U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 34789.98
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and
`TSMC North America Corp.
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`Richard C. Kim, Reg. No. 40,046
`
`By:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. and
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No._______________
`
`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
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`V.
`
`Mandatory Notices.................................................................................... - 1 -
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ...................................................................... - 1 -
`B.
`Related Matters............................................................................... - 1 -
`C.
`Counsel .......................................................................................... - 1 -
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................ - 2 -
`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 ............................................................... - 4 -
`A.
`Plasma............................................................................................ - 4 -
`B.
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ....................................... - 4 -
`Overview of the ‘779 Patent...................................................................... - 6 -
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent............................ - 6 -
`B.
`Prosecution History......................................................................... - 9 -
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References......................................... - 11 -
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art.............................................................. - 11 -
`B.
`Overview of Mozgrin.................................................................... - 11 -
`C.
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ............................................................. - 12 -
`D.
`Overview of Iwamura ................................................................... - 13 -
`E.
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck.............................................. - 14 -
`VII. Claim Construction................................................................................. - 15 -
`A.
`“multi-step ionization” .................................................................. - 15 -
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition .................................................................. - 16 -
`A.
`Ground I: Claims 9, 21 and 44 would have been obvious in view
`of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Gruber................................ - 17 -
`1.
`Independent claim 1............................................................- 17 -
`2.
`Independent claim 18..........................................................- 30 -
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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..........................................................- 49 -
`3.
`Dependent claims 9 and 21..................................................- 51 -
`4.
`Independent claim 44..........................................................- 53 -
`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 -
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`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
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North
`
`America Corp. are the real parties-in-interest (“Petitioner”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1401) against
`
`numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v.
`
`Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v.
`
`Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-
`
`cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.) ; 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`
`Fujitsu, et al.); 1 and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.). Petitioner has also
`
`filed IPR 2014-00598 and IPR 2014-00686 for other claims of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘142 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed May 16, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00765.
`
`Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`1 The Petitioner is a co-defendant with Fujitsu in this lawsuit.
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: Richard C. Kim (Registration No. 40,046)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`rckim@duanemorris.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David M. O’Dell
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone: 972-739-8635
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1405)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1406)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1407)).
`
`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.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1402)) herewith, 2 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).
`
`B.
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`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 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.,
`
`2 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. Dr. Kortshagen’s attached
`
`declaration is a copy of his declaration filed in the Intel IPR, discussed above.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 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
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`generates some excited atoms that are in excited states other than a metastable state.”
`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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.”3 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1401).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779 Patent
`
`3 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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,
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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).
`
`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.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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).
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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. 4
`
`A.
`
`“multi-step ionization”
`
`Each of the independent claims in the ‘779 Patent recites the term “multi-step
`
`4 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 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`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.5
`
`5 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 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 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
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`During the
`
`initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribu