`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