generally relates to coupling an excited or metastable
`
`atom source to some plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The metastable
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such as the
`
`chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a
`
`commercially available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma
`
`generators can be modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process according to the present invention.”) (Ex. 1401). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1402).
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators “according to
`
`the present invention” that are coupled with separate metastable atom sources
`
`(annotated in color below). ‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3 shows
`
`
`
`
`
`metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33
`
`(Ex. 1402). The metastable atom sources 204 and 304 “generate[] a volume of
`
`metastable atoms 218 from [a] volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779
`
`Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1401). Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`source where they are generated to the region between the cathode 114/306 and
`
`substrate support 136/352, where plasma 202/302 is formed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`33 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Power supply 222 (annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:60-62 (Ex. 1401). Another
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., id. at 11:4-14
`
`(“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable atoms
`
`218. The power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a pulsed
`
`power supply, a RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power supply. …
`
`The power supply 316 generates an electric field 322 between the cathode 306 and
`
`the anode 308 that raises the energy of the volume of metastable atoms 218 so that
`
`at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms 218 are ionized, thereby
`
`generating the plasma 302.”) (Ex. 1401). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted to the
`
`inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2). See, e.g.,
`
`‘779 Patent at 4:31-34 and 9:51-62 (Ex. 1401). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the specification, the
`
`“excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the excited atoms in
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`a source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that later raise the
`
`energy of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with “multi-step
`
`ionization,” a term the ‘779 Patent defines as an ionization process whereby ions
`
`are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”1 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779
`
`Patent rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art that
`
`showed a first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second
`
`chamber for increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a
`
`plasma using multi-step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1408).
`
`The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the independent
`
`claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes “a magnet
`
`that generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex. 1409). The
`
`claims were then allowed.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does not indicate that an
`
`excited atom source with magnets has any special significance over other ways for
`
`generating excited/metastable atoms. Although the magnet embodiment was
`
`claimed, the specification indicates that there were other ways to generate excited
`
`1 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`atoms, and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11—without
`
`the magnets that were required for the claims to be allowed. The “magnet” recited
`
`in the claims refers particularly to the embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7, and10, and
`
`specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a and 506b in FIG. 6; magnets 566a-d and
`
`570a-d in FIG. 7; and magnets 712 and 714 in FIG. 10. ‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6 and
`
`7; 14:46-15:45; and 16:12-20 (Ex. 1401).
`
`European Counterpart. The applicants had also identified these magnets,
`
`located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in
`
`counterpart claims in Europe, which read in part:
`
`characterised [sic] in that the excited atom source (204) comprises a
`magnet (504, 506) that is arranged to generate a magnetic field (508)
`that traps electrons proximate to the ground state atoms.
`
`24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136 (Ex. 1410)
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1402).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 42 (Ex. 1402).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin shows the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a
`
`plasma discharge generated by Mozgrin. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC
`
`into four distinct regions. Id. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (Ex.
`
`1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1402). Application of
`
`a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1402). 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. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (Ex. 1403). Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron
`
`discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1402). 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. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1402).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3(Ex.
`
`1403). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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. 1404). 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., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1404). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1404).
`
`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. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1402).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1407). “A first plasma generation unit for
`
`preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned upstream along the flow
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma generation unit for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas
`
`in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma generation unit
`
`preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and
`
`forms activated gas species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second
`
`plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex.
`
`1407); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1402).
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable atoms,
`
`and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by a
`
`further energy providing step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-50,
`
`claim 1 (Ex. 1407); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1402).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing
`
`gas laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a
`
`magnetic field which is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the
`
`electric field to overcome the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1405); see
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1402). The transverse magnetic field traps
`
`electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the interaction between the current
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`and the magnetic field will result in an upstream force as indicated by the force
`
`vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to maintain the
`
`electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”) (Ex. 1405); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic
`
`field to maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated
`
`and pass through. Id. at ¶ 52 (Ex. 1402). The Angelbeck patent (with a lead
`
`inventor who is also a co-inventor on the Pinsley patent) makes clear that gas
`
`lasers of the type disclosed by Pinsley generate excited atoms as part of their
`
`operation. Angelbeck at 1:21-25 (“This invention relates to gas lasers, and
`
`particularly to a method and apparatus for increasing and controlling the light
`
`output of a gas laser by applying a transverse magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20
`
`(“A high gas pressure P is advantageous, however, for creating a high density of
`
`excited atoms in the laser.”) (Ex. 1403); Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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. In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any claim
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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. 2
`
`“multi-step ionization”
`
`A.
`Each of the independent claims in the ‘779 Patent recites the term “multi-
`
`step ionization.” The ‘779 Patent defines this term “to mean an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex.
