UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00828, 00829, 00917, 01073, 01076
`____________________________________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`UWE KORTSHAGEN PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`I.
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 5
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-46 ................................................. 5
`III.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A.
`“excited atoms” ..................................................................................... 7
`B.
`“metastable atoms” ................................................................................ 7
`C.
`“multi-step ionization process” ............................................................. 7
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements .................................................. 8
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 4-11, 13-16, 18-25, 27, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-
`42, 44, AND 45, AND ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 43 AND 46 ............. 9
`A. General Discussion ................................................................................ 9
`1. Iwamura Generates Excited and Metastable Atoms ............................. 9
`2. Pinsley’s and Angelbeck’s Magnetic Fields’ Substantially Traps
`Electrons .............................................................................................. 18
`3. Applying the Magnetic Field Teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck to
`Iwamura ............................................................................................... 33
`Independent Claims 1, 18, 30, 40, and 41 ........................................... 39
`1. Iwamura Generates Excited and Metastable Atoms ........................... 39
`2. Iwamura’s Preexcitation Unit and Plasma Generation Unit are coupled
`to the plasma chamber ......................................................................... 42
`3. Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck Teach Generating a Magnetic
`Field to Substantially Trap Electrons Proximate to Ground State
`Atoms .................................................................................................. 43
`4. Iwamura Generates a Plasma With a Multi-Step Ionization Process . 48
`Independent Claim 43 and Dependent Claims 8 and 23: Pressure
`Differential Increasing Excitation Rate and Density of Excited Atoms
` ............................................................................................................. 52
`Independent Claim 44 and Dependent Claims 9 and 21: Inductively
`Coupled Discharge Source .................................................................. 54
`Independent Claims 45-46 and Dependent Claims 16, 28, 38, and 42:
`Electron/Ion Absorber Trapping Electrons and Ions .......................... 58
`1
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`F.
`Dependent Claims 4 and 32: Generating Metastable Atoms ............. 62
`G. Dependent Claims 5 and 19: First and Second Electrodes Generating
`a Discharge .......................................................................................... 63
`H. Dependent Claims 6, 22, and 33: Magnetic Field Increasing Excitation
`Rate and Density of Excited Atoms .................................................... 64
`Dependent Claims 7, 20, 34, and 39: Electron Beam Exciting Ground
`State Atoms ......................................................................................... 68
`Dependent Claims 10, 11, 24, and 25: Atom Source Positioned
`Inside/Outside the Plasma Chamber ................................................... 71
`K. Dependent Claims 13-15, 27, 35, and 37: Ionizing Excited and
`Metastable Atoms ................................................................................ 73
`
`J.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.
` My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`
`
` My background is detailed in my declarations submitted with the 2.
`
`original Petition for Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2014-00828, 00829,
`
`00917, 01073, and 01076.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (the “’779Patent”) (Exs. 1001, 1101, 1201, 1301,
`
`1401)).
`
`• A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Exs. 1004, 1104, 1204, 1304, 1404)).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Exs. 1005, 1105, 1205, 1305, 1405)).
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Exs. 1006, 1106, 1206, 1306,
`
`1406)).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Exs. 1007, 1107, 1207, 1307,
`
`1407)).
`
`• EP 0146509 (“Gruber” (Ex. 1413)).
`• WO 83/01349 (“Wells” (Exs. 1214, 1414)).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`• R. F. Post, Proc. of Second U.N. Int’l. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atonic
`
`Energy, Vol. 32 at p. 245 (Geneva, 1958) (“Post” (Exs. 1016, 1116, 1222,
`
`1316, 1418)).
`
`4.
`
`
`Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00828, 00829, 00917, 01073, and 01076, including the Petitions and my
`
`accompanying Declarations. Further, I have reviewed the Board’s Institution
`
`Decisions, Patent Owner’s Responses, the accompanying Declaration of Larry D.
`
`Hartsough, Ph.D in support of Patent Owner’s Responses, and the deposition
`
`testimony of Dr. Hartsough given on April 7, 2015 in connection with Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00828 (Ex. 1223), 00829 (Ex. 1317), 00917 (Ex. 1419), 01073 (Ex.
`
`1017), and 01076 (Ex. 1117).
`
`5.
`
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications and any
`
`other publication cited in this declaration. As I stated previously, the disclosure of
`
`each of these publications provides sufficient information for someone to make and
`
`use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are described in the above
`
`publications.
`
`6.
