throbber
Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00273US1
`’716 PATENT
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,604,716, CLAIMS 1-11 AND 33
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED: JULY 22, 2004
`
` ISSUED: OCTOBER 20, 2009
`
`TITLE: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING HIGH-
`DENSITY PLASMA
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1-11 AND 33 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`- 1 -
`
`INTEL 1002
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716 (the “‘716 patent”) (Ex. 1101). I understand that the ’716
`
`patent was filed on July 22, 2006. I understand that, for purposes determining
`
`whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the ’716 patent
`
`could be entitled to is November 4, 2002, as shown on the Certificate of
`
`Correction.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
` 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. 1003)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)).
`
` D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
`Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1005)). Exhibit 1005 is a
`
`certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached as
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`Exhibit 1006. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the
`
`Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1007.
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘716 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘716 patent would have found
`
`the ‘716 invalid.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’716 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’716 patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`14.
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Anticipation
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been anticipated at the time the application was filed. This
`
`means that if all of the requirements of a claim are found in a single prior art
`
`reference, the claim is not patentable. I have also been informed that a U.S. Patent
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`can incorporate by reference subject matter from another U.S. Patent or Patent
`
`Publication. In such instances, I have been informed that I should consider them to
`
`be a single prior art reference. I further understand that a claim is anticipated by a
`
`reference when all the limitations of the claim are present in a single embodiment
`
`described in the reference, even if there are multiple embodiments disclosed in the
`
`reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`17.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`22. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume.1
`
`23. Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘716 patent was filed. 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
`
`operation). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`24. Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of droplets from the
`
`target that can splatter on the substrate. The need to avoid arcing while sputtering
`
`was known long before the ‘716 Patent was filed.
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`
`1 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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`25. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`26. On the other hand, 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.” Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal numbers of
`
`electrons and protons. A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground
`
`state atom to an excited atom. For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state
`
`argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at 9:7 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`27. An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of
`
`its electrons. A collision between a free, high energy, electron and a ground state
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the
`
`following equations to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground
`
`state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘716 Patent at 2:65 and
`
`9:9 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`28. The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the ‘716 patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘716 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent
`29. The ‘716 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a electrical
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing.
`
`30. More specifically, the claims of the ‘716 Patent are generally directed
`
`to generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce the probability of
`
`forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`31. Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as
`
`supplying a feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse,
`
`generating a magnetic field and the type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`32.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I understand that the ‘716 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App.
`
`No. 10/065,629 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142) (Ex. 1008). See ‘716 Patent at
`
`Certificate of Correction (Ex. 1001).
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the first substantive office action rejected all
`
`independent claims as being anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (Ex.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`1014). I understand that the applicant then amended every independent claim to
`
`require “substantially eliminating the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber” and “without developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber” or similar limitations. See 09/24/08 Resp.
`
`(Ex. 1015).
`
`34. Following that amendment, I understand that the claims were allowed.
`
`I understand that the Notice of Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the
`
`examiner’s reasons for allowance. 06/11/09 Allowance at 2 (“The closest prior art
`
`of record Kouznetsov WO 98/40532 fails to teach the claimed elements including
`
`‘substantially eliminating the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber’ and ‘without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.”) (Ex. 1016). However, as explained in detail below,
`
`and contrary to the Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed
`
`herein teaches those and all other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`35. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘716 Patent.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin2
`36. Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.”
`
`37. Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`38. 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).
`
`39. Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`
`2 I understand that Mozgrin was art of record, but was not substantively applied
`
`during prosecution.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1003). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized
`
`plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2. 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).
`
`40. 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. 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).
`
`41. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`1003). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. 3
`
`42. Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`C. Overview of Wang4
`43. Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode
`
`(24), a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in
`
`Fig. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55;
`
`7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1004). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of
`
`the power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by
`
`
`3 As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillogram shown in Mozgrin’s
`
`Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to region 3 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7,
`
`i.e., Fig. 3 represents currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in region
`
`3. Further, as one of ordinary skill would understand, an oscillogram
`
`corresponding to region 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., stable operation in
`
`region 2) would have a different shape, e.g., the voltage would not drop as low as
`
`shown in Fig. 3b and the current would be lower than what is shown in Fig. 3a.
`
`4 I understand that Wang was art of record, but was not substantively applied
`
`during prosecution.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`the DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1004). Wang’s
`
`lower power level, PB, maintains the plasma after ignition and application of the
`
`higher power level, PP, raises the density of the plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The
`
`background power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to
`
`support a plasma... [T]he application of the high peak power, PP, quickly causes
`
`the already existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”)
`
`(Ex. 1004). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial, industrial
`
`plasma sputtering device.
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`44.
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim
`
`terms not included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`45.
`
`I have interpreted some claim terms which use the language “means
`
`for” with a function identified in the same manner I understand the Board will use
`
`to determine the meaning of the means plus function claim. In the attached petition
`
`the function of the limitation is identified, the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the function (and equivalents) is identified. I have
`
`identified the function and the corresponding structure in the prior art during my
`
`invalidity analysis.
`
`B.
` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`46. The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. With
`
`reference to Fig. 3, the ‘716 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and then goes on to
`
`describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 304.
`
`‘716 Patent at 11:24-30; 11:66-12:6 (Ex. 1001). The ‘716 Patent also provides
`
`exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See
`
`‘716 Patent at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density
`
`of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`47. Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
`
` “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`
`48. The constructions proposed above are consistent with the position the
`
`Patent Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner,
`
`when faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1017).
`
`C.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas…” (claim 33)
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`49. Claim 33 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form
`
`a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of developing
`
`an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” The claimed function is:
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-ionized plasma that
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.”
`
`50. The ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding
`
`structure for the “means for ionizing…” limitation of claim 33: a power supply,
`
`generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g., between t1 –
`
`t2 and t6 – t7), electrically coupled to cathode (e.g., 204), anode (e.g., 216) and/or an
`
`electrode (e.g., 452, 452’), wherein the cathode, anode and/or electrode are
`
`arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`described in the text of the ‘716 Patent at 5:1-32, 16:10-25, 17:24-61, 17:62-18:15,
`
`and 18:16-27 (Ex. 1001). 5
`
`“means for supplying an electrical pulse…” (claim 33)
`
`D.
`Claim 33 recites “means for supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`The claimed function is “supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`The ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for supplying an electrical pulse…” of claim 33: pulsed power supply
`
`(e.g., 202), generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g.,
`
`between t2 – t4), electrically coupled to a cathode (e.g., 204) and anode (e.g., 216),
`
`
`5
`The ‘759 Patent discloses that “other techniques including UV radiation
`
`techniques, X-ray techniques, electron beam techniques, ion beam techniques, or
`
`ionizing filament techniques” can ionize a gas, but fails to describe any structure
`
`for these “techniques.” See ‘716 Patent, 6:7-15 (Ex. 1001). The “means for
`
`ionizing…” cannot be construed to include any techniques that lack corresponding
`
`structure in the specification.
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`wherein the cathode and anode are arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown
`
`in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as described in the text of the ‘716 Patent at 6:52-
`
`7:24, 8:9-19, 11:59-12:6, 13:14-44, 13:52-60, 16:64-18, 18:50-61, and 19:1-11
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`51. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent, and how those
`
`claims are rendered anticipated or obvious by the prior art.
`
`52.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1020-1022), showing
`
`that each limitation in the foregoing claims is taught in the art. I understand these
`
`claim charts were submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner. Those charts present in summary form the analysis below and I
`
`agree with them.
`
`B. Ground I: Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin
`53.
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1020), showing that
`
`claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin. I understand this claim chart
`
`was submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`Owner. This chart presents in summary form the analysis below and I agree with
`
`it.
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`a)
`The preamble
`54. Claim 33 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of
`
`devices: a planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow
`
`electrodes.” Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1003). The densities in
`
`Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.6
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.7
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.8
`
`
`6 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`7 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).
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`55. Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`The density in those regions matches the exemplary density given for a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent at claim 24 (“wherein the peak
`
`plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`b)
`“means for ionizing…”: Function
`56. As explained above in section V.C, the claimed function of the
`
`“means for ionizing…” is: “ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of developing an
`
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`(1)
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`57. The ‘716 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-
`
`ionized plasma” synonymously. ‘716 Patent at 5:14-15 (“The weakly-ionized
`
`plasma 232 is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1001). Mozgrin’s
`
`power supply (shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region
`
`1. Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current
`
`
`8 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).
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`oscillograms.… Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the
`
`stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`58. Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent
`
`at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1001); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“[f]or pre-
`
`ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; … provided the initial
`
`plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`59. Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as
`
`Argon and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the
`
`discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”); 402, ¶ spanning
`
`left and right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges of
`
`discharge current…and operating pressure…using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and
`
`H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`60. Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma was generated between the
`
`anode and cathode, both of which reside within a chamber. For example, Mozgrin
`
`states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume was pumped out; minimal residual gas
`
`pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.” Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1003). That is,
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a desired base pressure within the
`
`chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex. 1003).
`
`(2)
`“that substantially eliminates the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber”
`
`61. Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this
`
`case, the probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at
`
`406, right col, ¶3 (Ex. 1003). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.”
`
`(b) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`62. The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1001) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1018) name the
`
`same inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in
`
`related litigation. I understand that during prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, the
`
`Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin does not teach “without forming an arc.” See
`
`05/02/06 Resp. of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1019).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Mozgrin does teach “without forming an
`
`arc” as required by the ‘759 Patent as well as “substantially eliminat[ing] the
`
`- 25 -
`
`

`

`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘716 Patent, Claims 1-11 and 33
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as
`
`required by the ‘716 Patent.
`
`63. As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and
`
`current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc
`
`discharge region (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the
`
`plasma will remain in the arc-fre

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket