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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2014-009171
`Patent 6,085779 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-01073 and IPR2014-01076
`have been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL ......... 1
`
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings ..................................................... 1
`
`B. Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck .................. 4
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Pinsley and Angelbeck ......................................................................... 9
`
`D. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Gruber ................................................................................................. 12
`
`E. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Wells ................................................................................................... 15
`
`III. CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, AND 44 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`CITED PRIOR ART ................................................................................................ 16
`
`A. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an excited atom
`source” recited in claims 1, and “a metastable atom source” recited in
`claim 18. ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`B. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “a plasma chamber
`that is coupled to the [excited / metastable] atom source” recited in
`claims 1 and 18. .......................................................................................... 19
`
`C. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an energy source
`that is coupled to the volume of [excited / metastable] atoms … thereby
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process” recited by
`claims 1, 18, and 44. ................................................................................... 20
`
`D. Iwamura in view of Pinsley, Angelbeck, and Gruber teaches “an
`inductively coupled discharge source” recited in claims 9, 21, and 44. .... 21
`
`E. Iwamura in view of Pinsley, Angelbeck, and Wells teaches “the
`electron beam exciting the ground state atoms” recited in claims 7 and
`20. ............................................................................................................... 22
`
`F. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “trapping electrons
`and ions in the volume of metastable atoms” recited in claim 38. ............. 23
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........... 4
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 27, 2015
`
`Exhibit
`1401
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“’779 Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`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”)
`
`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”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Office Action dated
`February 11, 2004 (“02/11/04 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Response dated May 6, 2004
`(“05/06/04 Response”)
`
`European Patent Application No. 1614136, Response dated July 24,
`2007 (07/24/07 Response in EP 1614136)
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. I: Formulation and basic data, J. Phys.
`D: Appl. Phys. 22 (1989) pp. 623-631, Printed in the UK
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. II: Application to low-pressure, hollow-
`cathode arc and low-pressure glow discharges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
`
`v
`
`1402
`
`1403
`
`1404
`
`1405
`
`1406
`
`1407
`
`1408
`
`1409
`
`1410
`
`1411
`
`1412
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`1413
`
`1414
`
`1415
`
`1416
`
`22 (1989) pp. 632-643, Printed in the UK
`
`EP 0146509 (“Gruber”)
`
`WO 83/01349 (“Wells”)
`
`Plaintiff Zond LLC’s preliminary proposed claim constructions
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Fitzpatrick in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`1416v2 Affidavit of Mr. Rismiller in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Supp. Kortshagen
`Decl.”)
`
`R. F. Post, Proc. of Second U.N. Int’l. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of
`Atomic Energy, Vol. 32 at p. 245 (Geneva, 1958) (“Post”)
`
`Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`(“Hartsough Depo.”)
`
`
`vi
`
`1417
`
`1418
`
`1419
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board recognized that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of the ’779 Patent are
`
`unpatentable. DI at p. 29 (Paper No. 10). None of the arguments raised by Zond
`
`and Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, is sufficient to alter the determination of the
`
`Board in its DI. Zond’s Patent Owner Response offers flawed interpretations of
`
`the prior art and well-understood technical terms (e.g., plasma), and in some cases
`
`mischaracterizes Petitioner’s argument, in a vain attempt to distinguish the cited
`
`prior art.
`
`The Petition, supported by Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration, clearly
`
`demonstrated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`
`teachings of the cited references. In fact, the cross-examination of Dr. Hartsough
`
`demonstrates many areas of agreement between Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough
`
`and contrary to the arguments in Zond’s Patent Owner Response. Petitioner
`
`provides a supplemental declaration of Dr. Korthshagen to respond to Zond’s
`
`Patent Owner Response and the declaration by Dr. Hartsough.
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings
`
`The entirety of Zond’s arguments directed to Iwamura are flawed because
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`they are predicated upon an interpretation of the term “plasma” as containing only
`
`ions that is contrary to the understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 20-24 (Ex. 1417). Despite this, Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s
`
`declarant, concedes that the plasma generated by Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit, is a plasma that contains excited atoms including metastable
`
`atoms, in addition to ions. 2 Hartsough Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So a portion of the
`
`
`2 While Dr. Hartsough concedes that the common usage of the term plasma is a
`
`collection of ions, electrons, and ground state atoms and excited atoms,
`
`(Hartsough Depo., at 42:9-25 (Ex. 1419)), he could not confirm the composition of
`
`the gases within Iwamura’s plasma chamber as he admits he is not a plasma
`
`physicist. Id. at 78:9-12. Indeed, Dr. Hartsough repeatedly admitted this fact
`
`throughout his deposition. See e.g., Id. at 27:11-19, 28:14-18, 42:19-43:3. Instead,
`
`Dr. Hartsough relies exclusively on what the documents state. Id. at 41:18-21.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, who is a trained plasma physicist and teaches courses on plasma
`
`technology, (Kortshagen Decl., Appendix A) (Ex. 1402), confirms that a plasma is
`
`defined as “a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms (including
`
`various excited states)” and that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit “generates
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`gas species flowing into plasma generation re[gion] A would form a plasma;
`
`correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that plasma contains ions? A. Yes. … A. It
`
`would contain other species, yes. … Q. Ground state atoms? A. Yes. Q. Excited
`
`atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable atoms? A. Quite possibly.”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1419).