`
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’779 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’779 Patent
`
`would have found the ’779 Patent invalid.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner as an expert in the field of plasma
`
`technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter on behalf of
`
`Petitioner and am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450/hour
`
`for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`8.
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioners. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’779 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’779 Patent.
`
`II. RELEVANT LAW
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`9.
`
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is detailed in my declaration submitted with the original
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2014-00828, 00829, 00917, 01073,
`
`and 01076, and my understanding remains the same for my instant declaration.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-46
` As a preliminary matter, I note that Patent Owner’s Responses, and
`10.
`
`the accompanying Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D provided in the above
`
`captioned inter partes reviews of the ’779 Patent did not respond to my opinions
`
`regarding the obviousness of claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 26, 29, 31, and 36 of the ’779
`
`Patent set forth in my previous declarations, which I hereby incorporate by
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`reference. See IPR2014-00828, Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 135-136 (claim 31), and 149-153
`
`(claim 36); IPR2014-001073, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 144-145 (claims 2 and 3), 153-155
`
`(claims 12 and 26), and 158-159 (claims 17 and 29).
`
`11.
`
` Accordingly, this supplemental declaration is limited to addressing the
`
`claims Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough responded to, namely: claims 1, 4-11, 13-
`
`16, 18-25, 27, 28, 30, 32-35, and 37-46 of the ’779 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`
`I am unpersuaded by the arguments contained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Responses and Dr. Hartsough’s declaration, as will be explained in greater detail
`
`below. I therefore maintain my findings as expressed at (1) No. 2014-00828, Ex.
`
`1202, ¶¶ 108-145, 146-148, and 149-153 captioned Ground IV, Ground V, and
`
`Ground VI; (2) No. 2014-00829, Ex. 1302, ¶¶ 125-166 and 167-170 captioned
`
`Ground III and Ground IV; (3) No. 2014-00917, Ex. 1402, ¶¶ 106-144, 145-147,
`
`and 152-153 captioned Ground III, Ground IV, and Ground VI; (4) No. 2014-
`
`01073, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 110-159 captioned Ground II; (5) No. 2014-01076, Ex. 1102,
`
`¶¶ 114-132 and 133-162 captioned Ground II and Ground III.
`
`13.
` Thus, it remains my opinion that every limitation of the plasma
`
`generation apparatuses and methods described in claims 1 through 46 of the ’779
`
`Patent are disclosed by the prior art, and are either rendered obvious or anticipated
`
`6
`
`by the prior art.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“excited atoms”
`14.
` The Petitioner had previously proposed, and the Board adopted, the
`
`construction that the claim term “excited atoms” means “atoms that have one or
`
`more electrons in a state that is higher than its lowest possible state.” IPR2014-
`
`00829, Decision at p. 7 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00917, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No.
`
`10); IPR2014-01073, Decision at p. 7 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01076, Decision at
`
`pp. 7-8 (Paper No. 11).
`
`B.
` “metastable atoms”
`15.
` The Petitioner had previously proposed, and the Board adopted, the
`
`construction that the claim term “metastable atoms” means “excited atoms having
`
`energy levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.” IPR2014-
`
`00828, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00829, Decision at pp. 7-8 (Paper
`
`No. 9); IPR2014-00917, Decision at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 10); IPR2014-01073,
`
`Decision at pp. 7-8 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01076, Decision at pp. 8-9 (Paper No.
`
`11).
`
`C.
`“multi-step ionization process”
`16.
` The Parties had previously proposed, and the Board adopted, the
`
`construction that the claim term “multi-step ionization process” means “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.” IPR2014-00828, Decision at
`
`pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00829, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 9);
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917, Decision at pp. 10-11 (Paper No. 10); IPR2014-01073, Decision
`
`at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01076, Decision at pp. 9-10 (Paper No. 11).
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
` The Petitioner had previously proposed four claim elements recited in
`17.
`
`claims 41 and 42 of the ’779 Patent as means-plus-function elements, invoking 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The Patent Owner did not propose any construction for these
`
`elements. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s proposal that the corresponding
`
`structures for the means-plus-function elements identified by Petitioner are as
`
`follows:
`
`Recited functions in italics
`
`Corresponding structures
`
`means for generating a
`magnetic field proximate to a
`volume of ground state atoms
`to substantially trap electrons
`proximate to the volume of
`ground state atoms (claim 41)
`
`magnets—e.g., magnets 566a-d, 570a-d, 712,
`714 that generate a magnetic field as shown in
`Figures 7, 7A, and 10 of the ’779 patent. See Ex.
`1301, 16:1–20 (“The magnets 566a-d, 570a-d
`create a magnetic field 574 that substantially
`traps and accelerates electrons (not shown) in the
`chamber 554.”), 18:34–41, Figs. 7, 7A, 10.
`
`means for generating a volume
`of metastable atoms from the
`volume of ground state atoms
`(claim 41)
`
`a metastable atom source—e.g., metastable
`atom sources 402, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700,
`735 as shown in Figures 4–11 of the ’779 patent.
`Ex. 1301, 14:24–26, 14:46–48, 15:46–67, 16:29–
`31, 17:27–34, 18:7–16, 19:11–12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`means for raising an energy of
`the metastable atoms so that at
`least a portion of the volume of
`metastable atoms is ionized,
`thereby generating a plasma
`with a multistep ionization
`process (claim 41)
`
`means for trapping electrons
`and ions in the volume of
`metastable atoms (claim 42)
`
`
`
`a power supply generating an electric field
`between a cathode assembly and an anode as
`shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ’779 patent. Ex.
`1301, 8:39–5, 11:4–14.
`
`an electron ion/absorber—e.g., electron
`ion/absorbers 536, 618, 664, 728, 750, 750’, and
`750” shown in Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12A–12C
`of the ’779 patent. Pet. 19; Ex. 1301, 14:66–15:9,
`16:56–62, 17:35–42, 18:42–67, 19:56–20:32.
`
`
`IPR2014-00829, Decision at pp. 11-12 (Paper No. 9).
`
`18.
`
`
`I note that Patent Owner’s Responses and the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Dr. Hartsough do not challenge or otherwise disagree with the
`
`Board’s construction of the terms “excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,” “multi-step
`
`ionization process,” and the means-plus-function claim elements.
`
`19.
`
`
`I agree with the constructions by the Board, and my opinion that the
`
`claims of the ’779 Patent are either anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art
`
`applies these constructions.
`
`V. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 4-11, 13-16, 18-25, 27, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-
`42, 44, AND 45, AND ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 43 AND 46
`A. General Discussion
`1.
`Iwamura Generates Excited and Metastable Atoms
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, or the combination of the
`
`preexcitation unit and the first plasma generation unit, generates excited atoms and
`
`metastable atoms in addition to ions. See e.g., Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 110-116 (Ex.
`
`1002); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 114-120 (Ex. 1102); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 114-120
`
`(Ex. 1202); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 131-135 (Ex. 1302); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 106-
`
`112 (Ex. 1402).
`
` As an initial matter, both Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough agree with
`21.
`
`my position that Iwamura’s preexcitation unit generates excited and metastable
`
`atoms. See e.g., Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 110-116 (Ex. 1002) Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶
`
`114-120 (Ex. 1102); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 114-120 (Ex. 1202); Kortshagen Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 131-135 (Ex. 1302); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 106-112 (Ex. 1402); IPR2014-00828,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at p. 35 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00829, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response at pp. 37-38 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00917, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`at p. 37 (Paper No. 27); IPR2014-01073, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 40 (Paper
`
`No. 25); IPR2014-01076, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 38 (Paper No. 25);
`
`Hartsough Decl., ¶ 65 (“It is only Iwamura’s preexcitation unit that excites, or
`
`preexcites, the gas”) (Ex. 2005).
`
`22.
`
`
`Instead, both Patent Owner’s Responses and Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`Declaration go to great lengths attempting to distinguish Iwamura’s teachings by
`
`arguing that “the plasma chamber in Iwamura is coupled to a plasma source [and]
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`is not coupled to the preexcitation unit” and Iwamura’s “plasma generation units
`
`generate plasma (i.e., ions), not excited or metastable atoms.” See e.g. IPR2014-
`
`00828, Patent Owner’s Response at p.33 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00829, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at p. 45 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00917, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response at p. 37 (Paper No. 25) (“the first plasma generation unit is taught to
`
`generate a plasma (equivalently, an ionized gas, an ionized state, or an activated
`
`gas)”); IPR2014-01073, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 32 (Paper No. 25);
`
`IPR2014-01076, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 31 (Paper No. 25); Hartsough
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 55 (Ex. 2005). In other words, both Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough
`
`interprets Iwamura’s use of the term “plasma” to mean only electrons and ions
`
`and would not include excited or metastable atoms generated from ground state
`
`atoms. This interpretation is contrary to the understanding of persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and, therefore, the entirety of Patent Owner’s Responses and Dr.
`
`Hartsough’s declaration which are predicated on this erroneous interpretation, are
`
`flawed.
`
`23.
`
` As I stated in my prior declarations, a plasma is a collection of ions,
`
`free electrons, and neutral atoms (including various excited states). See e.g.,
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102);
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1302);
`
`Kortsahgen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1402). During his deposition, Dr. Hartsough agreed
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`with how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “plasma” –
`
`contradicting Patent Owner’s Responses and the opinions in his declaration. See
`
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D, 42:9-15 (“Q: So in a given
`
`volume of space, where you have a collection of ions, electrons, and ground
`
`state atoms and excited atoms, it would be fair to characterize that as a plasma?
`
`[Objection: form.] A: That’s been the common usage in this case.”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
` Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s Responses and Dr. Hartsough’s
`24.
`
`declaration, Iwamura’s plasma generation unit generates excited atoms and
`
`metastable atoms in the same manner as claimed in the ’779 Patent. Notably,
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit discloses the same structure as the ’779
`
`Patent’s metastable atom source for exciting atoms. An embodiment of Iwamura’s
`
`first plasma generating unit and an embodiment the ’779 Patent’s excited /
`
`metastable atom source 402 are compared side-by-side, as illustrated below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`
`Iwamura refers to the volume that flows into the chamber as a plasma
`
`or a “preactivated” gas. Iwamura at 2:10-14. As stated above, the plasma or
`
`preactivated gas, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, contains ions
`
`and electrons as well as electrically neutral atom species, including ground state
`
`atoms and excited atoms (including metastable atoms which is a type of an excited
`
`atom). See e.g., Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1102); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex.
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`1302); Kortsahgen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1402). This is because only a fraction of all
`
`collisions in the discharge region between two energized electrodes, 26a and 26b,
`
`of Iwamura will result in an ionizing collision between an atom and an electron.
`
`See e.g., Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 115-116 (Ex. 1002); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 119-
`
`120 (Ex. 1102); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 113-114 (Ex. 1202); Kortshagen Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 134-135 (Ex. 1302); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 111-112 (Ex. 1402). The remaining
`
`atoms pass through the region and experience either no collisions, elastic collisions
`
`that do not change their excitation state, or exciting collisions that excite, but not
`
`ionize, the atoms.
`
` The ’779 Patent confirms inasmuch this to be the case. See ’779
`26.
`
`Patent at 13:34-14:23. The ’779 Patent discloses: “[i]n operation, ground state
`
`atoms 208 from the gas source 206 flow to the metastable atom source 402 … [t]he
`
`ground state atoms 208 flow between the first electrode 440 and the second
`
`electrode 442 ... at least a portion of the ground state atoms 208 that are injected
`
`through the discharge region 444 are energized to a metastable state.” ’779 Patent
`
`at 13:66-14:10. As illustrated above in figure 4 of the ’779 Patent, there are ions
`
`424, electrons 426, ground state atoms 208, and metastable atoms 218 at the output
`
`of the metastable atom source 402. See also ’779 Patent at 14:17-23. Excited
`
`atoms will be present as well because metastable atoms are a species of excited
`
`atoms. As recognized by the Board, exciting ground state atoms will generate both
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`excited atoms and metastable atoms. See IPR2014-00828, Decision at p. 8 (Paper
`
`No. 9); IPR2014-00829, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-00917, Decision
`
`at p. 9 (Paper No. 10); IPR2014-01073, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-
`
`01076, Decision at p. 9 (Paper No. 11).
`
` The first plasma generation unit of Iwamura operates in the same
`27.
`
`manner. An inert gas, such as helium or argon, is introduced through gas supply
`
`20. Iwamura at 7:48-50. The inert gas flows down gas supply pipe 20a where it is
`
`exposed to ultraviolet lamp 24. Iwamura at 7:55-58. The ultraviolet radiation
`
`“causes photoionization, and excites the gas. At this stage however, no plasma is
`
`observed in the inert gas. The inert gas, with a raised excitation level, is activated
`
`in a plasma region A between first pair of plasma generation electrodes 26, and a
`
`plasma is thus generated.” Iwamura at 7:58-62.
`
` One addition to the excited / metastable atom source of Iwamura as
`28.
`
`compared to the ’779 Patent is Iwamura’s preexcitation unit (ultraviolet lamp 24)
`
`that raises the excitation level of the inert gas prior to reaching the plasma
`
`generation region A between the first pair of electrodes 26a and 26b (the first
`
`plasma generation unit). Iwamura at 7:47-65. Iwamura teaches that by raising the
`
`level of a portion of the ground state atoms with the ultraviolet lamp 24: “it is
`
`easier to generate a plasma in the downstream plasma region A.” Iwamura at 8:34-
`
`36. However, Iwamura’s preexciation unit will not change the fact that there will
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`be excited atoms and metastable atoms, as well as ions and electrons, at the output
`
`of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit.
`
` One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an excited atom
`29.
`
`compared with a ground state atom is more likely to experience an ionizing
`
`collision with an electron. However, increasing the likelihood of ionizing
`
`collisions in the plasma region A of Iwamura by preexciting the inert gas does not
`
`mean every ground state atom will be ionized as Patent Owner contends. See e.g.
`
`IPR2014-00828, Patent Owner’s Response at p.33 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-
`
`00829, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 45 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00917, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at p. 37 (Paper No. 25) (“the first plasma generation unit is
`
`taught to generate a plasma (equivalently, an ionized gas, an ionized state, or an
`
`activated gas)”); IPR2014-01073, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 32 (Paper No.
`
`25); IPR2014-01076, Patent Owner’s Response at p. 31 (Paper No. 25); Hartsough
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 55 (Ex. 2005).
`
`30.
` Like the discharge region 444 of the ’779 patent, some inert gas atoms
`
`passing through plasma generation region A of Iwamura experience ionizing
`
`collisions resulting in ions and electrons; some atoms experience collisions
`
`resulting in excited and metastable atoms; and some atoms will pass through the
`
`region without any collisions that raise their excitation level, i.e. they will remain
`
`in the ground state. See ’779 Patent at 14:17-23; Iwamura at 7:61-65.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`Consequently, while Iwamura refers to the volume that flows into the chamber as a
`
`plasma or a “preactivated” gas, as previously discussed, one skilled in the art
`
`would understand that not only ions are present in the volume, there are
`
`electrically neutral atom species as well, including ground state atoms, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms.
`
` Accordingly, ions, electrons, excited atoms, and metastable atoms all
`31.
`
`flow from the plasma generation region A of Iwamura into the chamber 10.
`
`Iwamura at 7:66-8:3. Notably, this is precisely what is disclosed by Iwamura’s
`
`statement: “[i]n other words, the gas reaching the downstream plasma generation
`
`position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state, formed by preactivation, i.e.,
`
`the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high due to the upstream
`
`plasma preactivation.” Iwamura at 2:34-39 (emphasis added). In order to “further
`
`activate” the plasma output by the first plasma generation unit, some atoms
`
`necessarily will be in the ground and excited states. See Iwamura at 8:4-7 (“In a
`
`plasma region B between second pair of plasma generation electrodes 30, the
`
`activated helium gas is further activated, generating a plasma at or about
`
`atmospheric pressure.”) (emphasis added).
`
`32.
`
` Dr. Hartsough’s testimony supports my opinion as well. When
`
`responding to questions about the output of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit
`
`during his deposition, Dr. Hartsough agreed that: (1) the gas species flowing into
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation region A will form a plasma that contains ions
`
`and ground state atoms, and probably contain excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`as well; and (2) this plasma will flow into Iwamura’s treatment chamber. See
`
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D, 74:2-76:4.
`
`33.
`
`
`In sum, Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, or the combination of
`
`the first plasma generation unit and the preexcitation unit, generates a plasma
`
`comprising a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and
`
`metastable atoms, all of which flows into Iwamura’s treatment chamber.
`
`2.
`
`Pinsley’s and Angelbeck’s Magnetic Fields’ Substantially
`Traps Electrons
`
`34.
`
`
`I do not agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s assertions that
`
`the magnetic fields disclosed in Pinsley and Angelbeck do not “substantially trap”
`
`electrons as recited by the claims of the ’779 Patent. See e.g. IPR2014-00828,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pp. 28-31 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00829, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at pp. 32-35 (Paper No. 26); IPR2014-00917, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response at pp. 37-42 (Paper No. 27); IPR2014-01073, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`at pp. 33-37 (Paper No. 25); IPR2014-01076, Patent Owner’s Response at pp. 32-
`
`36 (Paper No. 26); Hartsough Decl., ¶¶ 56-60 (Ex. 2005).
`
`a) Magnetic field configurations of the ’779 Patent
`
`
` The ’779 Patent neither defines the term “substantially trapping,” nor 35.
