`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00270US3
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
` MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,806,652
`CHALLENGING CLAIM 35
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 2
`B.
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
`C.
`Legal Principles ..................................................................................... 3
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 5
`A.
`Plasma.................................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Excited atoms ........................................................................................ 7
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’652 PATENT ............................................................ 8
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’652 Patent ............................... 8
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12
`A.
`Introduction ......................................................................................... 12
`B.
`“means for generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`volume of feed gas” ............................................................................. 13
`“means for transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms
`proximate to a cathode assembly” ....................................................... 15
`“means for super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly” ............................................................................................ 16
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................ 17
`A.
`Summary of the prior art ..................................................................... 17
`B.
`Overview of Mozgrin .......................................................................... 17
`C.
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ................................................................... 20
`D. Overview of Fahey .............................................................................. 22
`E.
`Overview of Iwamura .......................................................................... 22
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 23
`A. Ground I: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Fahey ...................................................................... 24
`Ground II: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura ...................................................... 38
`Ground III: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Mozgrin and
`Iwamura ............................................................................................... 42
`D. Ground IV: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Iwamura, and Fahey ............................................................................ 50
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007) ........................ 4
`KSR ........................................................................ 4, 5, 29, 32, 38, 42, 47, 49, 50, 52
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............ 12
`Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ..................................................................... 2
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012). ...................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 (“the ’652 Patent”) (Ex. 1201)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.).
`
`Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review of the ’652
`
`Patent, including IPR2014-00843, and in several patents by the same named
`
`inventor as the ’652 Patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith, (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claim 35 (“Challenged Claim”) of the ’652 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art patents and printed publications
`
`and others in the Table of Exhibits:1
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1203)), which is prior art under
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`1 The ’652 Patent was issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`2. Wang, U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1204)), which is prior art at
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`least under §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`3.
`
`D. W. Fahey, et al., High flux beam source of thermal rare-gas metastable
`
`atoms, J. Phys. E; Sci. Insrum., Vol. 13, 1980 (“Fahey” (Ex. 1205)), which is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al., Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1206)), which is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`5.
`
`Iwamura, U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1208)), which is prior
`
`art at least under § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of Claim 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`(“Kortshagen Declaration” or “Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1202)) filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to claim 35 and that claim 35 is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`C. Legal Principles
`The challenged claim is unpatentable because it is obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. A claim is invalid if it would have been obvious—that is,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103; see also Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358,
`
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007), the U.S.
`
`Supreme Court addressed the issue of obviousness and provided an “expansive and
`
`flexible approach” that is consistent with the “broad inquiry” set forth in Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). According to the Supreme Court, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,”
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to
`
`fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420.
`
`The Court held that:
`
`[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated
`success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious under [35 U.S.C.]
`§ 103.
`
`Id. at 421. Thus, KSR focused on whether a combination of known elements could
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`be patentable if it yielded predictable results. The Court’s guidance was clear: it
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`may not. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at
`
`416. Further, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
`
`§ 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
`
`The Board must ask, as guided by KSR, whether the challenged claim recites
`
`an improvement that is “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions.” Id. The Board should conclude, based on
`
`the information in this Petition, that the challenged claim is merely a predictable
`
`combination of known elements that are used according to their established
`
`functions, that they are therefore unpatentable, and that an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims should therefore be instituted.
`
`
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`The ‘652 Patent, entitled “High-Density Plasma Source Using Excited
`
`Atoms,” generally relates to the field of plasma processing. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22
`
`(Ex. 1202). Plasma processing involves using plasma to modify the chemical and
`
`physical properties of the surface of a material. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Plasma processing had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ’652 Patent was filed. Id. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). For example,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operations). Id. (Ex. 1202). Ions in the plasma
`
`strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id.
`
`(Ex. 1202). The ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`The use of high-density plasmas and excited atoms in plasma processing was
`
`also well-understood before the filing of the ’652 Patent. Id. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1202). For
`
`example, as discussed further below, Mozgrin (Ex. 1203) and Kudryavtsev (Ex.
`
`1206), developed high-density plasma processing techniques using excited atoms.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Plasma
`
`A.
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume, e.g., 1012 ions per cubic centimeter, or 1012 ions cm-3. Id.
`
`¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). By way of comparison, there are approximately 1019 atoms in a
`
`cubic centimeter of air at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Id. (Ex.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1202). The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`interchangeably because the negatively charged free electrons and positively
`
`charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain
`
`negatively charged ions or clusters. Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`Excited atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27
`
`(Ex. 1202). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1202). If all of
`
`an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be
`
`in the “ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`If one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is higher than its
`
`lowest possible state, but the atom is not ionized, then the atom is said to be an
`
`“excited atom.” Id. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1202). Excited atoms are electronically neutral –
`
`they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. A ground state atom can be
`
`converted to an excited atom as a result of a collision with a low energy free
`
`electron (e-). Id. (Ex. 1202).
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons, and thus has a positive charge. Id. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1202). A collision between
`
`a free, high energy electron and a ground state atom or an excited atom can create
`
`an ion. Id. (Ex. 1202). The ’652 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, and
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`then further conversion of the excited atom to an argon ion, Ar+:
`
`Ar + e- [] Ar* + e-
`
`Ar* + e- [] Ar+ + 2e-
`
`’652 Patent at 14:1-14 (Ex. 1201).2
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ’652 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1202).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’652 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’652 Patent
`The ’652 Patent, claim 35, relates to a high-density plasma source that
`
`creates a plasma in two stages: (i) an excited atom source with a first power
`
`supply generates an initial plasma and excited atoms from a feed gas, and (ii) a
`
`second power supply is used to “super-ionize” the initial plasma to generate a high-
`
`density plasma. Claim 35 also specifies the function of “transporting” the initial
`
`plasma with excited atoms from a first location where they are generated to a
`
`separate location where the high density plasma is generated.
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (Ex. 1207), by the same named inventor, shows these
`
`multi-step ionization equations at 9:37-51. There is a printing error in the ’652
`
`Patent (i.e., with empty boxes replacing arrows), but the equations are shown
`
`correctly in the ’759 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`The ’652 Patent has multiple embodiments in which an initial plasma and
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`excited atoms are created at a first location, and then transported to a second
`
`location where a second power supply provides high power pulses. See, e.g., ’652
`
`Patent at FIG. 2 and description at 5:43 et seq.; FIG. 12 and description at 25:30 et
`
`seq. (Ex. 1201).
`
`In the FIG. 12 embodiment, the first location, excited atom source 732b
`
`(annotated in color below), is powered by a first power supply 731. Id. at 2:52-55
`
`(Ex. 1201):
`
`FIG. 12 of ’652 Patent (Ex. 1201)
`
`
`
`The excited atom source 732b generates an initial plasma and excited atoms. Id.
`
`at 25:35-38 (“The excited atom source 732 b generates an initial plasma and
`
`excited atoms including metastable atoms from ground state atoms supplied by a
`
`volume of feed gas 234.”) (Ex. 1201). The excited atom source 732b directs the
`
`initial plasma and excited atoms through a skimmer 736 to an area proximate
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`cathode 732a. See, e.g., id. at 27:18-21 (“A large fraction of the ions and electrons
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`are trapped in the nozzle chamber 738 while the excited atoms and the ground state
`
`atoms flow through the aperture 737 of the skimmer 736.”) (Ex. 1201). The
`
`skimmer is designed to block most of the electrons and ions, but it allows the
`
`ground state and excited atoms to pass through to cathode section 732a. Id. (Ex.
`
`1201). The excited atom source is configured such that a continued flow of gas
`
`causes the initial plasma and excited atoms to be moved (“transported”) from the
`
`skimmer to the second location proximate to cathode 732a and anode 706. See id.
`
`at FIG. 12 (Ex. 1201).