`
`Consequently, Zond’s arguments that: (1) Iwamura’s first plasma generation
`
`unit “is generating an activated (preactivated) plasma gas, as opposed to an excited
`
`gas (i.e., excited atom source)”; and (2) Iwamura’s plasma chamber “is coupled to
`
`a plasma source [and] not coupled to the preexctation unit,” squarely contradicts
`
`the teachings of Iwamura, the ’779 Patent, and Zond’s own declarant. See Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (“Response”) at pp. 43-44 (Paper No. 27). As such, Iwamura’s
`
`first plasma generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit and the
`
`plasma generation unit, generates excited and metastable atoms. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1417).
`
`
`
` plasma comprising a volume of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited
`
` a
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms, all of which flows into Iwamura’s treatment
`
`chamber.” Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1417).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`B.
`Zond’s arguments that the magnetic field configurations disclosed in Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck do not “substantially trap” electrons as recited by claims 1 and 18
`
`of the ’779 Patent run afoul of the Federal Circuit’s teachings that “[a] reference
`
`must be considered for everything it teaches” and “the combined teachings of the
`
`prior art as a whole must be considered.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc.,
`
`755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); Response at pp. 33-38
`
`(Paper No. 25).
`
`In its Response, Zond narrowly focuses on a handful of lines from Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck’s disclosures, failing to take into consideration the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck as a whole to one of ordinary skill in the art. When
`
`properly considered in their entirety, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the magnetic field configurations of Pinsley and Angelbeck to
`
`“substantially trap” electrons in the same manner as the term is used in the ’779
`
`Patent. 3 Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 38-56 (Ex. 1417).
`
`
`3 Neither Zond nor Dr. Hartsough has provided a construction of the term
`
`“substantially trap,” as it is used in the ’779 Patent. Moreover, when questioned,
`
`Dr. Hartsough could not articulate any objective criteria for determining when a
`
`magnetic field configuration would “substantially trap” electrons, only that he will
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Regarding Pinsley, Zond argues Pinsley’s magnetic field does not
`
`“substantially trap” electrons because “[electrons] can easily still flow to the
`
`anode.” Response at p. 41 (Paper No. 27). Zond’s argument is flawed for a
`
`number of reasons. First, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough in the context of the ’779
`
`patent teachings, whether or not the “substantially trap[ped]” electrons flow to the
`
`anode is immaterial to the teachings of the ’779 Patent. Hartsough Depo. at
`
`139:20-24 (“Q. So at some point, the electron will flow towards the anode … that’s
`
`illustrated by Figure 7A? A. Well, they can flow to the anode. In fact, most of
`
`them will”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1017).
`
`Second, Zond’s argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the force
`
`created by Pinsley’s transverse magnetic field configuration only to be in a
`
`direction opposite that of the gas flow direction. Response at p. 41 (Paper No. 27).
`
`As explained in detail by Dr. Kortshagen, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that, as a matter of the natural laws of physics, Pinsley’s magnetic field
`
`
`
`
`know it when he sees it. Hartsough Depo., at 138:6-15, 150: 2-151:5 (Ex. 1419).
`
`However, Dr. Hartsough concedes that a magnetic field configuration with
`
`converging magnetic field lines will “substantially trap” electrons. Id. at 123:4-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`lines are not perfectly straight to generate a force in only one direction, but rather
`
`they are non-uniform and converge near the magnets 24 and 26. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 39-42 (Ex. 1419). The effect of the non-uniform, converging, magnetic
`
`field lines will force electrons into an E x B drift motion normal to the anode-
`
`cathode axis, impeding their flow to the anode. Id. at ¶ 47, FN. 5 (“The E x B drift
`
`motion is the dynamic path of an electron when it encounters crossed electric fields
`
`(E) and magnetic fields (B)”).
`
`Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field lines are illustrated by
`
`Dr. Kortshagen in the figures below. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`
`
`Pinsley, FIGURE (annotated) (Ex. 1405); Korshagen, FIG. 1 (Ex. 1417).
`
`Third, Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field configuration is
`
`similar to that of the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, and
`
`thus “substantially trap[s]” electrons as the term is used in the ’779 Patent. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 43-46. As explained by Dr. Kortshagen, the magnetic field configurations of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Pinsley and the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent are
`
`“magnetic mirrors,” which have been utilized by those skilled in the art since the
`
`1950’s and 1960’s to trap electrons. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 44 (Ex. 1417); see
`
`e.g., Post at p. 245 (Ex. 1418).
`
`As Dr. Hartsough concedes, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (“[A.] So you get –
`
`you get electron trapping because of the configuration that’s shown in Figure 7A,
`
`where the field lines converge at – near both electrodes. They’re getting closer
`
`together, And so you get electron trapping due to the reflection of the electrons …
`
`It’s the magnetic – the convergence of the magnetic field lines that can cause
`
`the electrons to be basically oscillating back and forth inside that trap.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1419). Thus, contrary to Zond’s argument, Pinsley
`
`discloses a magnetic field configuration that will “substantially trap” electrons as
`
`the term is used in the ’779 Patent.
`
`Regarding Angelbeck, Zond argues Angelbeck’s “transverse magnetic field
`
`will result in a force directed across the flow of electrons from cathode to anode
`
`and to the tube walls, where they are removed from the plasma.” Response at p. 40
`
`(Paper No. 27). Zond’s argument, based on two lines taken out of context,
`
`mischaracterizes Angelbeck’s disclosure. Id. While Angelbeck discloses the
`
`transverse magnetic field enhances the loss of electrons to the tube walls, this
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`does not mean that all of the electrons are lost as Zond incorrectly contends.
`
`Angelbeck at 2:33-35 (Ex. 1406); Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 53-55 (Ex. 1417).
`
`Assuming Zond’s argument were true, there would be no plasma in Angelbeck’s
`
`laser tube 10. Id. However, Angelbeck unequivocally states: “[t]he current-
`
`excited discharge passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which
`
`the atoms are ionized and the electrons are freed.” Angelbeck at 2:54-56 (Ex.
`
`1406).
`
`Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as electrons are
`
`lost to the tube walls, the walls become negatively charged. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶ ¶ 54 (Ex. 1417). The negatively charged tube walls oppose the negatively
`
`charged electrons, and as a result, the majority of electrons will be “substantially
`
`trapped” within Angelbeck’s laser tube. Id. Like the magnetic fields of Pinsley
`
`and figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`Angelbeck’s magnetic field lines B will converge as they approach the pole pieces
`
`24 and 26, forming a magnetic mirror. Id. at ¶¶ 50-51.
`
`Thus, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons, and so Angelbeck “substantially traps” electrons in
`
`the same manner as the embodiment depicted in Pinsley and figures 7 and 7A of
`
`the ’779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 56; Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (Ex. 1419).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck. Response at pp. 25-
`
`27 (Paper No. 27). All of these arguments are based on nothing more than the
`
`alleged differences between the physical systems of Iwamura and
`
`Pinsley/Angelbeck, and focus on bodily incorporating their systems. This is not
`
`the proper standard for determining obviousness. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness
`
`based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.”). As further discussed below, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been encouraged to combine the teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck with Iwamura.
`
`Both Pinsley and Angelbeck teach the application of a transverse magnetic
`
`field increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex.
`
`1406); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1405). One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to apply the transverse magnetic field teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck to increase the efficiency of the plasma generating unit of Iwamura as it
`
`was well-known that both gas lasers and plasma generators excite gas atoms in a
`
`similar manner. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶57-61 (Ex. 1417). In fact,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Krudryavstev teaches that excited atom generation in plasma gas lasers are
`
`analogous fields, and that effects observed in one may be equally applicable to the
`
`other, and vice-versa. Kudryavstev at 30, left col, ¶ 1; 35, right col., ¶ 4 (Ex.
`
`1404).
`
`Zond argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded
`
`from combining Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura because the excited gas
`
`atoms in a gas laser “must return to their ground state to release energy … to emit
`
`light,” and that “Petitioner failed to provide experimental data or other objective
`
`evidence indicating that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings of a laser in Angelbeck or Pinsley with Iwamura’s plasma treatment
`
`system.” Response at pp. 25-26 (Paper No. 27). Such statements are incorrect.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 64-67 (Ex. 1417).
`
`First, Pinsley and Angelbeck expressly disclose the application of a
`
`transverse magnetic field improves the efficiency of exciting atoms. Angelbeck at
`
`1:36-41 (Ex. 1406). Whether or not Pinsley and Angelbeck allow the excited
`
`atoms to return to a ground state after excitation is immaterial to the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck of how to increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See
`
`e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex. 1406); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1405); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 64 (Ex. 1417). One of ordinary skill in the art would look to
`
`the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`exciting atoms. Id. at ¶¶ 58-61.
`
`Second, as a matter of plasma physics, excited atoms generated by plasma
`
`generators such as Iwamura’s may return to their ground state after being excited
`
`by Iwamura’s first plasma generating unit as they flow through the treatment
`
`chamber 10. Id. at ¶ 65; c.f. Iwamura at 7:60-65 (Ex. 1407); Angelbeck at 2:39-42
`
`(Ex. 1406).
`
`Third, the prior art plasma sputtering apparatus disclosed in the ’779 Patent
`
`itself confirms it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to use a
`
`magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons to improve the efficiency of
`
`exciting atoms, and provides the very objective evidence Zond claims is absent
`
`from the teachings of the prior art. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 66 (Ex. 1417); ’779
`
`Patent at 3:13-18 (Ex. 1401). Dr. Hartsough concedes that the magnetron
`
`sputtering systems dating back to the mid-1970’s used magnets for trapping
`
`electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 20:13-21:1 (Ex. 1419). Moreover, magnetic mirror
`
`electron-traps, such as the one depicted in figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, have been
`
`known in the art for half a century, since the 1950’s and 1960’s. See e.g., Post at
`
`p. 245 (Ex. 1418).
`
`Finally, Zond improperly attacks the direct substitution of elements of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura, and relies on a PTAB decision that is
`
`inapplicable to the present proceedings. Response at p. 25 (Paper No. 27). Zond
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`claims that one skilled in the art would be unable to incorporate Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse magnetic field to trap electrons into
`
`Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus because Pinsley and Angelbeck are gas
`
`lasers while Iwamura is a plasma generator. Id. at 26. This is the same argument
`
`Zond previously made in its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 8 at
`
`pp. 39-40), and was rejected by the Board in the DI. DI at pp. 25-26 (“It is well-
`
`established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple
`
`references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Paper No. 10). As the Board correctly recognized in its DI,
`
`Petitioners seek to combine Pinsley and Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse
`
`magnetic field with Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus, not actual substitution
`
`of Pinsley and Angelbeck’s gas laser. Id. at 20-21.
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply
`
`the transverse magnetic field teachings of Angelbeck and Pinsley to Iwamura’s
`
`first plasma generation unit for the density of electrons in the plasma region A
`
`between first electrodes 26a and 26b, thereby increasing the efficiency of exciting
`
`atoms flowing through plasma region A. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 67 (Ex. 1417).
`
`D. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Gruber
`
`Zond repeats its argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`combined Gruber with Iwamura because Gruber is a laser and “[t]he excited atoms
`
`… must return to their ground state to release energy … to emit light.” Response
`
`at p. 28 (Paper No. 27). Zond additionally argues that Gruber’s inductively
`
`coupled RF energy source “is a direct contradiction to the ’779 patent (and plasma
`
`sputtering generally) in that the electrode in a plasma sputtering system necessarily
`
`has to reside in the chamber and come in contact with the plasma.” Id. at p. 29.
`
`Both arguments lack merit. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 100-103 (Ex. 1417).
`
`First, as explained above in section II(C), Gruber teaches using an
`
`inductively coupled RF source as an improved alternative to traditional metal
`
`electrodes placed in contact the gaseous medium to excite atoms. See e.g. Gruber
`
`at 1:11-27 (Ex. 1413). Indeed, Dr. Hartsough concedes that “[i]nductive coupling
`
`is a well-known phenomenon – a well-known mechanism used to excite or create
`
`plasmas.” Hartsough Depo. at 195:25-196:2 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1419). Again,
`
`whether or not the excited atoms must return to a ground state is immaterial to this
`
`teaching of Gruber. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 101 (Ex. 1417).
`
`Likewise, Zond’s attempt to distinguish Gruber on this basis is irrelevant
`
`because, as also discussed above, excited atoms generated by plasma generators
`
`such as Iwamura’s may return to their ground state after being excited by
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generating unit as they flow through the treatment chamber
`
`10. Id. at ¶ 65; c.f. Iwamura at 7:60-65 (Ex. 1407); Gruber at 4:19-21 (Ex. 1413).
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Second, while Zond accuses Petitioners of contradicting the ’779 Patent, it is
`
`Zond itself who ignores the ’779 Patent’s teachings. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶
`
`102 (Ex. 1417). The ’779 Patent unequivocally teaches that an inductively coupled
`
`energy source does not reside inside the chamber. ’779 Patent at 17:31-34 (“The
`
`metastable atom source 650 also includes an inductive coil 654 that surrounds
`
`the chamber 652.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1401). As illustrated in figure 9 of the
`
`’779 Patent, the inductive coil 654 is clearly shown as being outside of the
`
`chamber 652. Id. at FIG. 9.
`
`As taught by Gruber, using an inductively coupled RF energy source in
`
`place of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit’s electrodes 26a and 26b are
`
`nothing more than the mere substitution of one well-known element for another
`
`known element in the field, to yield predictable results. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶
`
`103 (Ex. 1417); Gruber at 1:13-18 (Ex. 1413). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to do so where, as here, Gruber teaches the
`
`advantages of using an inductively coupled RF energy source in place of the
`
`traditional metal electrodes inside the plasma chamber, include "relatively high
`
`efficiency because of the ability to use low RF excitation to form a glow discharge
`
`or plasma.” Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 103 (Ex. 1417); Gruber at 1:12-18, 4:19-21
`
`(Ex. 1413). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`utilize the inductively coupled discharge source disclosed in Gruber, rather than
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit’s traditional electrodes, to further increase
`
`the efficiency of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit. Supp. Kortshagen Decl.,
`
`¶ 103 (Ex. 1417).
`
`E. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Wells
`
`Zond does not dispute that exciting atoms with an electron beam from an
`
`electron gun was a well-known manner of exciting atoms, and that Wells discloses
`
`a system which produced excited atoms and metastable atoms using such an
`
`electron beam fired from an electron gun. Wells at 13:16-23 (Ex. 1414). Instead,
`
`Zond focuses on Wells’ purported lack of motivation and teaching to combine
`
`Wells’ laser system with Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus. Response at p.
`
`30-32 (Paper No. 27). Zond’s arguments are nothing more than a weak attempt to
`
`obscure the straight-forward teaching of Wells by narrowly focusing on the two
`
`gas mixture within Wells’ laser. Id.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that Wells teaches
`
`the electron gun is one mechanism for exciting atoms to a metastable state.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 132 (Ex. 1417); Wells at 13:16-32 (other mechanisms
`
`include “fast burst nuclear reactor, … electric discharge, radiation, thermal or
`
`chemical means.”) (Ex. 1414). Yet again, the fact that Wells’ uses a two gas
`
`mixture for lasing is irrelevant to Wells’ teaching of using an electron beam to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`excite those gases. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 132 (Ex. 1417). Notably, two of the
`
`mechanisms disclosed by Wells for exciting atoms in a gas laser, radiation and
`
`electric discharge, are employed by Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶133 (Ex. 1417); Iwamura at 7:55-59 (UV lamp 24), 7:61-63
`
`(first electrodes 26a and 26b) (Ex. 1407).
`
`As explained above in section II(C), it is well-known that both gas lasers
`
`such as Wells and plasma generators such as Iwamura excite atoms in a similar
`
`manner. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 134 (Ex. 1417). Thus, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Wells’ electron gun in place of
`
`the UV lamp 24 of Iwamura’s preexcitation unit, or the first electrodes 26a and 26b
`
`of Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, as Wells discloses this is nothing more
`
`than the mere substitution of one well-known element for another known element
`
`in the field, to yield predictable results. Id. at ¶ 135; Wells at 13:16-32 (Ex. 1414).
`
`III. CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, AND 44 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`CITED PRIOR ART
`A.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an excited
`atom source” recited in claims 1, and “a metastable atom source”
`recited in claim 18.
`
`Claims 7, 9, 20 and 21 depend from claims 1 and 18. Zond argues that
`
`Iwamura does not teach an “excited atom source,” recited in claim 1 or a
`
`“metastable atom source,” recited in claim 18 because “Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-00917
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`generation unit generates a plasma.” Response at p. 37 (Paper No. 27). As
`
`discussed above, this point has been conceded by Dr. Hartsough. Hartsough Depo.
`
`at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So a portion of the gas species flowing into plasma generation
`
`re[gion] A would form a plasma; correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that plasma
`
`contains ions? A. Yes. … A. It would contain other species, yes. … Q. Ground
`
`state atoms? A. Yes. Q. Excited atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable atoms? A.
`
`Quite possibly.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1419). Moreover, Dr. Hartsough further
`
`admits a person of ordinary skill in the art wou