`
`provides any objective criteria for determining as such. However, the ’779 Patent
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`does disclose at least four configurations of magnetic fields that the specification
`
`describes traps, or substantially traps, electrons.1 For example, in reference to the
`
`prior art magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 illustrated in figure 1, the ’779 Patent
`
`discloses that magnets 130 are used to generate a magnetic field 132 proximate to
`
`the sputtering target 116. ’779 Patent at 3:9-18. The magnetic field 132 “is shaped
`
`to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.” ’779
`
`Patent at 3:13-15. An annotated illustration of figure 1 highlighting the prior art
`
`magnetic field 132 is shown below:
`
`
`1 Dr. Hartsough inexplicably states in his declaration that the ’779 Patent
`
`specification only describes one magnet configuration. See Hartsough Decl., ¶ 57
`
`19
`
`(Ex. 2005).
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`36.
` The ’779 Patent also discloses an embodiment of an excited atom
`
`source illustrated in figures 7 and 7A. As disclosed by the ’779 Patent, the
`
`embodiment of figures 7 and 7A have magnets 566a-d and 570a-d that “create a
`
`magnetic field 574 that substantially traps and accelerates electrons (not pictured)
`
`in the chamber 554.” ’779 Patent at 15:12-16. An annotated illustration of figures
`
`7 and 7A is shown below:
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`37.
` Other magnetic field configurations are disclosed in connection with
`
`figures 10 and 12B of the ’779 Patent. See ’779 Patent at 18:34-41, 20:10-13.
`
`Thus, as disclosed by the ’779 Patent, there are multiple magnetic field
`
`configurations capable of “substantially trapping” electrons, and the use of
`
`magnets and their corresponding magnetic fields to trap electrons was not invented
`
`by Dr. Chistyakov, and was already known in the prior art.
`
`Pinsley’s magnetic field configuration
`
`b)
`I understand Pinsley to disclose a magnetic field configuration that
`
`38.
`
`
`will “substantially trap” electrons as the term is used in the ’779 Patent. In his
`
`declaration, Dr. Hartsough contends that Pinsley’s magnetic field does not
`
`“substantially trap” electrons because “[electrons] can easily still easily [sic] flow
`
`to the anode.” See Hartsough Decl., ¶ 60 (Ex. 2005). However, Dr. Hartsough’s
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`opinion is predicated on a flawed reading of Pinsley that does not reflect the
`
`understanding of those with skill in the art.
`
` As evidenced by his deposition testimony, Dr. Hartsough interprets
`39.
`
`the force created by Pinsley’s transverse magnetic field configuration only to be in
`
`a direction opposite that of the gas flow direction such that the electrons “flow in a
`
`straight line between the anode and cathode.” See Deposition Transcript of Larry
`
`D. Hartsough, Ph.D, 145:23-146:14 (“A: … What he means is that the force F is
`
`sufficient to counterbalance the flow, which is in the opposite direction, so that as
`
`the electrons flow between the anode and cathode … they tend to flow in a straight
`
`line between the anode and cathode.”). Dr. Hartsough’s interpretation is incorrect
`
`because he fails to take into account that as a matter of the natural laws of physics,
`
`Pinsley’s magnetic field lines are non-uniform and converges near the magnets
`
`similar to the magnetic field lines depicted in figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, and like
`
`figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, will “substantially trap” electrons.
`
`40.
` The magnetic field configuration of Pinsley is illustrated in the
`
`annotated FIGURE, below:
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`41.
` Pinsley discloses a magnetic field configuration that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to both the gas flow direction 14 and the current flow
`
`vector 30 within a gas laser conduit 10. Pinsley at Abstract, 2:27-42. While
`
`Pinsley does not show the magnetic field lines in its FIGURE, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that disposing magnets 24 and 26 above and below the
`
`conduit 10 will produce non-uniform magnetic field lines within the conduit 10.
`
`These non-uniform magnetic field lines will converge as they get close to the
`
`magnets 24 and 26, as illustrated by the annotations to the FIGURE above. A
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`cross-sectional view of Pinsley’s non-uniform magnetic field lines is provided
`
`below for further clarity:
`
`
`
`42.
` This understanding is supported by the ’779 Patent. The embodiment
`
`of the excited atom source illustrated in figure 7A of the ’779 Patent also provides
`
`magnets 566a and 570a in the same orientation above and below the chamber 554,
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`GlobalFoundries 1417
`
`

`
`
`
`resulting in the depicted non-uniform magnetic field lines 574 that converge as
`
`they get close to magnets 566a and 570a. 2 See ’779 Patent at FIG. 7A, 15:12-16.
`
` Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field lines will
`43.
`
`“substantially trap” electrons in a