throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 49
`
`Entered: November 3, 2015
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-009171
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00918, IPR2014-01074, and IPR2014-01025 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond,
`
`LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`On November 17, 2014, we instituted the instant trial as to claims 7, 9, 20,
`
`21, 38, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (Ex. 1401, “the ’779
`
`patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Paper 10 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00918, IPR2014-01074, and
`
`IPR2014-01025 with the instant trial (Papers 13–15), and also granted a
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 31). Zond filed a
`
`Response (Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 38, “Reply”). An oral hearing2 was held on June 15, 2015, and a
`
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 48 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons set forth
`
`below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has shown by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The oral arguments for this review and the following inter partes reviews
`were consolidated: IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-01073, and
`IPR2014-01076.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices,
`
`Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.), and identify other petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to this proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 6.
`
`
`
`B. The ’779 Patent
`
`The ’779 patent relates to a method and a system for generating a
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process. Ex. 1401, Abs. For instance,
`
`Figure 2 of the ’779 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional
`
`view of a plasma generating apparatus:
`
`In the embodiment shown in Figure 2, feed gas source 206 supplies
`
`ground state atoms 208 to metastable atom source 204 that generates
`
`metastable atoms 218 from ground state atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma
`
`202 is generated from metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at
`
`
`
`5:25–34.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Electrons and ions are formed in metastable atom source 204 along
`
`with excited or metastable atoms 218. Id. at 8:20–23. In another
`
`embodiment, the ions and electrons are separated from excited or metastable
`
`atoms 218 and trapped in an electron/ion absorber before excited or
`
`metastable atoms 218 are injected into plasma chamber 230. Id. at 8:23–26,
`
`18:62–67, Fig. 10. Figure 12B of the ’779 patent illustrates the electron/ion
`
`absorber and is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in Figure 12B, electron/ion absorber 750ʹ includes magnets
`
`776 and 778 that generate magnetic field 780, trapping electrons 772 and
`
`ions 774 in chamber 760ʹ. Id. at 20:9–13. Excited or metastable atoms 768
`
`and ground state atoms 770 then flow through output 754ʹ. Id. at 20:19–21.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 44 is the sole independent claim.
`
`Claims 7 and 9 depend directly from independent claim 1; claims 20 and 21
`
`depend directly from claim 18; and claim 38 depends directly from
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`independent claim 30. GlobalFoundries is not challenging independent
`
`claims 1, 28, and 30 in the instant proceeding.3
`
`Claim 44 is illustrative:
`
`44. A plasma generator that generates a plasma with a multi-
`step ionization process, the plasma generator comprising:
`
`a feed gas source comprising ground state atoms;
`
`an inductively coupled discharge source that is coupled to the
`feed gas source, the inductively coupled discharge source generating
`excited atoms from the ground state atoms;
`
`a plasma chamber that is coupled to the inductively coupled
`discharge source, the plasma chamber confining
`
`a volume of excited atoms generated by the inductively coupled
`discharge source; and
`
`an energy source that is coupled to the volume of excited atoms
`confined by the plasma chamber, the energy source raising an energy
`of excited atoms in the volume of excited atoms so that at least a
`portion of the excited atoms in the volume of excited atoms is ionized,
`thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.
`
`Id. at 24:48–67 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`US 3,514,714
`US 5,753,886
`
`Sept. 25, 1973
`May 26, 1970
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1405)
`(Ex. 1406)
`(Ex. 1407)
`
`
`
`3 Independent claims 1 and 18 are being challenged in Case IPR2014-01073,
`and independent claim 30 is being challenged in Case IPR2014-00828.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Gruber
`Wells
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EP 0 146 509 A2
`PCT WO 83/01349
`
`June 26, 1985
`Apr. 14, 1983
`
`(Ex. 1413)
`(Ex. 1414)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–09 (1995) (Ex. 1403, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (1983) (Ex. 1404, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 29):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`38
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley4
`
`9, 21, 44
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Gruber
`
`7, 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`
`
`4 Pinsley was omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability based, in whole or in part, on the combination of
`Iwamura and Angelbeck, although included in the corresponding analysis.