`
`1401). This is consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the
`
`specification, which generate the excited atoms in a source that is distinct from,
`
`and coupled to, the components that later raise the energy of the excited or
`
`metastable atoms to generate a plasma. Thus the proposed construction for “multi-
`
`step ionization” is “an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two
`
`distinct steps.” This proposed construction is consistent with the position taken by
`
`the Patent Owner in 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.), where the
`
`Patent Owner construed this term as “an ionization process having two or more
`
`distinct steps.” (Ex. 1415).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`2 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`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.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Declaration (Ex. 1402), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of the ‘779
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.3
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 9, 21 and 44 would have been obvious in view
`of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Gruber
`1. Independent claim 1
`
`The preamble: “[a] plasma generator that generates a plasma
`with a multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator
`comprising”
`
`Mozgrin teaches a plasma generator that generates plasma using the power
`
`supply shown in Fig 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1402). The power supply
`
`includes a stationary discharge supply unit, to generate a pre-ionized plasma.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (“For pre-ionization… the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1402).
`
`The power supply further includes a high-voltage supply unit, to deliver
`
`voltage pulses to the pre-ionized plasma. See Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4
`
`(“…applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was filled up with
`
`3 Petitioner addresses the invalidity of independent claims 1, 18 and 30 in a
`
`separate petition IPR2014-00598. Claims 1, 18 and 30 are addressed herein to
`
`demonstrate the invalidity of claims that depend from claims 1, 18 and 30.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58
`
`(Ex. 1402). Mozgrin explains that in “[d]esigning the [pulsed power supply] unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in [8] of ionization
`
`relaxation on pre-ionization parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.”
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right columns (Ex. 1403). The reference [8] is
`
`Kudryavtsev.
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses “multi-step ionization.” It would have been obvious
`
`for one of ordinary skill to combine Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev. See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1402). In addition to the fact that Mozgrin itself cites
`
`Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin explicitly notes that its power supply unit was designed
`
`in accordance with Kudryavtsev, Kudryavtsev also states, “[s]ince the effects
`
`studied in this work are characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly
`
`applied to a weakly ionized gas, they must be allowed for when studying emission
`
`mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Kudryavtsev
`
`at 34, right col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1404). Because Mozgrin applies voltage pulses that
`
`“suddenly generate an electric field,” one of ordinary skill reading Mozgrin would
`
`have been motivated to consider Kudryavtsev to further appreciate the effects of
`
`applying Mozgrin’s pulses. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Kudryavtsev explains the contribution of multi-step ionization to the overall
`
`ionization process. Id. at ¶ 60 (Ex. 1402). Referring to the annotated copy of
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 1 copied below, ionization occurs with an initial “slow stage”
`
`
`
`
`(Fig 1a) followed by a
`
`“fast stage” (Fig. 1b).
`
`Kudryavtsev at 31,
`
`right col, ¶ 7 (Ex.
`
`1404) (“The behavior of the increase in ne with time thus enables us to arbitrarily
`
`divide the ionization process into two stages, which we will call the slow and fast
`
`growth stages. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships between the main electron
`
`currents in terms of the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages.”).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1402).
`
`During the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant
`
`contribution to the generation of plasma ions (see arrow Γ1e colored in green
`
`showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the ground state (bottom line
`
`labeled “1”)). Id. at ¶ 61 (Ex. 1402). In addition, during the slow stage, excited
`
`atoms are also created within the plasma chamber (see arrow Γ12 colored in blue
`
`showing excitation into lowest excited state (middle line labeled “2”) from the
`
`ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Id. (Ex. 1402). Once the population of
`
`excited atoms becomes large enough, fast stage occurs, as shown in Fig. 1b. As
`
`shown, multi-step (or “stepwise”) ionization, which occurs through the generation
`
`of excited atoms (see arrow Γ12 colored in blue), becomes the dominant ionization
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`process as shown by the thick arrow labeled Γ2e ((colored in red) showing
`
`ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the lowest excited state (middle line labeled
`
`“2”)). See also Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 (Ex. 1404); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61
`
`(Ex. 1402). The thin arrows labeled Γ1e show that direct ionization produces ions
`
`at a roughly constant rate in both the slow and fast stages. Id. (Ex. 1402). The
`
`thick arrow labeled Γ2e in Fig. 1b shows that multi-step ionization can produce ions
`
`at a much greater rate than direct ionization. Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`Kudryavtsev explains the rapid increase in ionization once multi-step
`
`ionization becomes the dominant process as follows: “For nearly stationary n2
`
`[excited atom density] values … there is an explosive increase in ne [plasma
`
`density]. The subsequent