Paper 10
`
`Entered: November 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: November 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`and TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 inter partes review of claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (“the ’779 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC
`
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of TSMC’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail
`
`in challenging claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an
`
`inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 of the
`
`’779 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`TSMC indicates that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu Corp., No. 1:13-
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`cv-11634-WGY (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. TSMC also identifies other Petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to the instant proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`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 (e.g., ground state argon atoms) 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 the metastable atoms 218
`
`in process chamber 230. Id. at 5:25–34.
`
`The metastable atom source may include a parallel plate discharge
`
`chamber, an electron gun, or an inductively coupled discharge chamber that
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`excites a portion of the volume of ground state atoms 208 to a metastable
`
`state. Id. at 10:1–13. More specifically, ground state atoms 208 are excited
`
`to a metastable state by using an energy source, such as a DC plasma source,
`
`a radio frequency (RF) plasma source, an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source,
`
`an X-ray radiation source, an electron beam radiation source, a microwave
`
`plasma source, or a magnetron plasma discharge source. Id. at 19:1–10.
`
`Electrons and ions are formed in metastable atom source 204 along
`
`with metastable atoms 218. Id. at 8:20–23. In another embodiment, the ions
`
`and electrons are separated from metastable atoms 218 and trapped in an
`
`electron/ion absorber before 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 750 ʹ includes magnets
`
`776 and 778 that generate magnetic field 780, trapping electrons 772 and
`
`ions 774 in chamber 760ʹ. Id. at 20:9–13. Metastable atoms 768 and ground
`
`state atoms 770 then flow through output 754ʹ. Id. at 20:19–21.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`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
`
`independent claim 30. TSMC is not challenging independent claims 1, 28,
`
`and 30 in the instant proceeding.1
`
`Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative:
`
`1. 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 excited atom source that receives ground state atoms
`from the feed gas source, the excited atom source comprising a
`magnet that generates a magnetic field for substantially
`trapping electrons proximate to the ground state atoms, the
`excited atom source generating excited atoms from the ground
`state atoms;
`
`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, 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.
`
`
`
`
`1 Independent claims 1 and 18 are being challenged in
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-01073
`(Paper 2), and independent claim 30 is being challenged in Taiwan
`Semiconductor Mfg. v. Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00828 (Paper 2).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`7. The plasma generator of claim 1 wherein the excited
`atom source comprises an electron gun that directs an electron
`beam into the ground state atoms, the electron beam exciting
`the ground state atoms.
`
`Id. at 21:9–29, 21:50–53 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`TSMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`Gruber
`Wells
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`EP 0146509
`PCT WO 83/01349
`
`Jun. 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, 400–409 (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”).
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`TSMC asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`7, 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley,2 and Wells
`
`9, 21, 44
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and Gruber
`
`38
`
`7, 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells
`
`9, 21, 44
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Gruber
`
`38
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Iwamura
`
`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). 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
`
`
`2 Pinsley is 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 treat the statements as mere harmless
`error and presume that TSMC intended to include Pinsley in each of those
`asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`We construe the claim terms below in accordance with the above-
`
`stated principles.
`
`
`
`1. “excited atoms”
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which recites “the excited atom source
`
`generating excited atoms from the ground state atoms.” TSMC’s Declarant,
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, testifies that “[i]f all of an atom’s electrons are at their
`
`lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the ‘ground state,’”
`
`and that “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.’”
`
`Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 23–24 (emphases added). In the context of the Specification of
`
`the ’779 patent, we therefore construe the claim term “excited atoms”
`
`broadly, but reasonably as “atoms that have one or more electrons in a state
`
`that is higher than its lowest possible state.”
`
`
`
`2. “metastable atoms”
`
`Claim 38 depends from claim 30, which recites “generating a volume
`
`of metastable atoms from the volume of ground state atoms.” TSMC
`
`submits that the claim term “metastable atoms” is defined in the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent as “excited atoms having energy levels from
`
`which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.” Pet. 5 (emphasis added)
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1401, 7:22–25). We agree the term is defined in the
`
`Specification.
`
`In that regard, Dr. Kortshagen further explains that 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., through the
`
`emission of electromagnetic radiation.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1401,
`
`7:22–25). According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited argon atoms
`
`means also generating metastable atoms because, when generating excited
`
`argon atoms, multiple levels of excited states are formed, and some of the
`
`lowest states are metastable. Id. (citing Exs. 1411–1412).3 The
`
`Specification also provides that all noble gases, including argon, have
`
`metastable states. Ex. 1401, 7:37–39.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “metastable
`
`atoms,” consistent with the Specification, as “excited atoms having energy
`
`levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden,” and observe
`
`that exciting noble gas atoms would generate metastable atoms.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. I: Formulation and Basic Data, 22 J.
`PHYS. D: APPL. PHYS. 623–631 (1989) (Ex. 1411).
`
`J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. II: Application to Low-Pressure, Hollow-
`Cathode Arc and Low-Pressure Glow Discharges, 22 J. PHYS. D: APPL.
`PHYS. 632–643 (1989) (Ex. 1412).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`3. “multi-step ionization process”
`
`
`
`Claim 44 recites “raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at
`
`least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.”
`
`The parties indicate that the claim term “multi-step ionization
`
`process” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as “an ionization
`
`process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 19; Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1401, 6:60–63, Figs. 2, 3) (emphasis added
`
`by TSMC). Indeed, the Specification expressly provides:
`
`The term “multi-step ionization process” is defined herein to
`mean an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least
`two distinct steps. However, the term “multi-step ionization
`process” as defined herein may or may not include exciting
`ground state atoms to a metastable state. For example, one
`multi-step ionization process according to the present invention
`includes a first step where atoms are excited from a ground
`state to a metastable state and a second step where atoms in the
`metastable state are ionized. Another multi-step ionization
`process according to the present invention includes a first step
`where atoms are excited from a ground state to an excited state
`and a second step where atoms in the excited state are ionized.
`The
`term “multi-step
`ionization process” also
`includes
`ionization processes with three or more steps.
`
`Ex. 1401, 6:60–7:9 (emphases added).
`
`We observe that the Specification sets forth a definition for the claim
`
`term “multi-step ionization” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Further, that definition is
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. As such, in the context of
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the claimed subject matter, we construe the claim term “multi-step
`
`ionization” as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`
`
`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).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art 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 asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44—Obviousness over Iwamura
`in Combination of Other Cited References
`
`TSMC asserts that claims 7 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`and Wells. Pet. 38–51, 55–57. TSMC also asserts that claims 9, 21, and 44
`
`are unpatentable over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, Pinsley, and
`
`Gruber (id. at 38–55), and claim 38 is unpatentable over the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley (id. at 59–60). In support of those
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability, TSMC 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.
`
`TSMC also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1402) to support
`
`its contentions. Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond responds that those combinations
`
`of cited prior art references do not disclose every claim limitation. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 50–53. Zond also argues that TSMC has not articulated a sufficient
`
`rationale to combine the references. Id. at 39–41.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 are unpatentable over Iwamura in
`
`combination with the other cited references. Our discussion focuses on the
`
`deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the claims.
`
`
`
`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 treatment 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., argon) 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—in other words, generating excited atoms from ground state atoms. Id.
`
`at 7:55–60.
`
`The first plasma generation unit, positioned along the flow path of the
`
`gas supply, pre-activates the gas to generate a plasma. Id. at 2:56–58. At
`
`this stage, the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high due
`
`to the plasma pre-activation. Id. at 2:37–38. The gas maintains the ionized
`
`or near-ionized state, reaching a second plasma generation unit positioned
`
`downstream from the first plasma generation unit. The second plasma
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`generation unit, which includes electrodes 30, activates the gas to generate a
`
`plasma. Id. at 2:59–61, 8:4–9, 8:32–46.
`
`According to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the gas is raised
`
`first, a uniform and stable plasma can be generated. Id. at 2:39–41 (“[T]he
`
`generation of a plasma and formulation of activated gas species in the
`
`downstream region is made easier and more uniform and stable.”), 8:32–37.
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 2:46–50,
`
`8:41–46.
`
`
`
`Generating excited or metastable atoms
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which recites an “excited atom source
`
`generating excited atoms from the ground state atoms.” Claim 44 recites a
`
`similar limitation. Claim 20 depends from claim 18, which recites a
`
`“metastable atom source generating metastable atoms from the ground state
`
`atoms.” Claim 38 depends from claim 30, which also recites a similar
`
`“metastable atoms” limitation.
`
`In its Petition, TSMC asserts that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit, the
`
`first plasma generation unit, or the combination of the pre-excitation unit
`
`and first plasma generation unit, describes an excited or metastable atom
`
`source for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state argon
`
`atoms. Pet. 38–42, 44, 50–51 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 106–113, 114–115, 117,
`
`132–133). At this stage of the proceeding, Zond does not challenge that
`
`assertion. See Prelim. Resp. 50–53.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with TSMC. As
`
`discussed previously, we adopted the definition set forth in the Specification
`
`of the ’779 patent as the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim
`
`term “metastable atoms”—namely, “excited atoms having energy levels
`
`from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.” Ex. 1401, 7:22–24
`
`(emphasis added). According to the Specification, all noble gases have
`
`metastable states. Ex. 1401, 7:37.
`
`As noted by TSMC, Iwamura’s gas supply 20 introduces a gas, such
`
`as helium or argon, into the pre-excitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1407, 7:48–50). Iwamura discloses
`
`that the pre-excitation unit raises the excitation level of the ground state
`
`atoms to generate excited atoms, using either an ultraviolet lamp or a
`
`magnetron which radiates microwaves along the direction of the gas flow.
`
`Ex. 1407, 7:55–60, 9:38–53.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen explains that when atoms are excited, there is a
`
`distribution of multiple excited states. Ex. 1402 ¶ 133. Dr. Kortshagen
`
`testifies that metastable atoms are among the lower energy states that have a
`
`long lifetime, and excited atoms tend to accumulate in metastable states,
`
`because “it cannot transition into the ground state through dipole radiation,
`
`i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic radiation.” Id. ¶ 24 (citing
`
`Ex. 1401, 7:22–25), ¶ 133. Indeed, the Specification notes that
`
`“[m]etastable atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared with other
`
`excited atoms,” and “in practice, there is a finite probability that the
`
`metastable atoms relax to the ground state and emit dipole radiation.” Ex.
`
`1401, 7:24–32.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Dr. Kortshagen further explains that both helium and argon are noble
`
`gases. Ex. 1402 ¶ 133. According to Dr. Kortshagen, generating excited
`
`argon atoms means also generating metastable atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶ 24 (citing
`
`Exs. 1311–1312). Dr. Kortshagen testifies that it has been shown that the
`
`four lowest excited states of excited argon atoms have at least 100 times
`
`higher density than the next higher excited states. Id. On this record, we are
`
`persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would have recognized that exciting ground state argon atoms would
`
`generate excited argon atoms, including metastable atoms—excited argon
`
`atoms having two of the four lowest excited levels (levels with n=2 and n=4)
`
`from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that TSMC has
`
`established adequately that Iwamura describes an excited or metastable atom
`
`source for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms.
`
`
`
`Ionizing excited/metastable atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step
`ionization process
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which recites an “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.”
`
`Emphases added. Claim 20 depends from claim 18, which likewise recites a
`
`“power supply generating a power that raises an energy of metastable atoms
`
`in the volume of metastable atoms so that at least a portion of the metastable
`
`atoms in the volume of metastable atoms is ionized, thereby generating a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process.” Emphases added.
`
`Claim 44 recites a similar limitation, and claim 38 depends from claim 30,
`
`which also recites a similar limitation.
`
`TSMC maintains that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit,
`
`which includes electrodes coupled to a high-frequency power supply,
`
`provides energy to the excited/metastable atoms and generates a plasma
`
`within the chamber. Pet. 49, 59. According to TSMC, Iwamura discloses a
`
`plasma device that utilizes a multi-step ionization process in which a pre-
`
`excitation unit is used to excite the ground state gas into an
`
`excited/metastable state, and a second plasma generation unit is used to
`
`ionize the excited/metastable atoms, in two distinct steps. Id. at 38–44, 49,
`
`59 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 106–112, 114–115).
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura does not describe the “ionization” and
`
`“multi-step ionization process” claim features. Prelim. Resp. 50–53.
`
`Specifically, Zond alleges that those claim features require more than
`
`pre-exciting the gas and activating the gas, and “Iwamura makes no mention
`
`of ionization.” Id. at 51, 53.
`
`However, obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. Rather, a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art, itself, would
`
`appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “A person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
`
`The Specification of the ’779 patent indicates that “plasma is a
`
`collection of charged particles that move in random directions.” Ex. 1401,
`
`1:7–9 (emphases added). As discussed above, the Specification of the ’779
`
`patent defines the claim term “multi-step ionization process” as “an
`
`ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”
`
`Id. at 6:60–7:9 (emphases added). The Specification also provides that a
`
`multi-step ionization process includes: (1) a first step where atoms are
`
`excited from a ground state to an excited state; and (2) a second step where
`
`atoms in the excited state are ionized, generating ions from the excited
`
`atoms. Id. The term “ionization” ordinarily is understood as a “process by
`
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`
`positive ion” (emphasis added).4
`
`As TSMC indicates in its Petition, Iwamura discloses a plasma
`
`treatment apparatus that generates a plasma with a multi-step ionization
`
`process. Pet. 38–44. For the first step, Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit or first
`
`plasma generation unit raises the excitation level of the argon gas—
`
`i.e., generating excited/metastable atoms from ground state argon atoms—
`
`
`
`4 See THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 589
`(7th ed.) (2000) (Ex. 3001) (defining “ionization” as “(B) The process by
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`positive ion. Ionization is a special case of charging.”).
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`using microwaves or ultraviolet radiation that causes photoionization.
`
`Ex. 1407, 7:55–60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. For the second step, Iwamura’s
`
`second plasma generation unit generates a plasma, which includes a
`
`collection of ions and free electrons, by using a pair of electrodes coupled to
`
`a high-frequency power supply. Id. at 7:61–63, 8:32–46, Figs. 1, 2.
`
`Therefore, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that the electrodes and power supply generate the ions and free
`
`electrons by ionizing the excited/metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that TSMC has
`
`demonstrated sufficiently that Iwamura teaches or suggests the “ionization”
`
`and “multi-step ionization process” claim features—raising an energy of the
`
`excited/metastable atoms so that at least a portion of the volume of
`
`excited/metastable atoms is ionized, thereby generating a plasma with a
`
`multi-step ionization process.
`
`
`
`Generating a magnetic field for trapping electrons
`
`
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which recites “the excited atom source
`
`comprising a magnet that generates a magnetic field for substantially
`
`trapping electrons proximate to the ground state atoms.” Claim 20 depends
`
`from claim 18, and claim 38 depends from claim 30. Claims 18 and 30 each
`
`recite a similar limitation.
`
`In its Petition, TSMC acknowledges that, although Iwamura discloses
`
`multiple ways to generate excited atoms, Iwamura’s excited atom source—
`
`the pre-excitation unit—does not use a magnet for generating a magnetic
`
`field. Pet. 44–45. Nevertheless, TSMC maintains that it was well known in
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the art at the time of the invention to use a magnet for generating a magnetic
`
`field in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons, as evidenced by
`
`Angelbeck and Pinsley. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1406, 2:50–51, Fig. 1;
`
`Ex. 1405, 2:43–60; Ex. 1402 ¶ 122). TSMC maintains that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with
`
`Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit or the combination of the pre-
`
`excitation unit with the first plasma generation unit, to trap electrons in order
`
`to increase the efficiency of excitation. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1406, 1:36–
`
`41; Ex. 1402 ¶ 123).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that the combination of
`
`the cited prior art references does not teach or suggest the “magnetic field”
`
`claim limitations. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. In particular, Zond argues that
`
`Iwamura does not have a magnet, and Angelbeck does not trap electrons
`
`near the ground state atoms. Id.
`
`Zond’s arguments, however, do not address what is taught or
`
`suggested by the combination of cited prior art references. Nonobviousness
`
`cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here,
`
`the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination
`
`of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the
`
`test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a
`
`whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, TSMC relies upon the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley to disclose or suggest the “magnetic field”
`
`claim limitations. Pet. 44–47. As such, we are not persuaded by Zond’s
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`arguments.
`
`In addition, Zond does not dispute that it was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to use a magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping
`
`electrons. Indeed, the admitted prior art, Figure 1 of the ’779 patent,
`
`describes magnet 130 that generates magnetic field 132 to trap electrons.
`
`Ex. 1401, 3:13–15. As TSMC points out, Pinsley and Angelbeck confirm
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a
`
`transverse magnetic field in a plasma apparatus would trap electrons.
`
`Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1405, 2:43–60; Ex. 1406, 2:50–51, Fig. 1).
`
`Notably, Pinsley discloses a plasma generating apparatus having a
`
`magnetic field for trapping electrons. Ex. 1405, 1:51–54, 2:43–47.
`
`Pinsley’s sole Figure, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating
`
`apparatus with magnets:
`
`
`
`As shown in Pinsley’s sole Figure, conduit 10 includes anode 18 and
`
`cathode 19, for establishing an electric discharge plasma, as well as magnets
`
`24 and 26, for generating a magnetic field. Id. at 2:27–42. According to
`
`Pinsley, “the interaction between the current and the magnetic field will
`
`result in an upstream force as indicated by the force vector 32.” Id. at 2:43–
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00917
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`45. “This force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to maintain the
`
`electrons in an area between the anode and cathode,” trapping the electrons.
`
`Id. at 2:45–47 (emphasis added).
`
`More importantly, Angelbeck discloses applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field in a plasma generating apparatus for creating a high density
`
`of excited atoms. Ex. 1406, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33. Figure 1 of
`
`Angelbeck, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating apparatus with
`
`a magnet:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Angelbeck, the current-excited discharge
`
`passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which the atoms
`
`are ionized and electrons are freed. Id. at 2:55–57. Transverse magnetic
`
`field B
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