`See, e.g., Pet. 38, 46. Therefore, we treated the statements of the asserted
`grounds as harmless error and presume that GlobalFoundries intended to
`include Pinsley in each of those asserted grounds. Dec. 7. Zond addressed
`each ground as including Pinsley. PO Resp. 22, 24–27, 37–42.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,”5 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`“excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,” and “multi-step ionization process”
`
`With the above-stated principles in mind, we construed the following
`
`terms in the Decision on Institution: “excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,”
`
`and “multi-step ionization process.” Dec. 8–11. Subsequent to institution,
`
`neither party challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these
`
`terms. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1417 ¶¶ 14–19; see
`
`generally Reply. Upon review of the entire record before us, including the
`
`parties’ explanations and supporting evidence concerning these terms, we
`
`discern no reason to change those claim constructions for purposes of this
`
`Final Written Decision. For convenience, those claim constructions from
`
`the Decision on Institution are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`“excited atoms”
`(claim 7)
`
`neutral atoms that have one or more electrons in a
`state that is higher than its lowest possible state
`(Dec. 8)
`
`“metastable atoms”
`(claim 38)
`
`excited atoms having energy levels from which
`dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden (Dec. 8–
`9)
`
`“multi-step ionization
`process” (claim 44)
`
`an ionization process having at least two distinct
`steps (Dec. 10–11)
`
`
`
`“plasma”
`
`For this Final Written Decision, we find it necessary to construe the
`
`claim term “plasma.” Claims 1, 18, and 44 each recite “[a] plasma generator
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`that generates a plasma with a multi-step ionization process,” and claim 30
`
`recites a similar limitation. See, e.g., Ex. 1401, 24:48–51.
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, GlobalFoundries’s expert declarant, testifies that
`
`a plasma is a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms,
`
`and metastable atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 21–27. Metastable atoms are excited
`
`neutral atoms that are in a metastable state, but have not been ionized.
`
`Ex. 1401, 7:22–8:10. According to the Specification of the ’779 patent, all
`
`excited noble gases (e.g., helium and argon) have metastable states. Id. at
`
`7:37–47. As Dr. Kortshagen explains, when generating excited atoms,
`
`multiple levels of excited states are formed, and, therefore, generating
`
`excited atoms means also generating metastable atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶ 24.
`
`Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the
`
`context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles
`
`(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms,
`
`excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized.
`
`Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term
`
`“plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would
`
`be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of
`
`charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that
`
`a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1401, 1:7–8,
`
`8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully
`
`ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons).
`
`Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma”
`
`as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and
`
`metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be
`
`“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559,
`
`562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art” in the context of the ’779 patent,6 we are mindful that the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91
`
`(CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability with the
`
`above-stated principles in mind.
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness Based, in Whole or in Part, on the Combination of
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claim 38 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and
`
`Pinsley. Pet. 38–51, 59–60. GlobalFoundries also asserts that claims 9, 21,
`
`and 44 are unpatentable over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`Pinsley, and Gruber (id. at 38–55), and that claims 7 and 20 are unpatentable
`
`over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Wells (id. at 38–
`
`51, 55–57). In support of these asserted grounds of unpatentability,
`
`GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`
`limitation is met by the aforementioned combinations of the references and
`
`rationales for combining the references. Id. at 38–60. GlobalFoundries also
`
`
`
`6 “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’779
`Patent [is] someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`physics, material science, or electrical/computer engineering with at least
`two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of development of
`plasma-based processing equipment.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 12.
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`proffers the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1402) to support its Petition
`
`and a Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1417) to support its
`
`Reply.
`
`In its Response, Zond counters that those combinations of cited prior
`
`art references do not disclose all of the claim limitations set forth in the
`
`claims at issue. PO Resp. 33–56. Zond also argues that GlobalFoundries
`
`has not articulated a sufficient rationale to combine any of the references.
`
`Id. at 24–33. As support, Zond directs our attention to a Declaration of
`
`Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion below with a brief summary of Iwamura, and then we address
`
`the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma treatment apparatus for generating a
`
`stable plasma with a multi-step ionization process to treat a semiconductor
`
`wafer. Ex. 1407, Abs., 6:67–7:8. Figure 1 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma chamber 10 is coupled to
`
`the gas supply pipe (shown as items 20a and 20b). Gas supply 20 supplies a
`
`gas capable of plasma discharge (e.g., helium or argon, a noble gas) through
`
`a pre-excitation unit that includes ultraviolet lamp 24, and a first plasma
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26. Ex. 1407, 6:67–7:17, 49.
`
`Ultraviolet lamp 24 causes photoionization, raising the excitation level of the
`
`gas and generating excited and metastable atoms from ground state atoms.
