U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00270US1
`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 CLAIMS 1-17
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`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 ..................................................................................... 4 
`brief description of technology ........................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`Plasma.................................................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Excited atoms ........................................................................................ 7 
`V.  Overview of the ‘652 Patent ............................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘652 Patent ............................... 9 
`VI.  Claim construction ......................................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`Introduction ......................................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`“Super-ionizing the initial plasma” (all claims) .................................. 13 
`VII.  Overview of the primary prior art references ................................................ 14 
`A.  Overview of Mozgrin .......................................................................... 14 
`B. 
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ................................................................... 16 
`C. 
`Overview of Fahey .............................................................................. 19 
`D.  Overview of Iwamura .......................................................................... 19 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ........................................................................ 20 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 would have been obvious in view
`of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey. ....... 21 
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 21 
`
`I. 
`
`IV. 
`
`1. 
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2. 
`Dependent claims 2-14, 16, and 17 ........................................... 34 
`Ground II: Claim 5 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Vratny ..... 48 
`Ground III: Claims 8-10 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Lantsman 50 
`D.  Ground IV: Claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Wang ....... 53 
`Ground V: Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over
`the references cited for Ground I (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Fahey) and Iwamura.................................................................. 55 
`Ground VI: Claim 5 would have been obvious over the references
`cited for Ground V (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura) and Vratny ................................................................ 58 
`G.  Ground VII: Claims 8-10 would have been obvious the references
`cited for Ground V (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura) and Lantsman ........................................................... 59 
`H.  Ground VIII: Claim 15 would have been obvious over the references
`cited for Ground V (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura) and Wang .................................................................. 60 
`IX.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................... 13
`In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007) ........................ 4
`KSR ............................................................ 4, 5, 27, 33, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60
`Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......... 4
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules 
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ..................................................................... 2
`Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`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. 1001)
`
`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 has filed Petitions IPR2014-00843 and IPR2014-00923 for Inter Partes
`
`review for other claims of 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 – Claims 1-17
`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
`
`claims 1-17 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ‘652 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art patents and printed publications
`
`and any 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,
`
`
`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
`
`2
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`2. Wang, U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art at
`
`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. 1005)), 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. 1006)), which is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`5.
`
`Iwamura, U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1007)), which is prior
`
`art at least under § 102(b).
`
`6.
`
`Lantsman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1012)), which is prior
`
`art at least under § 102(b).
`
`7. Vratny, U.S. Pat. No. 3,461,054 (“Vratny” (Ex. 1008)), which is prior art at
`
`least under § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103Error! Bookmark not defined.. This Petition, supported by
`
`the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (“Kortshagen Declaration” or
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed herewith, demonstrates that there is a
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`The Court held that:
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`[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
`
`be patentable if it yielded predictable results. The Court’s guidance was clear: it
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`functions, that they are therefore unpatentable, and that an inter partes review of
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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. Plasma processing
`
`involves using plasma to modify the chemical and physical properties of the
`
`surface of a material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Plasma processing had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘652 Patent was filed. Id. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operations). Id. Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id.
`
`The use of high-density plasmas and excited atoms in plasma processing was
`
`also well-understood before the filing of the ‘652 Patent. Id. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002). For
`
`example, as discussed further below, Mozgrin (Ex. 1003) and Kudryavtsev (Ex.
`
`1006), developed high-density plasma processing techniques using excited atoms.
`
`6
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Plasma
`
`A.
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1002).
`
`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.
`
`¶ 25 (Ex. 1002). By way of comparison, there are approximately 1019 atoms in a
`
`cubic centimeter of air at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Id. (Ex.
`
`1002). The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used
`
`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. 1002).
`
`Excited atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26
`
`(Ex. 1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. 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. 1002).
`
`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
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`“excited atom.” Id. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electronically neutral –
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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 free electron (e-) of
`
`sufficiently high energy. Id. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1002).
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons, and thus has a positive charge. A collision between a free, high energy
`
`electron and a ground state atom or an excited atom can create an ion. Id. ¶ 28 (Ex.
`
`1002). The ‘652 Patent uses the following equations to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, and 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. 1001).2
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘652 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (Ex. 1012), by the same named inventor, shows these
`
`multi-step ionization equations at 9:38-51. There is a printing error in the ‘652
`
`Patent (i.e., with empty boxes replacing arrows), but the equations are shown
`
`8
`
`correctly in the ‘759 Patent.
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘652 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘652 Patent
`The ‘652 Patent, claims 1-17, describe a two-stage high-density plasma
`
`source: (i) an “excited atom source” generates an initial plasma and excited atoms
`
`from a feed gas, and (ii) a power supply applies a specific electric field between an
`
`anode and a cathode assembly to “super-ionize” the initial plasma and generate a
`
`high-density plasma.
`
`The term “excited atom source” is only used for the embodiment of Figure
`
`12 of the ‘652 Patent. ‘652 Patent at 25:30-27:67 (Ex. 1001). Figure 12 depicts an
`
`excited atom source 732b (annotated in color) “according to the present invention.”
`
`‘652 Patent at 2:52-55 (“FIG. 12 illustrates … a plasma generating apparatus
`
`according to the present invention including … an excited atom source….”) (Ex.
`
`1001).3
`
`
`3 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 12 of ‘652 Patent (Ex. 1001). The excited atom source 732b is powered by a
`
`first power supply 731 and is separate from the location where the second power
`
`supply 222, the second anode 706, and the inner cathode 732a “super-ionize” the
`
`initial plasma. ‘652 Patent at 27:22-37 (Ex. 1001).
`
`The excited atom source 732b generates an initial plasma and excited atoms.
`
`‘652 Patent at 27:15-21 (Ex. 1001) (“The excited atom source 732b generates an
`
`initial plasma and excited atoms including metastable atoms from ground state
`
`atoms supplied by a volume of feed gas 234.”). The excited atom source 732b
`
`directs the initial plasma and excited atoms through a skimmer 736 to a second
`
`location proximate cathode 732a. See, e.g., ‘652 Patent at 27:18-21 (“A large
`
`fraction of the ions and electrons 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. 1001). The skimmer is designed to block most of the
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`electrons and ions, but it allows the ground state and excited atoms to pass through
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`to cathode section 732a. Id.
`
`The excited atom source is configured such that a continued flow of feed gas
`
`causes the “initial plasma” and excited atoms to be provided from the skimmer to a
`
`location that is proximate to a cathode 732a and an anode 706. ‘652 Patent at
`
`27:15-32; Fig. 12 (Ex. 1001). A second power supply 222 then generates at that
`
`location an electric field and “super-ionizes” the plasma of feed gas generated by
`
`the excited atom source. ‘652 Patent at 27:22-32 (“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. 1001).
`
`The ‘652 Patent defines the term “super-ionized” as meaning “that at least
`
`75% of the neutral atoms in the plasma are converted to ions.” ‘652 Patent, 5:8-10
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`(Ex. 1001).4 The ‘652 patent does not disclose how specifically to generate a
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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
`
`initial plasma by raising the energy of the initial plasma including the volume of
`
`excited atoms which causes collisions between neutral atoms, electrons, and
`
`excited atoms including metastable atoms in the initial plasma.” ‘652 Patent at
`
`27:22-37 (Ex. 1001).
`
`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
`
`
`4 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 have significant ionization of sputtered metal. See, e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 to 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. 1004). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34, Fn. 3 (Ex. 1002).
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.5 In re
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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).
`
` “Super-ionizing the initial plasma” (all claims)
`
`B.
`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. 1001). Additionally,
`
`the Challenged Claims require that the “initial plasma” be generated “from a
`
`volume of feed gas.” ‘652 Patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001). Therefore, “super-ionizing
`
`
`5 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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`the initial plasma” should be construed to mean “converting at least 75% of the
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`neutral atoms in the initial plasma generated from a volume of feed gas to ions.”6
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in Zond’s claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A. Overview of Mozgrin
`Mozgrin discloses a high density plasma source. Figure 7 of Mozgrin,
`
`copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`discharge generated by Mozgrin.
`
`Mozgrin Figure 7 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`
`6 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. 1015).
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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. 1003).
`
`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. 1003). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material
`
`from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful … Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“[P]art 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`1003). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1003). 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  1.5x1015cm-
`
`3…”) (Ex. 1003). This density in region 3 is three (3) 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”). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002).
`
`B. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1006). 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
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1006). The second
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1006). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be a dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1006). Mozgrin
`
`took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into
`
`account the dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]….”) (Ex.
`
`1003).
`
`Kudryavtsev discusses the mechanism of multi-step ionization with excited
`
`atoms. Referring to the annotated copy of Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 1 copied below,
`
`ionization occurs with an initial “slow stage” (Fig 1a) followed by a “fast stage”
`
`(Fig. 1b).
`
`Kudryavtsev at 31, right col, ¶ 7 (Ex. 1006). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1002).
`
`During the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant
`
`contribution to the generation of plasma ions (see arrow Γ1e colored in green
`
`
`
`showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the ground state (bottom line
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`labeled “1”)). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1002). In addition, during the slow
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`stage, excited atoms are also created within the plasma chamber (see arrow Γ12
`
`colored in blue showing excitation into lowest excited state (middle line labeled
`
`“2”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Id. (Ex. 1002). Once the
`
`population of excited atoms becomes large enough, fast stage occurs, as shown in
`
`Fig. 1b. As shown, multi-step (or “stepwise”) ionization, which occurs through the
`
`generation of excited atoms (see arrow Γ12 colored in blue), becomes the dominant
`
`ionization process as shown by the thick arrow labeled Γ2e ((colored in red)
`
`showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the lowest excited state (middle line
`
`labeled “2”)). See also Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 (Ex. 1006); Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1002). The thin arrows labeled Γ1e show that direct ionization produces ions
`
`at a roughly constant rate in both the slow and fast stages. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1002). The thick arrow labeled Γ2e in Fig. 1b shows that multi-step ionization
`
`can produce ions at a much greater rate than direct ionization. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Kudryavtsev explains the rapid increase in ionization once multi-step ionization
`
`becomes the dominant process as follows: “For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom
`
`density] values … there is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The
`
`subsequent increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate of
`
`excitation [equation omitted], which is several orders of magnitude greater than
`
`the ionization rate during the initial stage.” Kudryavtsev at 31, right col, ¶ 6 (Ex.
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`1006). Kudryavtsev summarizes that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`moderate pressures … [i]t is shown that the electron density increases explosively
`
`in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Kudryavtsev
`
`at Abstract; Fig. 6 (Ex. 1006); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C. Overview of Fahey
`Fahey is a technical paper that discloses a high-flux beam source for
`
`producing a beam of metastable atoms. See Fahey at Abstract (“A high-flux beam
`
`source has been constructed for the production of helium, neon and argon
`
`metastable atoms.”) (Ex. 1005); see also Fahey at 381, right col, ¶ 2 (“The source
`
`is capable of providing very stable thermal energy beams of … argon metastable
`
`atoms.”) (Ex. 1005). Fig. 1 of Fahey shows a schematic of the disclosed beam
`
`source. Fahey, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1005). Fahey’s excited atom source has substantially
`
`the same structure as the ‘652 Patent’s “excited atom source,” as shown below in
`
`the discussion of claim limitation 1(a). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1002).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1007). Iwamura can operate at atmosphere, or
`
`under vacuum. Id. at 12:20-26 (Ex. 1007). Iwamura has: “A first plasma
`
`generation unit for preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned
`
`upstream along the flow path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`generation unit for activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 – Claims 1-17
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`flow path of the gas in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma
`
`generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates
`
`the gas and