`
`At the second location proximate to cathode 732a and anode 706, a second
`
`power supply 222 generates an electric field that is said to “super-ionize” the
`
`plasma of feed gas generated by the excited atom source. Id. at 27:15-32 (“After a
`
`sufficient volume of excited atoms including metastable atoms is present
`
`proximate to the inner cathode section 732a …, the second power supply 222
`
`generates an electric field (not shown) proximate to the volume of excited atoms
`
`[that] super-ionizes the initial plasma….”) (Ex. 1201). The ’652 Patent defines the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`term “super-ionized” as meaning “that at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`plasma are converted to ions.” Id. at 5:8-10 (Ex. 1201).3
`
`The excited atom source 732b, which generates excited atoms from the feed
`
`gas, is distinct and in a separate location from cathode 732a, anode 706, and power
`
`supply 222, which “super-ionize” the plasma. The ’652 Patent explains, for
`
`example, that multiple excited atoms sources can be used, in which case they could
`
`surround the separate portion of the system that converts the initial plasma to a
`
`super-ionized high-density plasma: “Skilled artisans will appreciate that multiple
`
`excited atom sources (not shown) can surround the inner cathode section 732a.”
`
`Id. at 25:42-44 (Ex. 1201).
`
`The ’652 patent does not disclose how specifically to generate a super-
`
`ionized plasma other than to raise the energy. For example, in the discussion of
`
`FIG. 12, the ’652 patent merely states that the “electric field super-ionizes the
`
`
`3 The “super-ionized” plasma is of the initial plasma generated from the feed gas
`
`and not a plasma of other materials. For example, in a sputtering process, it is
`
`known that systems can get significant ionization of sputtered metal. See, e.g.,
`
`Wang at 5:62-65 (“It is anticipated that the copper ionization fraction using the
`
`Torpedo magnetron will be well over 80% at these high peak powers.”) (Ex. 1204);
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33, Fn. 2 (Ex. 1202).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`initial plasma by raising the energy of the initial plasma including the volume of
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`excited atoms which causes collisions between neutral atoms, electrons, and
`
`excited atoms including metastable atoms in the initial plasma.” Id. at 27:27-32
`
`(Ex. 1201).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Introduction
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.4 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Should the
`
`Patent Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a
`
`construction different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate
`
`course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond
`
`to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`4 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`“means for generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`volume of feed gas”
`1.
`
`Function
`
`The function is “generating both an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`
`volume of feed gas.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202).
`
`It is well known that any plasma of the type generated using techniques in
`
`the ’652 Patent will have some amount of ground state atoms, excited atoms,
`
`electrons and ions. Id. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202). To give meaning to the claim language
`
`that generates “an initial plasma and excited atoms,”5 this function should be
`
`understood to refer to generating an initial plasma along with some additional
`
`amount of excited atoms. Id. (Ex. 1202). The ’652 Patent generates additional
`
`excited atoms relative to the rest of the plasma by blocking some of the ions and
`
`electrons in the plasma, e.g., with a skimmer (Fig. 12). Id. (Ex. 1202). When the
`
`plasma is transported from the means for generating, it will have more excited
`
`atoms than it otherwise would. Id. (Ex. 1202). According to the ’652 Patent,
`
`“[t]he excited atoms can increase the density of the plasma. Since excited atoms
`
`generally require less energy to ionize than ground state gas atoms, a volume of
`
`excited atoms can generate a higher density plasma than a similar volume of
`
`
`5 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`ground state feed gas atoms for the same input energy.” ’652 Patent at 6:45-50
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(Ex. 1201).
`
`2.
`
`Structure
`
`There are two types of corresponding structures for the “means for
`
`generating:”
`
`(1) an excited atom source (FIG. 12); and
`
`(2) a gap structure (e.g., FIGS. 2-6).
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202).
`
`The first structure corresponding to the function is excited atom source 732b
`
`shown in Figure 12 and described at 25:30-28:16, with the structure identified
`
`more specifically at 25:60-26:15 (Ex. 1201). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202);
`
`see also Section V.A., supra.
`
`The second structure corresponding to the function is shown in Figure 2 and
`
`other figures with a similar gap structure along with some “configuration” to
`
`generate excited atoms and includes :
`
` a gap 212 or region 214 defined by: (a) an outer cathode section
`
`(202b, 658, 702b, or 724); and (b) an anode (210, 656b, or 722b)
`
`spaced apart from the cathode; and
`
` a first power supply 206 which is distinct and separate from the
`
`power supply (“second power supply” 222) used to super-ionize the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`plasma (“The first power supply can be a DC, AC, or a RF power
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`supply.” ’652 Patent at 9:4-5 (Ex. 1201)).
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1202).
`
`C.
`
`“means for transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms
`proximate to a cathode assembly”
`1.
`
`Function
`
`The function is “moving the initial plasma and excited atoms from where
`
`they were generated to a location near a cathode assembly.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`A plain reading of this function is that the initial plasma with excited atoms
`
`is generated in one location (as discussed above, in a gap or with an “excited atom
`
`source” ), and moved to another location near a cathode assembly where the
`
`plasma is super-ionized. Id. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1202).
`
`2.
`
`Structure
`
`The structures for performing the function are a gas exchange system 238,
`
`242 that flows gas through the outer cathode sections 202b/656b/702b/722b/732b
`
`(shown, e.g., in Figures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12), through gap 214, toward inner cathode
`
`assembly 202a/732a. See ’652 Patent at 8:1-28; 10:8-17; 14:37-43; 17:63-18:9;
`
`21:63-22:8; 27:15-20 (Ex. 1201); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Because the “means for generating” already includes a cathode, the “cathode
`
`assembly” referred to in the “means for transporting” – that is, the location to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`which the initial plasma is transported – must refer to a different cathode from the
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`structure that corresponds to the “means for generating.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1202). The embodiments shown in all the figures consist of an “outer”
`
`cathode and an “inner” cathode. See, e.g., ’652 Patent at 5:43-55; 12:49-50; 16:11-
`
`20; 19:37-42; 20:20-25; 21:22-35; 22:48-57; 24:66-25:11; and FIGS. 2A, 2B, 3, 5,
`
`6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (Ex. 1201). The inner cathode is the “cathode assembly” to
`
`which the initial plasma is transported. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1202).
`
`D.
`
` “means for super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the
`cathode assembly”
`1.
`
`Function
`
`Super-ionizing is defined to mean that “at least 75% of the neutral atoms in
`
`the plasma are converted to ions.” ’652 Patent, 5:8-10 (Ex. 1201). Therefore, the
`
`function of the means described above is “converting at least 75% of the neutral
`
`atoms in the initial plasma into ions near the cathode assembly.” Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 47 (Ex. 1202).
`
`In related district court litigation, Patent Owner has similarly proposed
`
`construing “super-ionizing” to mean “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms
`
`in the plasma to ions.” Plaintiff Zond LLC’s Preliminary Proposed Claim
`
`Constructions, Civil Action No. 13-cv-11634-WGY at 3 (Ex. 1213).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Structure
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The corresponding structures are a second power supply 222, separate from
`
`the first power supply which generates the initial plasma. Id. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1202). The
`
`second power supply 222 generates an electric field across inner cathode 202a
`
`(e.g., Fig. 2A, 2B, 3, 5, and 6) or inner cathode 732a (Fig. 12); and inner anode 226
`
`or 658 (e.g., Fig. 2A, 2B, 3, 5 and 6) or inner anode 706 (Fig. 12). See, e.g., ’652
`
`Patent at 7:20-29; 16:33-41; 18:10-21; 20:48-56; 22:9-16; 27:23-37 (Ex. 1201); see
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1202).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the prior art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in Zond’s claim. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1202).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`Mozgrin discloses a high density plasma source. Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied
`
`below, shows the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge
`
`generated by Mozgrin.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2
`
`(“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary
`
`discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1203). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶
`
`4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(regime 3) is useful …. Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”)
`
`(Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin’s region 4 is the arc region. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs by, for
`
`example, limiting the current so that the plasma will remain in the arc-free regions
`
`2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202).
`
`In Mozgrin’s sputtering region, i.e., region 2, the plasma density exceeded
`
`1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1203). In Mozgrin’s region 3, the plasma density is even
`
`higher. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime
`
`3) is useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni
`
`1.5x1015cm3…”) (Ex. 1203). This density in region 3 is three orders of magnitude
`
`greater than what the ’652 Patent describes as “high-density.” ’652 Patent at
`
`10:62-63 (“[T]he peak plasma density of the high-density plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm-3”). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into
`
`account the dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex.
`
`1203).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claim 35
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1206). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1206). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1206). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be a