`
`Id. at 7:55–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated from the gas in plasma
`
`region A, between electrodes 26 (the first plasma generation unit), and a
`
`plasma also is generated in plasma region B, between electrodes 30 (the
`
`second plasma generation unit). Id. at 7:61–65, 8:4–9, 8:32–46. According
`
`to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the gas is raised first, a stable
`
`plasma can be generated inside the plasma chamber. Id. at 8:32–37.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of the semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`Generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 18, 30, and 44 requires an energy
`
`source to ionize at least a portion of the excited or metastable atoms inside a
`
`chamber, thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1401, 21:23–29, 22:40–47. As we discussed above in the
`
`Claim Construction Section of this Decision, metastable atoms are excited
`
`neutral atoms that are in a metastable state, but have not been ionized, and
`
`all excited noble gases (such as helium and argon) have metastable states.
`
`And we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons,
`
`ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with
`
`the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779
`
`patent. Furthermore, we construe the claim term “multi-step ionization
`
`process” broadly, but reasonably, as “an ionization process having at least
`
`two distinct steps,” in light of the Specification.
`
`GlobalFoundries takes the position that Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit is an energy source that ionizes at least a portion of the
`
`excited or metastable atoms inside a chamber, generating a plasma with a
`
`multi-step ionization process. Pet. 38–44, 48–49. As GlobalFoundries
`
`points out, for the first step, Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and/or first
`
`plasma generation unit raise the excitation level of the gas, generating
`
`excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms. Id.; Ex. 1407, 7:55–
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. And for the second step, Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit ionizes at least a portion of the excited or metastable atoms,
`
`generating a plasma inside the chamber. Ex. 1407, 8:32–46, 9:8–12,
`
`Figs. 1, 2.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit does not
`
`ionize excited or metastable atoms because “the atoms are already ionized
`
`before they enter the chamber.” PO Resp. 46–49, 56–58. As support,
`
`Dr. Hartsough testifies that “the atoms entering Iwamura’s chamber are not
`
`excited or metastable, but rather, are activated (i.e., ionized to a plasma).”
`
`Id.; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 71–73 (emphasis added).
`
`Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are
`
`predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited
`
`or metastable atoms, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation
`
`unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma
`
`generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit
`
`activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1407, 2:61–65
`
`(emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the
`
`gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39
`
`(“[T]he 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.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s
`
`second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`have a second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma
`
`generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary,
`
`Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of
`
`the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that
`
`the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the
`
`density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a
`
`plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1.
`
`In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges,
`
`and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second
`
`plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1419,
`
`42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1417 ¶¶ 25–33, 89.
`
`Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited
`
`or metastable atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the term “plasma”—namely, “a collection of ions, electrons,
`
`ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms.” As discussed
`
`above, both Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition.
`
`Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. Furthermore, the Specification of
`
`the ’779 patent discloses that a plasma includes charged particles as well as
`
`neutral excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1401, 8:43–48. More
`
`importantly, as the Specification explains, a volume of excited or metastable
`
`atoms is generated when “a discharge is created in a discharge region”
`
`between a pair of electrodes, similar to Iwamura’s first plasma generation
`
`unit, energizing and ionizing a portion of ground state atoms. Id. at 14:4–
`
`14:23 (“Some of the ground state atoms 208 are directly ionized, which
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`releases ions 424 and electrons 426 into the stream of metastable atoms 218.
`
`. . . The metastable atoms 218, the free ions 424 and electrons 426 then pass
`
`through the output 423 of the metastable atom source 402.”) (emphasis
`
`added). Therefore, even in the embodiment in which Iwamura’s first
`
`generation unit generates a plasma, one with ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have recognized that the plasma reaching Iwamura’s second generation unit
`
`includes a volume of excited and metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination
`
`of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley describes an energy source that is
`
`coupled to the volume of excited or metastable atoms confined by a plasma
`
`chamber, and that raises an energy of excited or metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the excited or metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process, as recited in
`
`independent claims 1, 18, 30, and 44.
`
`Generating excited or metastable atoms
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 18, 30, and 44 requires generating
`
`excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms. See, e.g., Ex. 1401,
`
`21:17–18, 22:34–35. In its Petition, GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and/or the first plasma generation unit describe an excited
`
`or metastable atom source for generating excited or metastable atoms from
`
`ground state atoms, as recited in the claims at issue. Pet. 38–44, 50–51, 59.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, and not excited or metastable atoms. PO Resp. 33–37. Zond alleges
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`that Iwamura does not mention the density of excited atoms, but rather
`
`plasma density. Id. As support, Dr. Hartsough testifies that “Iwamura’s first
`
`plasma generation unit generates ionized atoms, i.e., a plasma or ‘activated
`
`gas’ per Iwamura’s teaching.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 50.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`testimony. An obviousness analysis is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In
`
`re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Rather, a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness is established when the prior art itself would appear to have
`
`suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
`
`Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, once again, are
`
`predicated improperly on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing
`
`no excited or metastable atom, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit. As we discussed above, that premise contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “plasma,”
`
`which includes excited and metastable atoms. Both Dr. Kortshagen and
`
`Dr. Hartsough, agree with that definition, which also is consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 21–27; Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17,
`
`74:2–76:4; Ex. 1401, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses
`
`that the gas reaching the second plasma generation unit “is not yet fully
`
`ionized.” Ex. 1407, 2:34–38 (emphasis added).
`
`Furthermore, we do not share Zond’s view that Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`cross-examination testimony—plasma density is not equivalent to the
`
`density of excited atoms—supports Zond’s argument that Iwamura’s gas
`
`reaching the second plasma generation unit does not contain excited or
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`metastable atoms. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 2004, 232:5–9). One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that, in a unit volume of gas
`
`containing charged particles and excited atoms, the plasma density refers to
`
`the number of ions or electrons, whereas the density of excited atoms refers
`
`to the number of excited atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 21–27. It is irrelevant that the
`
`plasma density is not equivalent to the density of excited atoms, in that
`
`Iwamura’s gas could have more excited atoms than ions or electrons.
`
`Therefore, Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony does not
`
`undermine GlobalFoundries’s evidence, showing that Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and the first plasma generation unit, either alone or in
`
`combination, generate a volume of excited or metastable atoms (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1407, 2:61–65, 2:31–65; Ex. 1417 ¶¶ 25–33, 89; Ex. 1419, 42:9–25,
`
`74:2–76:4).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley would render obvious an excited or
`
`metastable source for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground
`
`state atoms, as required by claims 1, 18, 30, and 44.
`
`Plasma chamber
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plasma chamber that is coupled to the excited atom
`
`source, the plasma chamber confining a volume of excited atoms generated
`
`by the excited atom source; and an energy source that is coupled to the
`
`volume of excited atoms confined by the plasma chamber.” Ex. 1401,
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`21:19–24 (emphases added). Claims 18 and 44 each recite similar
`
`limitations.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura discloses a plasma chamber, as
`
`recited in these claims, because “Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and the first
`
`plasma generation unit, either alone or in combination, meet the excited
`
`atom source, and are positioned upstream from and coupled to the plasma
`
`treatment chamber.” Pet. 47–49.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s plasma chamber is not coupled to the
`
`excited atom source, because the chamber is not coupled directly to the
`
`pre-excitation unit. PO Resp. 42–47. Zond also argues that Iwamura does
`
`not disclose a chamber confining a volume of excited or metastable atoms
`
`“because in Iwamura’s system, the plasma and not the excited or metastable
`
`atoms enter the plasma chamber.” Id. Dr. Hartsough testifies that Iwamura
`
`does not recite expressly the terms “excited” or “metastable,” but rather
`
`Iwamura discloses that the upstream plasma generation “is generating an
`
`activated (pre-activated) plasma gas, as opposed to an excited gas (i.e.,
`
`excited atom source) as claimed.” Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 64–65, 70.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`testimony as they require Iwamura to recite expressly certain claim terms.
`
`An obviousness analysis is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See Gleave,
`
`560 F.3d at 1334. More significantly, Zond’s arguments and
`
`Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, once again, are predicated on the premise that
`
`the gas entering Iwamura’s plasma chamber is fully ionized, containing no
`
`excited or metastable atoms. As discussed previously, that premise
`
`contradicts Iwamura’s disclosure and the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`of the term “plasma,” which contains excited and metastable atoms.
`
`Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that the gas reaching the second
`
`plasma generation unit inside the chamber “is not yet fully ionized.”
`
`Ex. 1407, 2:34–39 (emphasis added).
`
`Zond’s arguments also are not commensurate with the scope of the
`
`claims at issue. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating
`
`that a limitation not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
`
`patentability). Zond attempts to import improperly a limitation—directly
`
`coupled—from a preferred embodiment disclosed in the Specification into
`
`the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Nothing in the claims at issue
`
`here requires the plasma chamber to be directly coupled to the excited or
`
`metastable atom source. In fact, Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough in his
`
`cross-examination testimony confirms that, in the context of the ’779 patent,
`
`the term “coupling” includes an indirect connection. Ex. 1419, 108:13–
`
`109:22.
`
`In any event, even if the claims at issue require a direct coupling,
`
`Zond’s arguments are still unavailing, as they predicate that only Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit is the excited or metastable atom source. As discussed
`
`above, GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and the
`
`first plasma generation unit, either

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket